So Uncharted 3?s multiplayer mode has been relaunched as a separate free-to-play game (rumoured through that link, now confirmed). The whole free-to-play thing is largely seen as taboo amongst a broad community of console gamers. But in the case of multiplayer games, I actually think for some titles this transition can?t come quickly enough.
Uncharted 3's multiplayer goes F2P. Will the floodgates open?
Remember the heady days of console gaming? That so-called ?golden era? of the 1990s? Grab a Mega Drive/SNES cartridge or PS1 disc, slam it into your machine, and instantly jump into a game with a mate without any hassle. Getting in some multiplayer was an incredibly easy affair - gather your mates in the same room as you, grab joypads, play. One game, two (or more) people. Simple.
In today?s connected-console age, we?re still gathering mates (in online parties) and getting them to grab joypads (in their own homes)... but trying to achieve the ?play? part of that equation throws up a huge barrier - the requirement of all players to own the same game in order to jump in.
For the most part, the slow transformation of the console gaming world towards something resembling a more PC-like experience has proven to be quite beneficial. But it has also brought about the introduction of some ugly trends and aggravating hurdles to entry, such as the abundance of activation codes. Perhaps the biggest pain for me this generation has been the aforementioned change in how we engage in multiplayer.
FIFA is one of the rare games in which you can still get mates round a telly for.
Yes, the digital age has allowed us to conveniently connect with friends, be they across the country or up the road. But it has, at the same time, transformed the actual act of jumping into a game with friends into a needlessly complicated process.
Is my friend online? Does he want to play a game with me? Does he even have the game I want to play with him on? For the most part, these questions can be solved with simple voice chat. But what happens if your friend doesn?t have the same game? Then the fun begins.
What could have been a quick five minutes of online play with a mate in Australia soon turns into a lengthy debate as to why said mate doesn?t own your game, and puts you in the awkward position of having to give an impromptu review to convince him that he needs to spend £30 of his own money to download the game himself (if, in fact, a digital version even exists on the console?s marketplace).
What if he doesn?t want to buy the game? Why don?t you play Call of Duty
with him instead? What if you don?t fancy playing Call of Duty
tonight? What if you don?t have any other games beside the one you desperately want your mate to play with you for a measly couple of matches?
There's a multiplayer mode in Tomb Raider?
Oh sod it, you might as well go to the pub. At least that way you can share a crisp or two with some of your other mates (if you?re feeling generous).
The point is, the online console culture has practically killed any desire for me to play multiplayer games on impulse. Nintendo and Sony handhelds suffered from the same problem for years - although this has been mitigated somewhat by the ability to transmit demo multiplayer versions of your game to other players.
Most multiplayer modes exist purely to complement a single-player campaign - an afterthought (in some unkind cases, a tacked-on feature) to merely attract a segment of the gaming audience that normally wouldn?t look at a game without co-op or competitive features. Or, perhaps, to keep copies of the game out of the trade-in cycle for just a little longer. That?s understandable.
But it does no good for the awareness of a game if that tactic fails. Let?s face it, nobody is talking about Tomb Raider
for its multiplayer mode. Tomb Raider
is simply not a game you associate with multiplayer. Consumers are not going to drop £50 on an untested multiplayer mode for a series that is not known for it.
The same goes with Uncharted
. Hell, in Uncharted 2
there is but one trophy dedicated to multiplayer - and it?s awarded to you for simply trying it out. Wouldn?t it be more effective to sell a franchise to the multiplayer crowd by allowing them to try the thing for free in the first place?
Games like Borderlands 2 will need a different strategy to F2P.
It will also do people like me a world of good - people who don?t stray too far into the world of PSN and Xbox Live, and simply use the services to play online with friends and family. Because now I can actually tell that Australian git to download the bloody multiplayer mode and play a game with me. He doesn?t have to pay a penny. I can still play my game. Everybody wins.
Sony recently promised to break down the barriers for gamers with the PlayStation 4. By adopting the same principle as Uncharted 3
for certain titles - giving players the choice to download a free-to-play multiplayer so that they don?t have to splash on a full title to play and experience new games with online buddies - the company will certainly go some way to achieving that.
And for games where multiplayer is a core tenet of gameplay, like Borderlands
or Call of Duty
? Gaikai?s proposed system of offering free trials of games will likely be a better solution than free-to-play. Either way, with a new generation of consoles on the horizon, Sony and Microsoft have an opportunity to make multiplayer a much more hassle-free experience, and bring back the simplicity that we all enjoyed with consoles of the past.
The opinion expressed in this article is that of the author and does not reflect those of SPOnG.com except when it does.
Want to vent your gaming spleen? Send 900 words max of well thought-out, deeply analysed opinion and we may even run it. Send in 900 words of incisive but mostly brutally angry invective, and we almost certainly will.