Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Game Design Theory / 10 Reasons Why Single-Player Games need a Network...

Author
Message
TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 17th Oct 2010 02:22 Edited at: 17th Oct 2010 02:23
I wanted to share 10 Reasons why I feel Single-Player Games of any Type and Genre can be significantly enhanced with the addition of Networking in some form or fashion:

1. Allowing the Game (Client) to communicate with a External Host Server literally extends your Single-Player Game's replay value with downloadable/updatable content.

2. Upgrades/Patches, Add-ons, Plug-Ins, In-Game/App Item Malls, Online Scoring & Tournaments, Rotating Advertisements are all possible if your Single-Player Game utilizes networking.

3. Model your single player game to operate like a web-browser downloading content as needed from a web server during game play.

4. Developing multiple games? Utilize a library of content stored on a centralized server.

5. Allow multiple users to add content to the centralized server to be used by your Single-Player Game(s).

6. Provide Web Applications that communicate with Game allowing players to view profiles, avatar stats, in-game communications (forums, chat logs), etc online.

7. Provide Debug Info, Client Feedback and Suggestions from within the game, during the game.

8. Product Security through Network Authentication.

9. Simplify your Multi-Player Retro-fit!

10. Single-Player Games with Networking Features ROCK!

thenerd
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Mar 2009
Location: Boston, USA
Posted: 17th Oct 2010 02:49
Totally. Even if the game has no multiplayer, these features help a lot...

Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 17th Oct 2010 03:37
Quote: "10. Single-Player Games with Networking Features ROCK!"


Care to elaborate on that?
TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 17th Oct 2010 16:26 Edited at: 3rd May 2011 02:31
Quote: "Care to elaborate on that? "

Sure, click on the link in my Sig.

BMacZero
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Dec 2005
Location: E:/ NA / USA
Posted: 23rd Oct 2010 04:44
There are some fun possibilities with this, but there are two big reasons I dislike games that do this - you can't play the game offline, and if the game company folds or takes down their servers you're toast.


Latest progress: Fog of War implemented; frustrated by pathfinding >.>
bruce3371
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 23rd Oct 2010 06:29
Two words; Cloud Computing.

All your save-games, configuration files etc etc can be saved on a central server. Example of this; Valve's Steam Cloud.

TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 26th Oct 2010 01:58 Edited at: 26th Oct 2010 01:58
Disclaimer: The following statements are just MY opinion with absolutely no facts to support them.

The PC game market for Single Player games with no networking features has been significantly reduced to 0! It is quite apparent that the PC retains a stronghold web-based games and MMO market. However, I'm not sure how long this will last. It is pointless to develop a Single Player game for the PC without networking; and if one intends to develop such a game for others to play, they need to seriously consider creative ways to implement and use networking for leverage. In fact, I would go as far as to say developing any type of application will require network support to be successful. So take heed to my warning don't develop a Single Player game with out networking.

Phaelax
DBPro Master
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 16th Apr 2003
Location: Metropia
Posted: 26th Oct 2010 08:19
Some of my favorite games have been strictly single-player with no networking. And for all these adventure MMO games, not everyone wants to bother with the trouble having to get 10 friends together just so one can move on in the game (i'm looking at you WoW)

I think Diablo is a good example of a single player game that benefits greatly from online features.


As for your top 10 reasons, 1 and 2 are sorta the same thing. And upgrades/patches could always be downloaded and installed separately without the game having an active connection.

As for 8, let me know when someone implements this without it being a pain in the butt to the user's experience.

I don't really understand what you mean in 9.

I'm perfectly happy with Minesweeper not requiring a network thank you very much!


"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" ~ Arthur C. Clarke
Devonps
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posted: 26th Oct 2010 09:34
@Techlord - Roguelikes don't need network support! Plus if you're smart during development you'll allow for updates to content via scripts (or modding), therefore negating the requirement of a network.

