Do We Thank Activision For The Multiplayer Boom?
See Full ImageThese days, just about every game released features an online multiplayer option and many of the most popular titles in the world only achieved that lofty position due to that multiplayer action.
One could argue that Microsoft and Halo most inspired the multiplayer explosion on consoles, and selecting other revolutionary titles from other publishers would be a relatively simple endeavor. But Activision's bread and butter franchises - Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, and World of Warcraft - only rule(d) the world because of multiplayer. Granted, the latter is on PC and that platform has been utilizing MMOs for great profit since the late '90s, but the point is that Activision appears to understand the nature of the industry. They know that considering the global scope of the industry today, if they can get everyone to play together, they'll make billions. And so they have.
On the downside, many have called out CoD for having short campaigns and, in a sense, those who only play single-player (or don't care much for multiplayer) feel short-changed with each new installment. Guitar Hero was entertaining for a while when playing solo but let's face it; that name became synonymous with "party" fun. Call of Duty wasn't the massive blockbuster it was until Modern Warfare, when that game started to climb the multiplayer popularity charts. After supplanting mainstays like Halo and Gears of War, there was no looking back. This makes one wonder: Activision is the biggest publisher in the world. They're well aware of how they got there.
So is Activision most responsible for this multiplayer boom? Of course there are dozens of other factors but considering the sheer popularity of their multiplayer-oriented franchises, and the meteoric rise of their company, one has to consider the possibility that a single fast-rising publisher pushed multiplayer farther than anyone.
Tags: activision, games industry, multiplayer, call of duty
3/28/2011 10:50:21 AM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (52 posts)
ace_boon_coon
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:11:54 PM
4 up, 1 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:07:41 AM
Reply
6 up, 2 down
Kiryu
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:12:50 AM
5 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:17:02 AM
Paying to play.
Truth be told, the ONLY thing I see Live having over PSN is private chat and groups.
Still not worth 60 bucks a year.
11 up, 2 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:27:11 AM
i've been playing a lot of the socom 4 beta, and i am very disappointed in the number of people who are using a mic on it, and on psn overall. there no way to tell a teamate to lookout behind you. very frustrating,
yes, you have to pay for xbox live, but you get a more robust online experience with that. everybody has a headset, also. psn can be a ghost town, sometimes. cross game chat helps you to able to easily commincate with your friends. it has been rumored cross game chat will be added to psn for awhile now. i hope it happens soon. plus sony needs to start including a mic with every ps3. the 60 dollars a year is very resonable, and close to what i pay for ps plus.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 3/28/2011 11:38:29 AM
4 up, 6 down
Cavan1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 12:42:17 PM
Also it depends on the game, having chat options in cod is irrelevent, there is no great tactics in cod. I havent yet tried the new socom beta but in the other socom i had, where they bundled in the ps headset, i found that the vast majority of people wore headsets, and used them as the game is more more tactical than a run and gun game like cod.
For your quality of xbox live comment, i find it hard to take, i dont see any advantages except the cross game chat that it has over psn. ps plus is not like xbox live ps plus is mainly just for better deals within the ps store, cod is just as good on the psn as it is on live - except there is more commentary (babies crying in the background) than on the psn, but it does not effect the gaming experience one iota in my opinion, and certaintly not worth the price of admission.
4 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:21:35 PM
As far as SOCOM 4 is concerned, it's the BETA. The group feature is disabled, but will be in the full version.
I also see the fact that a lot people not using their mic means that I am not forced to endure the mindless rants of children. Killzone 3 for example, has plenty of people using their mics.
$60.00 to chat and group up with my friends is not worth it when the services the PSN offer matches Live, and then some.
4 up, 2 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:23:08 PM
2 up, 1 down
maxpontiac
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:33:15 PM
5 up, 1 down
CoolBLKguy
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:36:28 PM
4 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:59:50 PM
1 up, 1 down
big6
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 2:15:38 PM
I think your complaint about the headset and no talking in Socom 4 is not valid.
If you have been killed already and are sitting out, but able to view the remaining live players, you, of course, cannot talk to them. You're supposed to be dead so you can't communicate to someone who is still actively playing...that's cheating.
Maybe, on the Xbox, you can use cross-game chat to get around this but, again, that is cheating.
Wait... I reread it, and I think I may have answered the wrong thread. Oh well.. sorry...
