Topic: The big problem with online specific games

@Rudy_Manchego so the solution is to have bots populate the server if no one is playing!

@themcnoisy Or AI - but at least an offline mode with bots. I miss bots because they actually serve as pretty good training to learn maps and build up skills before you head online. Also, it means that great MP games can survive servers being turned off.

@Rudy_Manchego Agreed. Gundam vs already has AI (not very good admittedly) but I would be happy to battle it out with them in the online mode rather than just survival. Crazy really.

Bots are OK in some games - Like CoD for example but pointless in a fighting game. Might as well just have a career mode and a 'free match' option too so you can pick your character and the character you fish to fight. A lot of co-op campaigns have an AI partner for offline - if they have a '2nd' character. I don't think AI companions work in 'horde' modes or games where you have players against AI. Would Evolve work with Bots? I guess if you are the Monster but not so much if you have 3 AI team mates against an AI monster. For racing games, they have career and free race where you can set up the number of racers, their difficulty etc so already have that in place.

As I said, games like CoD do have Bots and you can set the match up how you want - inc unbalanced teams - you against a team of 10 Bots for example or have some Bots on your team. You can also play these matches offline with couch co-op, online with friend(s) and even a mix of both couch co-op and online too.

Most 'great' MP games won't matter too much if the 'short term' because if they are great, they will have a long active life anyway. The big issue is when a mediocre/poor game (at least compared to others within the genre) lose that community. That was the main issue that @themcnoisy was bringing up. Its not that games like Evolve have had the servers turned off and are actually still fully 'functioning' in that respect - its the fact that the community has decided that the game doesn't have what it takes to keep their attention long enough to actually provide a player base for these games to 'function' as they were intended.

Its the equivalent of buying a Single Player game and getting bored long before ever reaching the end. However, the difference here is that at least you can play to the end IF you so desire and at least give it a chance to see if it actually grabs you. Again , its a bit like TV series where the audience dictates the life regardless of 'individuals'. If the Audience votes by switching off, the series will die and some can die very quickly. For us in the UK, we don't even get to watch the first episode of some shows and by the time it airs, its cancelled. Now I could do my research, find out if it actually runs the full season or even see if its been 'renewed' before I start to watch or start watching, get fully engrossed and enjoy it only to find out that it didn't make it through to the end or that the 'cliff ender' will never be resolved.

If you want to get the best out of any Online game, its ALWAYS best to buy at or within the first week of launch. If it gets better after that, you already have the game and take advantage of that or if it 'dies' a month or two later, at least you got to play 'some' of it - maybe see why it died and be part of the cause of its demise. At the end of the day, these games live or die based on their community. Devs can make changes, add new content etc but its not easy to bring gamers back. Titanfall lost a LOT of its playerbase and the addition of a 'horde' type mode, customisation etc all came far too late to bring the player base back. Bots wouldn't help it although it may attract a few newcomers but the old guard have moved on and if they didn't return for all the free customisation and Horde mode, then why return to play against AI? Its really only for the tiny portion of gamers that 'missed' out when these games were active and few that actually didn't get bored but found it increasingly difficult to play. I still think Bots though is a 'good' idea as it can be used to warm up before jumping online, give late-comers a chance to get up to speed and offer an option to those who don't have PS+/Gold - opens up a bigger user base for potential sales too. It seems that PS+ owners for example (31.5m at the start of the year) account for around 50% of the total PS4 owners so offline options open up the other 50% as a potential sale.

Anyway, the point is not every game is a success - whether its online, offline or a combination of both. With Online games, its 'usually' better to buy as close to release as possible to ensure you get some value from the game but, like with SP games, research is still important (If in doubt, you read reviews etc so why not do research on an online game) - especially if the game is in a well represented genre and/or its 'niche' if you intend to buy at a later date. There are online games from Last Gen that are still perfectly playable online with a fairly active community (Black Ops 2 for example). Like devs don't set out to make a poor SP game, they don't set out to make a 'poor' online experience that's only intended to last a few weeks - even 'good' games will struggle to survive long if they are competing with 'heavyweights' of the genre and/or 'excellent' games - as Titanfall 2 proves. If its 'niche', then it has a much greater chance of dying but it can also keep a 'dedicated' community who are more into the 'niche' than the mainstream - but it will obviously have a much, much smaller community.