Just my 2 pence worth.

Marriage is a circle of rings....
Engagement ring, Wedding ring, Suffering!
TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 27th Oct 2010 10:11 Edited at: 27th Oct 2010 10:19
What I mean by Retro-fittiing multiplay, is adding multiplayer features after the engine has been developed. Its easier to add Multiplayer when you have some form of networking already implemented.

Sorry, Modding does not negate the need for a network.

Devonps
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posted: 27th Oct 2010 10:45
Ok, maybe I was a little hasty with my original reply. But I still stand by my point that Roguelikes have been enjoyed by thousands of players without any networking capabilities.

Not wanting to sound petulant of course

Marriage is a circle of rings....
Engagement ring, Wedding ring, Suffering!
TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 27th Oct 2010 11:56 Edited at: 27th Oct 2010 11:58
Quote: "But I still stand by my point that Roguelikes have been enjoyed by thousands of players without any networking capabilities."
Agreed. However, that shouldn't be an accuse NOT to develop a Single Player game without networking, especially with today's internet savvy PC Game Players. Add networking and they will be enjoyed by Tens of thousands of players.

Devonps
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posted: 27th Oct 2010 17:36
I agree it (read:tradition) certainly shouldn't be used as an excuse NOT to develop networking capabilities for a single player game. Once I complete the skeleton of my rogue engine I'll maybe take a look at how/why I could/should incorporate networking.

Marriage is a circle of rings....
Engagement ring, Wedding ring, Suffering!
Libervurto
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 1st Nov 2010 10:35
Quote: "And for all these adventure MMO games, not everyone wants to bother with the trouble having to get 10 friends together just so one can move on in the game (i'm looking at you WoW)"

I used to run a club on FIFA 10, it had about 40 members (only 10 can play at a time because it's a football game) I got so many messages about arguments, people leaving, having to recruit new people and trial them to see if they were any good, then trying to organise everyone to come online at the same time and get a full team together to play! It became like a job, and the sad thing is after all that it never became the club I wanted it to be. People say they had fun though so that's good.


Do oranges know what colour they are?
TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 5th Nov 2010 07:20
Quote: "And for all these adventure MMO games, not everyone wants to bother with the trouble having to get 10 friends together just so one can move on in the game (i'm looking at you WoW)"

Quote: "I used to run a club on FIFA 10, it had about 40 members (only 10 can play at a time because it's a football game) I got so many messages about arguments, people leaving, having to recruit new people and trial them to see if they were any good, then trying to organise everyone to come online at the same time and get a full team together to play!"
Both of these statements pertain to a multiplayer game, however, my discussion is about Single Player games in which only one player can play at time. Networking and Multiplayer are NOT synonymous and that perspective on the subject is one I'm encouraging others to see from another angle. Its makes absolutely no sense to me to develop a game that cannot take advantage of the Internet, especially when all of us inspiring Game Deveopers came to TGC through it!

TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 21st Nov 2010 05:59
I'm curious as to who is out there developing a single player game with zero network capability. If your guilty say I, hehe.

Devonps
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Nov 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posted: 21st Nov 2010 11:31
I is guilty as charged

Marriage is a circle of rings....
Engagement ring, Wedding ring, Suffering!
Libervurto
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 18th Jan 2011 01:13
All the things in your list were being done before the internet existed, but the internet provides a faster, simpler and more efficient way of doing all those things. So I'd have to agree that having network features is an advantage to ANY game. What I don't like is REQUIRING an internet connection to play.
When PSN had their embarrassing leap-year balls up, I was unable to play Heavy Rain because my PS3 couldn't connect to PSN and sync my trophies - which I don't even want! That sucks...