Last edited by big6 on 3/28/2011 2:18:32 PM
1 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 4:07:47 PM
just got done playing 5 rounds of killzone. 1 other person out of the 8 was using a mic on my team. 4 out of 16 overall in the session we were able to cordinate and come up with different strategies. it was more fun that way. we actually talked about hardly anybody having a mic, and we agreed it was more fun when people are using a mic. he sounded like he was 12, but was really good.
it's not a myth few use a mic on psn. at least not from my experience. that is my main complaint. freaking ghost town. it gets boring killing and killing on the same maps. a lively mic helps make it more fun.
1 up, 2 down
Clamedeus
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 4:34:10 PM
2 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 5:24:48 PM
4 up, 0 down
Clamedeus
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 5:35:10 PM
4 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 6:32:43 PM
2 up, 0 down
Clamedeus
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 6:55:18 PM
www.playstation.com
Or
www.hupitgaming.com
I met people from my friend and now we are all friends. And found people on sites to play with as well.
2 up, 0 down
main_event05
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 7:29:09 PM
if you wanna know what it's like to play a FPS on Live, all you have to do is imagine a bunch of prepubescent boys repeatedly calling you a f** or a noob while an angry little ankle bitter barks non-stop in the background while constantly declining requests to join in some good ol' cross game chat. That pretty much sums up the whole experience.
4 up, 0 down
Highlightreel
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:11:22 AM
Reply
Stay classy PSX
4 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:11:48 AM
Reply
I've been playing online games forever, so in my case it's a definite NO. Additionally, I think Halo would be to thank long before CoD. And I don't think you can argue any original PC CoD's either, as it's likely Counter Strike is bigger than the earlier CoD's.
4 up, 0 down
big6
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:41:28 AM
Heck I even played a game called "Midi Maze" on the Atari ST computer in the late 1980s, where we could 'network' computers together via midi cables. That was my first true multiplayer experience. Anyone old enough to remember that game? lol
2 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:19:14 AM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
Godslim
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:28:46 AM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
CH1N00K
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:39:28 AM
Reply
Activision just profited of these previously mentioned companies hard worked and added their own spin to it. Combine that with a larger market of High Speed internet users that are around this generation, and it comes down to timing.
The only exception would be World of Warcraft, but even that wasn't an online game to begin with.
Activision has done some 'interesting' things with gaming, but whether they are to be thanked for it or not? Well they have gotten a lot of people into gaming who at one point wouldn't have condidered gaming as a past time. But watching how the market of good solid single player campaigns is depleting and being replaced by short campaigns and multiplayer modes that are riddled with pre-pubescent screaming tweens and angry immature 'grown-ups'..I think I'll give my thanks elsewhere...like to the guy that invented the mute option in online play! I would like to shake your hand!
Last edited by CH1N00K on 3/28/2011 11:47:01 AM
2 up, 0 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:58:54 AM
3 up, 3 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 12:15:48 PM
3 up, 3 down
CH1N00K
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:28:27 PM
Resistance came out a year before MW. FPS, Multiplayer online, Split Screen Co-op..Could it have been the game to beat MW if it had been Mulitplat? Probably not, but it might have.
Warhawk - a strictly online shooter - no campaign just pure arcade shooter. A little too arcady and simplistic maybe for the FPS core group and it wasn't an FPS, but it did come out 4 months before MW.
I don't know of any on the Xbox that came out before MW, not that there aren't any, I just can't think of them because I don't own one, but I think Halo3 would be in there somewhere at least. For the most part though, I think that that is closer to the answer then anything. Modern Warfare for the most part really has a majority of an Xbox fan base. (which could be why I often consider it an Xbox game) If you look at the sales of MW, Xbox vastly outnumbers PS3 sales. I think Black ops sold a million more on the Box then PS3 and PC combined...
As for Guitar Hero, I never got into it, but anytime I did play it, it was with friends in their living room, never online. I don't know how many people did actually play online, but I don't think the numbers were as substantial as what COD has done.
But Activision didn't do anything new, they just managed to do it in a way that created Mass Appeal. They sold the hype, and did it better then anyone else. That's what they did differently, other than their marketing team, they've done what everyone else before them has done. If it hadn't been them, it probably would have been EA, or S-E, or someone else...They just had a better PR department.
Last edited by CH1N00K on 3/28/2011 1:36:47 PM
2 up, 1 down
CH1N00K
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 3:03:14 PM
Last edited by CH1N00K on 3/28/2011 3:07:30 PM
1 up, 0 down
CharlesD
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 5:19:01 PM
0 up, 0 down
big6
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:52:28 AM
Reply
Now, they want to monetize it by forcing you to go through their own network, like Battle.Net or GameSpy, etc. That killed online gaming for me on the PC...
