Recently we have seen various Switches belonging to hackers, a device without many well developed public hacks at time of writing, be banned from Nintendo's online offerings. Such a thing then became the subject of much discussion, not only because all of Nintendo's previous efforts in the last decade or so have had next to no proper security and at the same time were often barely functional.
One thing that came up more than once was the notion that a banned Switch is if not worthless then worth a whole lot less. It is not a new concept as games go; see also the xbox 360 and its various banwaves last generation wherein banned ones could be seen at points to go for sometimes less than half that of a new charting game, at the same time equivalent setups that were unbanned would still go for more than a charting game and maybe even two.

Related to this is the notion some developers and publishers have that single player only games are at least untenable from a financial perspective. Such a thing has seen many a game have a multiplayer mode tacked on, almost invariably at a cost of development focus or budget for the single player.

For myself then local multiplayer and co-op were much enjoyed staples of my pre online days, single player was almost always where it was at though. Then they started wanting me to pay for online, something I have never done unless you count dial up costs on my dreamcast. I never once had an online 360 of my own or one readily accessible and would maintain it was probably one of the best periods of gaming ever for me. The idea that a banned device is worthless is then very odd, though I am of course more than happy to pay the pittance some consider them worth to get such a banned device if it still allows single player.

This is part of a series on GBAtemp where we consider game design, aspects of play and game industry concepts. Previously we discussed emulation vs hardware.

Spoiler: earlier editions

a favoured game style that might have become less common in recent times, skills one might have learned or honed because of a game, games on the PS4 and Xbone that will stand the test of time, games that got better after launch, cancelled games and shuttered devs, and story canon in games.

To that end you are invited once more to talk about the ideas raised in the text above and anything related to it you feel warrants mention.

 

[Deleted User]

I take offline multiplayer over online every day.

 

[netovsk]

I choose to go full online legit on other platforms I play, such as PSX devices, Xbox or Windows.

Nintendo doesn't have achievements of any kinds to record my progress so I make this little sacrifice (forfeiting Splatoon 2, ARMS, Smash) for my greater good.

 

[medoli900]

Local multiplayer? HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one. Seriously, i always struggle to do anything with my friends without them cancelling at the last minute. I understand social anxiety and social exhaustion, I have them too, but local multiplayer is a big no-no for me. Now, single player VS online multiplayer. I love board games and social games, even if it's just a leaderboard (gotta have the best time in Sonic Adventure 2). When a multiplayer mode was announced for Final Fantasy Theatrhythm Curtains Call, I was in heaven. Finally a multiplayer rhythm game. I do like the single player games from Nintendo, but I really don't think that the 3DS is only for single player. It heavily depends on your favorite genre of game too.

So yes, being banned for me would the end of the world.

 

[AxlSt00pid]

Since I have pretty bad internet connection I couldn't care less about online MP.
What does grind my gears however, is when devs deprecate/remove local multiplayer in favor of online-only MP, when local MP could very well be on the game

 

[Captain_N]

i enjoy both online and solo play. The best mode is LAN mode. better then online because it can be turned into online mode and is not killed offby server shutdowns. Its always there and ready. Steam needs to learn that LAN mode is best.... In a day inage where everyone has a Local area network we see no lan mode. Its a shame really....

 

[Sakitoshi]

Sounds like you don't really have much experience with WASD. Even the most basic of those configurations has 1 more available "button" compared to a standard controller, and that wouldn't even be counting a mouse with a scroll wheel.

If you're comfortable with it, that's one thing, but unless you somehow use motion controls in your controller, it's pretty indefensible otherwise.

I play overwatch on ps4 but tried the free weekend of overwatch on pc, the buttons on a controller are much more easy to locate and press than in a keyboard and my aim with a controller is pretty much on par that with a mouse that if I would have played against myself ps4 vs pc my ps4 self would have roflstomped my pc self.
and is not like it was my first time playing a shooter on pc. I used to play lots of unreal tournament and mohaa and (not to boast about it) I was the second best on ut99 and best on mohaa in my group.

 

[anhminh]

I don't like online play. Online gamer are mostly asshole and they become even more aggressive in competitive play. In casual play we have troll who want nothing more than your demise just for some laugh in their miserable life.

 

[oji]

Splatoon 2 i the only title I care on Switch in a multiplayer, but due to cheaters & also a coming payed online I'm ok to stop playing it & turn to a piracy dark side. Not a huge loss if you ask me.

 

[CMDreamer]

For me it's worth nothing.

There are too many lammers and cheaters playing online, many bad loosers and many bad winners as well.

Most of my consoles are Wi-Fi disabled unless needed for tempering them, end even so, they only get temporary access.