Everything worthwhile requires effort.
Frank C
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2010
Location: Houston TX
Posted: 18th Jan 2011 15:05
Dev Companies forget one major thing, Not everyone on the planet lives in a TV World where we all have ultra high speed Internet connections. If Companies like EA, Steam, and Blizzard want these types of features maybe they should invest in getting the system upgraded. I live in a rural area and DSL can't reach me, the Cable company doesn't come in to our area, I have tried Hughes.Net but they throttle you to 1980 speeds if you break their proscribed limit. I'm now using Verizon Wireless but even though the tower is only 3 miles away their signal drops between broadband and national access occasionally.

i think all 10 points have their merit but if I buy a single player game I should not NEED to be connected to play, I can just go to the website when I have the opportunity to d/l any patch or extra content, or play connected as with Diablo that someone mentioned earlier if I want to play with some other people.
PrimalBeans
13
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2010
Location: The sewer.... hunting alligatiors.
Posted: 20th Jan 2011 01:03
I can see the advantage in a continually changing game and game play provided by and internet connection. I think that single player developed games are less and less these days. I cant agree that they are zero percent though. There are plenty of great games that can be played without internet connection and without the use of internet goodies. Honestly these things are great features, but they dont make or break a good single player game. I enjoy a good mmo like everyone else, but everyday interaction with childish malicious brats, (LOL) doesnt keep the game from losing its flavor like some think, and exactly how much does added internet content add to the freshness of a game if the game isnt great already?? Like i said they are good features but they dont make the game.

my .02

TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 25th Jan 2011 17:46 Edited at: 25th Jan 2011 23:18
Quote: "but if I buy a single player game I should not NEED to be connected to play."
Agreed, and there are local security measures that be taken such as disk anti-copy to minimize piracy. These features can easily be added to a Single Player game with Networking, not so easily to do the reverse.

As Independent Game Developers, I believe extremely in two things: 1) We must Innovate; 2) We must give our games every advantage possible to compete. Network capabilities can provide that advantage and possibly new innovation can be found within it. Example of innovation-->


IMO, there really isn't a good reason to develop a Single Player Game without it.

TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 25th Mar 2011 20:36
Quote: "6. Provide Web Applications that communicate with Game allowing players to view profiles, avatar stats, in-game communications (forums, chat logs), etc online."


Communication with Web Applications can also provide a source of content for inside the game. Imagine being able to take forum discussions and translate them into Quest/Missions inside your Single Player RPG/FPS.

Quel
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Mar 2009
Location:
Posted: 31st Mar 2011 18:34 Edited at: 31st Mar 2011 18:36
Multiplayer made some classics over time, but i guess we need to see there are two quite distinct situations: story based, and obviously massive multiplayer games.

For story based - which i'm really after, and ever been, QuakeIII became boring after an hour, and it gained an other hour against actual people - i don't give a crap. Concentrate on the god damn story!

What genre can be a rather multiplayer orientated stuff without any shame is RTS. It allows a very - if done right.. - wide range of gameplay, which even can be fine against the CPU.

I'm very fed up with multiplayer FPS games on the other hand, why have so many of the same sh*t over and over again?
TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 2nd Apr 2011 09:22
Quote: "I'm very fed up with multiplayer FPS games on the other hand, why have so many of the same sh*t over and over again?"
Because many developers stick with the tried and true network gameplay formats simply afraid to take risk or lazy. Not me! Like many other aspects of Game Development, high level networking could be the next frontier for innovation.

TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 11th Apr 2011 12:08 Edited at: 3rd May 2011 02:32
WLGfx
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Nov 2007
Location: NW United Kingdom
Posted: 11th Apr 2011 15:31
I was just about to write this should be in the Game Design forum but then I checked lol...

A lot of people now look at starting a game with the prospect of upgrading it to connect to a network for most of the features listed above. I certainly would.

Knock up a level, get it to work in single player mode with all the testing then look into ideas of how you would use the network. Maybe for adding other players, maybe for adding new story lines to play, get a community to make more levels, the possibilities are loads.