1 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 12:22:10 PM
1 up, 1 down
SvenMD
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:53:41 AM
Reply
The difference is that these new consoles are the first to be SHIPPED network ready. So as soon as you get home, you can be online. This wasn't the case with the PS2, and I never bought the adapter to go online with the PS2. But one of my first games for the PS3 was Warhawk....an entirely online game....which is a completely new concept for me and many other people.
So now alot more people are getting used to the fact that games can be played with alot more people. Then alot of publishers starting placing MP aspects in their games. But I do think Activision centered their efforts on MP, and did elevate with each passing year. But I do not think they are solely responsible, or even that they are the driving force for the MP boom.
2 up, 0 down
kraygen
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 12:09:38 PM
Reply
Their sales have become so insane that many devs have begun to think that mp gaming is the only way to achieve those huge sales. So while it wasn't their idea, they are definitely responsible for more and more devs going that route.
1 up, 0 down
Radiohead
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 12:11:00 PM
Reply
5 up, 1 down
jimmyhandsome
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 12:39:51 PM
Reply
Xbox Live also helped paved the way for console gaming. Streamlining voice chat, friends lists, and putting out titles that NEEDED to be played online (Halo 2 back on the original xbox....and even Halo 1 lan parties before it). Call of Duty has taken advantage of the age we live in, the games before it and the online infastructure thats already in place.
4 up, 0 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:47:00 PM
people don't like to here that, but it's true. i also have to again mention my frustration in so few using a mic on psn. i spent an hour looking for someone that uses a mic in re5. been eating alot of static in the socom 4 beta as well. getting ready to take crysis2online so we will see.
listen, i think psn is great becuase it's free. i have not encountered any lag or anything. it's just a little lonely out there.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 3/28/2011 1:51:20 PM
2 up, 1 down
jimmyhandsome
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 2:39:52 PM
Playing KZ3 on PSN can feel like you're playing against bots sometimes. Its so refreshing when you actually have a few people on your team with headsets. This concerns me a little bit about SOCOM 4. Based off of past titles, the online matches are so much more enjoyable when you have teammates playing cooperatively by COMMUNICATING with you. Granted I can't compare that type of game to KZ3 where it's less important to have a headset, but if its any indication of the general PSN community its not looking good.
2 up, 1 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 4:18:23 PM
sony should absolutely bundle a mic or headset with every ps3.
1 up, 1 down
Excelsior1
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 4:18:24 PM
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 3/28/2011 4:31:10 PM
1 up, 1 down
BeezleDrop
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 12:47:30 PM
Reply
I really cannot thank Activision for anything because they are furthering the idea that FPS mediocrity is well accepted by all gamers of all shapes and sizes. I can however appreciate the competition that has come from other Dev's trying to top their own MP experience.
3 up, 1 down
Lawless SXE
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:22:55 PM
Reply
They didn't start it. Not by a long shot. I remember playing Counter-striek Source back in my school days, along with Starcraft and a few other such games. Activision went a long way towards popularising it. The first game that quite a few of my friends played online was a CoD game, and GH is the go-to party game, so in my experience, they certainly played a part.
Peace.
2 up, 0 down
FM23
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 1:49:29 PM
Reply
0 up, 3 down
gangan19
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 5:44:14 PM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 6:18:33 PM
Reply
More like we could dog on Activision for ruining this generation with mindless sequels.
2 up, 0 down
Lairfan
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 6:22:18 PM
Reply
And I will not thank them for it. If anything, I'll curse them for the "lack of single player focus" disease that they seem to be spreading to many, many other devs. It would be completely antithetical to my views on gaming to congratulate them for this.
2 up, 0 down
Snaaaake
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 9:32:14 PM
Reply
Need I say more?
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 @ 2:01:35 AM
Reply
Nooo, Quake ffs! ID Software started it all in the late 90s. Quake Arena was multiplayer only (you could practice against bots offline, that's all), and thus not only for the hardcore but the masses. Quake sold bucketloads.
It all started with Quake.
Last edited by Beamboom on 3/29/2011 2:01:45 AM
0 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Reply
Monday, March 28, 2011 @ 11:06:00 AM
However, I think COD is to blame for a ton of things FPS related however.