Deus Ex: Mankind Divided Developer Eidos Montreal to Focus on Online Gaming

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Will the next Deus Ex game include some kind of multiplayer element? Definitely. Eidos Montreal has announced that it will focus more of its attention on online gaming from now on. The developer is hiring new staff to support the move and reworking its DAWN engine to better cope with online gaming.

Director of online technology Sébastien Bessette said: "All of these efforts unify our teams towards one single goal, that being to deliver the best online gaming experience to our players." It'd be sad if the new focus meant the studio dedicated less resources to single-player, because Deus Ex: Mankind Divided and Human Revolution were both great immersive sims (although sales in the genre have cast doubt over its future).
 
The first game in the mankind series was amazing except for the boss fights, which then freely admit were done by a separate company and we're a mistake. But I can't see how that game style workes for multi-player.
 
so first DX:MD is cut in half by greedy publisher antics only to be thrown in the trash...& now this?

fuck my life.
 
As others have pointed out, there isn't as much money in a single player game. Therefore an online component is necessary for commercial success as far as these companies are concerned.
 
Their next game will fail and they'll be wondering what they did wrong. Meanwhile plenty of indie game developers who will enter the void they leave with quality single player games. If they think multiplayer games are profitable then let them try it out. They'll be very disappointed.
 
Dan_D said:
As others have pointed out, there isn't as much money in a single player game. Therefore an online component is necessary for commercial success as far as these companies are concerned.
Click to expand...

They should try a higher price point, though I'm sure it would incite bitching, a game like Witcher 3 is worth a hell of a lot more than the standard 3-5 hour single player with generic multiplayer component.
 
Aireoth said:
They should try a higher price point, though I'm sure it would incite bitching, a game like Witcher 3 is worth a hell of a lot more than the standard 3-5 hour single player with generic multiplayer component.
Click to expand...

Didn't we dispell this nonsense in another thread? Raising the price point isn't the answer. If you raise the price point for games, the companies producing them would still want to generate additional revenue through DLC and other microtransactions. You also forget that with digitial distribution, we effectively have a product that costs almost nothing to distribute. Once the costs are made back on development, all sales are almost 100% pure profit using the digital distribtion method. The only costs are for the server infrastructure that distributes it.

You might think a higher cost of the game is the best way to ensure that the development costs are recouperated, but it isn't. If the standard price for a game is $50 or $60 for a AAA title, then selling one at $30 or $40 or less is a good way to get people to take a chance on it. You can either sell your product at a high price requiring fewer sales to turn a profit or sell something cheap and recoupe your money through a greater number of smaller transactions. We are at a point where a lot of people are jaded by the type of content we are getting now and won't spend $40 or more for a brand new game. On the other hand, we'll often try nearly any game if it's cheap enough.
 
Dan_D said:
Didn't we dispell this nonsense in another thread? Raising the price point isn't the answer. If you raise the price point for games, the companies producing them would still want to generate additional revenue through DLC and other microtransactions. You also forget that with digitial distribution, we effectively have a product that costs almost nothing to distribute. Once the costs are made back on development, all sales are almost 100% pure profit using the digital distribtion method. The only costs are for the server infrastructure that distributes it.

You might think a higher cost of the game is the best way to ensure that the development costs are recouperated, but it isn't. If the standard price for a game is $50 or $60 for a AAA title, then selling one at $30 or $40 or less is a good way to get people to take a chance on it. You can either sell your product at a high price requiring fewer sales to turn a profit or sell something cheap and recoupe your money through a greater number of smaller transactions. We are at a point where a lot of people are jaded by the type of content we are getting now and won't spend $40 or more for a brand new game. On the other hand, we'll often try nearly any game if it's cheap enough.
Click to expand...

Its possible, I am severly sleep deprived today thanks to a screaming monkey we think is our child.

Yes greed does rule everything, and dlc/lootboxes are garbage not because the concept themselves is flawed but because they strip content from the game to artificially create them. Yes they will probably always do this until the market abandons paying for them (if).