To me this all makes sense! I don't know anyone with a braincell that would buy 'Evolve' - even for £3-5. I could see someone maybe buying CoD: Ghosts or Battlefield 4 for that price. Both are still 'active' and even if you were unsure of 'how active', both offer offline and or 'local' options.

Whilst we know that eventually servers will be turned off, whether that's with the game or console, the chances are you could still play these games over LAN (if you all have the same update). If online etc is SO important for the 'long term' then I would advise you quit consoles now and move to PC's. As long as there are people online gaming, these games will work - hardest part, like with ALL MP games maybe finding enough people that still want to play these OLD games when there are newer, better games available...

Even though some games like CoD for example the community expect and understand that each game has a one year life cycle, granted developers could change this by stop doing annual releases like Ubisoft did with Assassin's Creed series or even like Blizzard does with Overwatch just continue supporting said game by adding new content like maps, weapons, etc. rather then just bringing out a new game entirely.

@Tasuki CoD has a 'Season' but that doesn't mean that at the end of the year, the game is dead. Old games have received additional DLC weapons and camo (although not 'that' old but still outside of the season) and BO3 received the Zombies DLC bundle too. I doubt they will take a year out considering they have 3 main studio's developing the games in a rotation and being a 'Big' eSport game, each new season also has a 'new' game - The DLC is more for the community anyway as the DLC maps are rarely (if ever)used on the eSport circuit. They could copy Overwatch and make DLC for as long as the community continue to buy that games Loot boxes - even if the next studio have released their new game but they will still be working on their 'next' CoD that will be released 3years after their CoD released.

I am sure that if Overwatch hadn't been as successful and the player base had moved on, you wouldn't have seen the support continue - especially if they weren't getting income from loot crates. Games like CoD commit to a season and sell a 'season pass' - although they could always sell a 'season 2 pass' I guess - but games like Overwatch will only be supported as long as there is player base spending a steady stream of income to Blizzard to keep making updates. Therefore they are still dependent on whether the Audience is on board. I bet Blizzard didn't set out a plan to still be supporting the game but because its still popular and generating money, its continued to get support. Battleborn could well be still ongoing and getting regular content if it had survived too.

They certainly aren't doing it for 'free' either but because the player base are spending money, they are continuing to support it. As soon as the money stops coming in, then so the updates will dry up too. Maybe they will make 1 or 2 more updates to try and entice their player base to buy loot crates but if they don't sell, they will stop making new content. Games like SW:BF2 that promised 'free' DLC for the game will no doubt have DLC cut or cease development unless EA can re-introduce the Micro-transactions to fund it. They never said how many drops the game will get but it won't get many more unless they start getting more money in - regardless of whether the player base is active. They can turn round and say the promised to give free DLC, which they have - especially if they drop 1 more but if the Micro-transactions were selling, that game could go on for several years.

@themcnoisy Unreal Tournament had great bots indeed. Used to set up games with bots all the time and it was great fun.

@JJ-Firl It was a ton of fun for sure! Get the flak cannon out.

@themcnoisy Me and a bunch of mates have an annual Christmas LAN-party, strictly Unreal Tournament 2004 and Age Of Empires 2 all night long!

We've been doing this for like ten years or so and it's a huge tradition and even some of the guys who are not really into gaming anymore attend. Our lives have changed a lot but that night we revisit our teenage years again.

Sorry to have gone a bit off-topic: I agree with most of the sentiments expressed here. Online specific is fine but having enough offline options is mandatory.