Precisely that is the main reason I won't buy an XBOX One or PS4, it makes no sense at all to get a DRM disc instead of the game content, and have to download let's say more than 60 GB to play the Halo Collection. I'm not that stupid.

 

[Deleted User]

I don't play online video games, I don't like having a requirement of other people's presence when playing my games.

Agreed. I don't play online either. Give me single player anyday

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I don't care about online much

Specially on consoles

Like... why do I have to pay to play a game that's pretty much an online only game when the game is already 60$?

Makes no sense to me

Same here. And that's a monthly cost too, no thanks you

 

[RivenMain]

my feelings of online only are conflicting. An example would be playing pokemon. Without online functionality your more focused on the game they created then the competitive nature. I used to be enjoy the competition, but eventually the games x counters y and the easier it is for the fan base to gain damage calculators, and copy pros instead of spending hours crafting their own and enjoying the fun of it. Then there are the people duplicating your id and secret id with hacked pokemon to try and get you banned it happens to youtubers/ streamer etc. I loved trading my pokemon well in game like bellsprout for onix or drowzee for machop allowing to feel progress well the spin the wheel on what I get feels like progression in game is then either to fast or to slow. Online needs to be casual, but casual does not mean flashy just being with other virgin noobies and having fun. Teamworks good, 1v1 me scrubs you'll inevitably burn out. Besides you don't accomplish much in 1v1's

 

[Deleted User]

When talking about the Switch, I guess it's less a matter of whether or not the end-user wants to use online multiplayer, but more a matter of using the Switch to it's fullest potential. Nixing online multiplayer is like taking a big hit, in terms of functionality.

As far as multiplayer gaming in general goes, I can't really say I'm much of an online person in general. While I enjoy playing some games online with others, such as Smash 4 and Mario Kart, I've tended to stay away from more multiplayer-centric titles. To me, the more multiplayer-focused the game is, the more I feel that the game isn't really mine to own and play, but more in the hands of the developers, with all of my progress stored on remote servers than on my own memory card, cartridge, or hard drive. All of these updates, events, and micro-transactions kind of take away from my feeling of owning a game.

The sole exception I can think of in this case would be fighting games. Yes, updates and balance patches for fighting games exist, but more of your progress is stored locally, and you can always play one of the Single-Player modes in the event that you don't have an available internet connection. Also, there's less focus on building up an in-game inventory and more focus on just improving your raw skill: your reaction times, your ability to pull off BnBs, stuff like that.

Aside from that, I tend to be more focused on single-player games anyways, so if I were ever to lose my ability to play games online on my PC, for whatever reason, it wouldn't be too much of a hit.

 

[McWhiters9511]

i personal love online multiplayer and for me, paying like $20 a year to be able to play splatoon2 online is easily worth it. sure id prefer not to pay, but i will as its a small price to pay for the awesome experience it has, theres something playing against real players that single player cant replicate. its more exciting and gives me adrenaline. single player games can be rage inducing hard or fun as hell too, but i love multiplayer, in casual or intense games.

 

[MrCokeacola]

Online is whatever. Never payed for it, only ever used free live codes for the og xbox and never bought a console with paid online since.

 

[donaldgx]

Depends on genre. If rpgs, i'm content with solo gameplay/content.
If game has a certain degree of a competition aspect (shooters, sports, racing, etc), then online multiplayer is a must. While i do say it is a must, I also consider that is not worth having to pay a subscription to enjoy it. PC master race

 

[Localhorst86]

While online multiplayer is a neat idea, it's just not my thing. I Like to play in short bursts and pause every so often. If I play multiplayer, I prefer the real multiplayer experience with friends on my sofa. It's a different feeling throwing insults directly in each others face and yelling at each other. No need to have a conversation with a 12-year old online and listening to his stories about encounters with my mother...

Online Multiplayer: meh
Offline multiplayer: yes
Singleplayer: Very yes

 

[BvanBart]

View attachment 125766​

Recently we have seen various Switches belonging to hackers, a device without many well developed public hacks at time of writing, be banned from Nintendo's online offerings. Such a thing then became the subject of much discussion, not only because all of Nintendo's previous efforts in the last decade or so have had next to no proper security and at the same time were often barely functional.
One thing that came up more than once was the notion that a banned Switch is if not worthless then worth a whole lot less. It is not a new concept as games go; see also the xbox 360 and its various banwaves last generation wherein banned ones could be seen at points to go for sometimes less than half that of a new charting game, at the same time equivalent setups that were unbanned would still go for more than a charting game and maybe even two.

Related to this is the notion some developers and publishers have that single player only games are at least untenable from a financial perspective. Such a thing has seen many a game have a multiplayer mode tacked on, almost invariably at a cost of development focus or budget for the single player.