I mostly just game with products from smaller studios these days, sadly its probably only a matter of time before they too do this.

So I stand by my original statement, fuck this shit.
 
Aireoth said:
They should try a higher price point, though I'm sure it would incite bitching, a game like Witcher 3 is worth a hell of a lot more than the standard 3-5 hour single player with generic multiplayer component.
Click to expand...
Half a games budget is spent on advertising, so why would I want to give them more money to spend on advertising? Publishers know when a game won't do well, so to adjust this problem they spend more money on advertising. Bigger the budget, the more likely the money will go to advertising and not the actual game itself.

Also, movies cost just as much as games to make, but last I checked I can go and buy a movie for $20-$30 for a Blu-Ray. That price hasn't changed much. And most people today just go on Netflix for $9 a month. So again, why does the gaming market need even more money?

Just accept that capitalism has pushed game developers to go where the money is, and that's in microtransactions. And the public has spoken out against putting them in single player games so of course multiplayer is the way to go. Every single player game will have multiplayer elements in them for this reason. The gaming whales are what ruined the market, and yes that's the name given to people who spend far more money at games than you or me would.

whale-parts-gaming.jpg
 
Aireoth said:
Its possible, I am severly sleep deprived today thanks to a screaming monkey we think is our child.

Yes greed does rule everything, and dlc/lootboxes are garbage not because the concept themselves is flawed but because they strip content from the game to artificially create them.
Click to expand...

This is tinfoil hat level nonsense. While there are certain examples of DLC content being created out of stripped content from the game, I suspect this is rarely the case. Mass Effect 3's From Ashes DLC was clearly always part of the game and was even integral to the story. It was also in the game's data files whether you had it or not on launch day. That's different than the Resurrection DLC for Battelfront II which is clearly added after the fact. The quality of the DLC alone is incongurent with the rest of the game and was clearly rushed to completion to coincide with the release of "The Last Jedi" film. DLC is certainly planned in the early stages of game development, and may very well include content that may have been conceived of, but not actually developed for the launch version of the game. That's not the same thing as taking a piece of the game and putting it behind a paywall.

Aireoth said:
Yes they will probably always do this until the market abandons paying for them (if).

I mostly just game with products from smaller studios these days, sadly its probably only a matter of time before they too do this.

So I stand by my original statement, fuck this shit.
Click to expand...

I don't care who makes a game so long as it's a good game. It can come from EA, Activision or some tiny studio from some country I've never heard of for all it matters to me. The key, is to give companies the proper backlash when they do something stupid, and to vote with our wallets. I'm not against DLC or even Microtransactions when it's not a pay to win scenario. I buy DLC based on the merrit of that DLC. Will it add something significant to the base game? If so, is it worth the money to purchase it? Are we talking about cosmetic shit, or actual game content? Some game companies have a history of delivering solid DLC. Despite From Ashes Being stripped from ME3, the rest of it's DLC's were all incredible and worth the money in my opinion. Most of it, for the other games in the series was worth having as well. However, I've never found anything for the Battlefield games to be worth the price of admission past the base game. However, if you don't buy into it, you end up segregated from a lot of the multiplayer base. That type of greed hurts the gaming experience. Offering a solid gaming experience in the form of additional content that's not part of the base game for a price I think is reasonable is fine by me.

Like most things, DLC and the shift towards online gaming isn't something that's clear cut as bad or good things. It's all about execution and putting out a product that people want at prices they are willing to pay. Microtransactions are here to stay whether we like it or not. As others have said, multiplayer games are the best way to attract this type of continued revenue from a game. A single player game rarely has a lot of replay value. For every game that is worth replaying a few times there are probably dozens or more that aren't. This doesn't make them bad games, but no one is going to want to drop additional cash on a game they've already beaten.