I'm addicted to RTS space games, War-games and Dungeon Master type games. And RTS space game can work with or without network and/or multi-player but the benefits of hooking it up would make the games appeal and spread-ability much better. War-games are much harder, especially if they are turn based, easier to program using multiplayer. Single player War-games are great if they work. Dungeon Master type games, RPG's are something that communities would benefit from getting involved with. Actually RPG online games are probably the biggest hit using the internet over the recent years.

Someone could point me to a decent space trading game (elite) online and I'd be lost for hours on end.

Warning! May contain Nuts!
entomophobiac
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 11th Apr 2011 17:47
Personally, I think our terms need updating. Most people seem so stuck in the single-player/multiplayer jargon that it's second nature. It means that people tend to think in those terms and never argue about HOW we play games.

I think you're spot-on TechLord.

With everyone using Facebook or Google's Gmail, why not use Facebook Connect or Google Auth to authenticate your users?

The more we merge people's experiences, the better, I'd say.
TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 3rd May 2011 02:40 Edited at: 3rd May 2011 02:50
TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 6th Jun 2011 17:57 Edited at: 6th Jun 2011 17:58
Quote: "Personally, I think our terms need updating. Most people seem so stuck in the single-player/multiplayer jargon that it's second nature. It means that people tend to think in those terms and never argue about HOW we play games.

I think you're spot-on TechLord.

With everyone using Facebook or Google's Gmail, why not use Facebook Connect or Google Auth to authenticate your users?

The more we merge people's experiences, the better, I'd say. "


Agreed - 1,234567% Maury!

maho76
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2011
Location: universe-hub, playing the flute
Posted: 24th Jun 2011 16:20 Edited at: 25th Jun 2011 11:06
1) most actual games are published in a half-finished way with many bugs.

2) additional levels/features a simply not implemented from the beginning because of time-lag or just to make MORE money.

3) steam-account-games are sh*tty if you have a lame online-pc but a hispeed-working machine that you will not connect to the net because there are customer-data from your job on it that you wont risk to get in trouble with virus or hacks.


these are only 3, but if i had the time i can figure out much more.
the most awesome reason to NOT feature have-to-be-online-supply is the first point and second. guys, if the companies manage to bring up a game that is good tested and properly build WITH ALL THE CONTENT PLANNED FOR IT then 99% of the online-content like bugpatches and additional footage is totally unneccessary.

but thats the new way, and customers/gamers get educated to see this all as a feature:

throw a bugged first version into the market and then update it 3 years and make double amount of money instead of finishing 2 proper working games in the same time, each with new ideas instead of cooking up old lame content over and over again with a little graphic update after 5 years.

you can see this trend when you think about pc-games and console-games 5 years before. at that time online-featured pc-games were published full of bugs and in parts not even runable (greets to joeWood, you sc*mf*ckgodd*mn....), but in fact that console doesnt have online-support, the same games come out 1/2 a year later without bugs but with "feature/exclusive content" that costs an extra amount for pc-version, even if you see in the first flight that the \"extras\" are definitely part of the original game and they just cant manage to finish them before publishing date.

today all this is called \"feature\"^^

dont think bad of me, the most up there given features are more or less good stuff, but you give the major companies a be-free-to-be-slutty-license, and thats not what i want to have when i am paying 50€ for the basic gameversion i have to buy before i can use the online-content, and that this version is less worth than 10 €.
TechLord
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Dec 2002
Location: TheGameDevStore.com
Posted: 29th Jun 2011 08:58
Quote: "1) most actual games are published in a half-finished way with many bugs."
I refuse to believe that developers purposely leave bugs in their productions after pouring their precious blood sweat and tears into it.

Quote: "2) additional levels/features a simply not implemented from the beginning because of time-lag or just to make MORE money.
"

I also don't see any problem with Developers providing themselves a means to extend the replay value of their products with the intent to earn additional sales.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-03-28 21:29:57
Your offset time is: 2024-03-28 21:29:57