For myself then local multiplayer and co-op were much enjoyed staples of my pre online days, single player was almost always where it was at though. Then they started wanting me to pay for online, something I have never done unless you count dial up costs on my dreamcast. I never once had an online 360 of my own or one readily accessible and would maintain it was probably one of the best periods of gaming ever for me. The idea that a banned device is worthless is then very odd, though I am of course more than happy to pay the pittance some consider them worth to get such a banned device if it still allows single player.

This is part of a series on GBAtemp where we consider game design, aspects of play and game industry concepts. Previously we discussed emulation vs hardware.

Spoiler: earlier editions

a favoured game style that might have become less common in recent times, skills one might have learned or honed because of a game, games on the PS4 and Xbone that will stand the test of time, games that got better after launch, cancelled games and shuttered devs, and story canon in games.

To that end you are invited once more to talk about the ideas raised in the text above and anything related to it you feel warrants mention.

When you think about it, this is very right! I pay € 60,- a year for Playstation Plus and should pay € 20,- for Nintendo's service. However, the only multiplayer games I play are Splatoon 2 and Nine Parchments. More then often I am enraged about the poor people that rage quit and thus not wanting to admit they lost. Is that worth € 80,- a year? No.

However, with Playstation plus you get free games. This is a nice deal as the worth of the titles in a whole year is far more then € 60. Even if you just like 2/3 games, the price will be above that. With Nintendo I am a little anxious. The feeling to do "right" is still strong with that one. Sony does not care about security, Nintendo did not have much to secure... however, are they capable? Will the be able to pull it off?

Long story short: blocking multiplayer is the only thing they can do. If your console would brick or be disabled, then they would have a bigger bone to chew.

 

[FAST6191]

I don't like online play. Online gamer are mostly asshole and they become even more aggressive in competitive play. In casual play we have troll who want nothing more than your demise just for some laugh in their miserable life.

There is a line of thought that says the game itself creates the player base.

If your game tests for obscure things, has a needless barrier to entry, has the means of interaction be the stats page and such then the community will be commensurately awful.
A nice example is that of DOTA/MOBA games.
A bad player on your team of 3-5 depending upon the game will easily tank your entire match, almost no matter how well you are playing.
The original game being a mod that twisted an original game to almost breaking then ended up with a bunch of non obvious and unintuitive mechanics* (last hitting wherein vital experience is denied to someone should they perform the last hit, this includes destroying your own stuff to prevent your opponents getting it, bunching wherein you intentionally block the regularly spawned npcs to lower the pack size and thus increase their damage per second/initial punch and so forth). Unless you go reading wikis and being trained by someone in the know you will not likely figure these out.
Similarly if you have scoreboards and "levels" then the only meaningful comparison will be those and people will almost inevitably look at it. The corollary to "if you stat it they will try to kill it" is probably "if you have stats people will look at them", or if you prefer see why achievements (an utterly banal and pointless concept in the long run) are so enjoyed by no small number of people.

*worse still is when various companies were making their versions of the gameplay style they asked what people wanted, some people said all those unintuitive mechanics and they actually went and did that.

All that will almost by default lead to level/stat obsessed elitists, ones that may try to test you to even get you to play with them.

Compare on the other hand a game where kills don't matter for the score (say it is an area denial game), there are no stats between matches or level indicators that mean anything. While you might learn levels/maps and weapons you can still do well enough with basic skills and eventually will learn those and that means anybody that you can get on your team will help, possibly only if they just act as a bit of a bullet sponge and allow you to fire more effectively. This means if you want everybody that can help then you want everybody you can and will necessarily welcome them so as to do so.
Splatoon is not a great example from where I sit, it being mechanically very loose for one, but it starts to have some of these elements and I wonder then if it is why some enjoy it where they might dislike other things. These days it is pretty obscure but Natural Selection 2 fits the things above more closely and enjoys the perks of doing that.

 

[Deleted member 420418]

I would only buy online play if i have the time to play. (e.g. holidays or summer break)

 

[BORTZ]

When I was younger I never really had any need for online play. I would play Pokemon just a few times with my brother and other friends. I never played almost anything online despite growing up in the 90s and early oughts. I never had a real online console until i bought an X360 near the end of its life after I graduated college. I played Halo Reach, Halo 4, and Battlefield 3 extensively with my online buddies I dont see from college anymore.

After the advent of the PS4, online and social gaming is a huge deal for me. I value being able to go online way way way over hacks, CFW, and free games. It helps that I have a steady job and money to buy whatever I want. After playing Destiny and making so many friends, I wouldn't trade that for anything, not even free games.