Making shallow multiplayer games is relatively easy. Making a single player game with branching story and multiple choices that can provide an experience that players want to repeat and to attempt again for variant experiences is much, much harder to do. It's much harder to do conceptually, technically and from a financial perspective. It's also a riskier proposition. Multiplayer games have a social component which isn't to be underestimated. I'll play games I'm not really interested in playing if I've got friends playing as well. Sometimes you log in just to hang out with your friends and the game is a loose excuse to do that. I still have fun with the game, but it wouldn't be the same without the social component. It's like going to a bar alone or with a dozen of your friends. The latter is almost always guaranteed to be more fun. A single player game has to bring a lot to the table to get people to play it, much less repeat the experience and to spend additional money to get more of that experience. Creating a single player experience, and one that's lengthy enough to satisfy people spending $60 on it carries too much risk. Creating a decent game that people will play with their friends is almost a license to print money.

Companies like the one in question shifting towards an online focus isn't at all shocking. It's good business.
 
Dan_D said:
This is tinfoil hat level nonsense. While there are certain examples of DLC content being created out of stripped content from the game, I suspect this is rarely the case. Mass Effect 3's From Ashes DLC was clearly always part of the game and was even integral to the story. It was also in the game's data files whether you had it or not on launch day. That's different than the Resurrection DLC for Battelfront II which is clearly added after the fact. The quality of the DLC alone is incongurent with the rest of the game and was clearly rushed to completion to coincide with the release of "The Last Jedi" film. DLC is certainly planned in the early stages of game development, and may very well include content that may have been conceived of, but not actually developed for the launch version of the game. That's not the same thing as taking a piece of the game and putting it behind a paywall.



I don't care who makes a game so long as it's a good game. It can come from EA, Activision or some tiny studio from some country I've never heard of for all it matters to me. The key, is to give companies the proper backlash when they do something stupid, and to vote with our wallets. I'm not against DLC or even Microtransactions when it's not a pay to win scenario. I buy DLC based on the merrit of that DLC. Will it add something significant to the base game? If so, is it worth the money to purchase it? Are we talking about cosmetic shit, or actual game content? Some game companies have a history of delivering solid DLC. Despite From Ashes Being stripped from ME3, the rest of it's DLC's were all incredible and worth the money in my opinion. Most of it, for the other games in the series was worth having as well. However, I've never found anything for the Battlefield games to be worth the price of admission past the base game. However, if you don't buy into it, you end up segregated from a lot of the multiplayer base. That type of greed hurts the gaming experience. Offering a solid gaming experience in the form of additional content that's not part of the base game for a price I think is reasonable is fine by me.

Like most things, DLC and the shift towards online gaming isn't something that's clear cut as bad or good things. It's all about execution and putting out a product that people want at prices they are willing to pay. Microtransactions are here to stay whether we like it or not. As others have said, multiplayer games are the best way to attract this type of continued revenue from a game. A single player game rarely has a lot of replay value. For every game that is worth replaying a few times there are probably dozens or more that aren't. This doesn't make them bad games, but no one is going to want to drop additional cash on a game they've already beaten.

Making shallow multiplayer games is relatively easy. Making a single player game with branching story and multiple choices that can provide an experience that players want to repeat and to attempt again for variant experiences is much, much harder to do. It's much harder to do conceptually, technically and from a financial perspective. It's also a riskier proposition. Multiplayer games have a social component which isn't to be underestimated. I'll play games I'm not really interested in playing if I've got friends playing as well. Sometimes you log in just to hang out with your friends and the game is a loose excuse to do that. I still have fun with the game, but it wouldn't be the same without the social component. It's like going to a bar alone or with a dozen of your friends. The latter is almost always guaranteed to be more fun. A single player game has to bring a lot to the table to get people to play it, much less repeat the experience and to spend additional money to get more of that experience. Creating a single player experience, and one that's lengthy enough to satisfy people spending $60 on it carries too much risk. Creating a decent game that people will play with their friends is almost a license to print money.

Companies like the one in question shifting towards an online focus isn't at all shocking. It's good business.
Click to expand...

Yes (like i said, , but she's still full of steam)
 
Last edited:
So what they really mean is this:

"Hey, remember how we said we weren't done making Deus Ex games a month or so ago? Yea... we're totally done making Deus Ex games."
 
DPI said:
It's almost like they're running a business and are obligated to go where the profit is.
Click to expand...

I know, Witcher 3 was a flop right.

Though I do see your point; but I don't really care if some CEO makes a little extra cash. And apparently, a lot of others feel the same way. So yes we will bitch and complain about it. Don't like it? Too bad, grow some thicker skin.
 
If the gaming market were different, I would say don't panic. After all, there was a multiplayer element to the original DX. However, with the way most gaming companies do MP, this is sad, sad news to me. I wonder if Cyberpunk 2077 is going to be any good?
 
I'm beginning to think that these people are actually stupid. It is as if it's their goal to ruin their own reputations. Want to get into mp only crap? Fine, there are better ways of doing it than announcing to the entire world that you're re-purposing yet another studio responsible for great SP Games. First Bioware then this. You maniacs, you blew it up!

Besides the MP market is oversaturated as it is. If a gamer finds a game he sticks with it for months. At least that's how it seems to me with the MP community. I personally never play multiplayer games, and not going to start now, probably ever.
 
Budzman said:
Ugh. Single player games apparently don't make enough money these days.
Click to expand...

We may have to rely on indie game developers to make more single player games that rival AAA studios. Even if they're shorter campaigns, it's much better than having fewer games.
 
M76 said:
I'm beginning to think that these people are actually stupid. It is as if it's their goal to ruin their own reputations. Want to get into mp only crap? Fine, there are better ways of doing it than announcing to the entire world that you're re-purposing yet another studio responsible for great SP Games. First Bioware then this. You maniacs, you blew it up!

Besides the MP market is oversaturated as it is. If a gamer finds a game he sticks with it for months. At least that's how it seems to me with the MP community. I personally never play multiplayer games, and not going to start now, probably ever.
Click to expand...

This is important to note. Also, unlike SP games, you can't really fix them or rely on later date sales if your game did not do well upfront. There are exceptions, such as BF4, although from a multiplayer shooter perspective the quality was far above anything else. And it had a strong reputation to go with it. If most others MP games had those issues they would be dead within 4-5 months. At least with an SP game you can get a slight revival of sales next year during a sale.

Right now for shooters there are really 4-5 major games on PC that people play:

Battlefield 4
Battlefield 1
Rainbow Six Siege
Overwatch
Counter Strike GO

There are some indie games like Rising Storm Vietnam which carve out their own niche. But the market is more or less covered. Good luck competing with any of those. The same can be said for those shitty bastard child MP/SP hybrids. You either sink or float, and most will sink.

dark_reign said:
We may have to rely on indie game developers to make more single player games that rival AAA studios. Even if they're shorter campaigns, it's much better than having fewer games.
Click to expand...

Which is fine. A 15-20 hour experience that is well crafted will trump a 40-50 hour slog of running around and collecting sticks any day.
 
Dan_D said:
As others have pointed out, there isn't as much money in a single player game. Therefore an online component is necessary for commercial success as far as these companies are concerned.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing a plot of a titles's revenue over time. My guess is that today's hot MP title generates early money but drops fast as players jump onto the next hot MP title - while quality SP games and their DLC sell for years after release. Even at steep discounts, games like the HL and ME series are pretty much generating free money for their owners at this point.
 
Im still waiting for a company to make a fantastic open game world, then support it with real kick ass additions over time, kinda like an MMO does over time, but on a single player basis

take skyrim, now it woulod be great if the had additions that added entire new "countries" with wholely seperate quests/stories
 
Ugh another one of my favorite game series about to be destroyed by bean counters.
 
Goodlookinguy said:
Never played these games personally, but anytime a single player game takes a back seat to online play it annoys me. Not everything has to be online and this obsession in the AAA industry to make everything online is obnoxious.
Click to expand...


Much harder to sell hats and other clothing items in micro-transactions to players of single player games :p

As long as the single player story and gameplay is still good, I don't have a problem with an added multiplayer mode, though I struggle to see how they would make that work well in the Deus Ex series. They tried with Mankind Divided, but the multiplayer gameplay was pretty lame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top