Irrational Confirms No Multiplayer for BioShock: Infinite

[Guest]

No multiplayer mode for BioShock: Infinite, confirms Ken Levine via Twitter.

Irrational Confirms No Multiplayer for BioShock: Infinite : Read more

 

[bryonhowley]

Good concentrated on the Single Player that has always made Bio Shock great. There was never any need what so ever for any multiplayer of any kind in this game. Glad to see they have seen the light and pulled all the multieplayer for this game.

 

[rodbowler]

I am happy to hear this. Multiplayer would be a distraction.

 

[overlyconfident]

2K Games

 

[rawoysters]

bryonhowley, I agree 100%. It's always been about the story. I just hope Infinite is a good prequel to the original.

 

[abbadon_34]

good, hopefully they'll just focus and making a good game instead of multiplayer crap like everyone else

 

[lemlo]

Here, here! This is a solo campaign franchise, glad to hear it.

 

[fightingslu]

http://imgur.com/r/gaming/EaLRA

 

[manofchalk]

I'm fine with this, Bioshock has always been about the Single Player and I wouldn't get it for any reason but. Much rather a better single player campaign than a tacked on multiplayer.

 

[ojas]

I like the fact that they're trying to release a polished finished product rather than simply playing me too. Thumbs up Irrational!

 

[dark_knight33]

Of course, if Irrational were under EA or Activision, this would have gone in a different directions. Here's one for not being under the thumb of a tyrant! Hooray Irrational!

 

[Cryio]

YES! GREAT single-player campaign please. Although I don't worry since Bioshock 1&2 were astonishing

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]dark_knight33[/nom]Of course, if Irrational were under EA or Activision, this would have gone in a different directions. Here's one for not being under the thumb of a tyrant! Hooray Irrational![/citation]
activision its debatable, but ea has a guy that bragged about how he refuses to greenlight anything without multiplayer.

 

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]activision its debatable, but ea has a guy that bragged about how he refuses to greenlight anything without multiplayer.[/citation]

Which is quite amusing to see how ridiculously ignorant EA has become. It's not like they even had a good reputation before that statement but it just goes to show that EA will always find a way to further degrade itself.

Could you imagine if Bethesda was working under them? They wouldn't have given Skyrim a chance a game that has sold over 10 million copies in 2011 alone and let me remind you the game released in November 2011. So in about 2 months sold that many copies. Yet EA thinks that single player games are incapable of selling. They are complete idiots.

5 years ago their stock was worth $60 a share. Today it is about $14 and usually is less than that.
EA is a perfect example of how not to run a business.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]Which is quite amusing to see how ridiculously ignorant EA has become. It's not like they even had a good reputation before that statement but it just goes to show that EA will always find a way to further degrade itself. Could you imagine if Bethesda was working under them? They wouldn't have given Skyrim a chance a game that has sold over 10 million copies in 2011 alone and let me remind you the game released in November 2011. So in about 2 months sold that many copies. Yet EA thinks that single player games are incapable of selling. They are complete idiots. 5 years ago their stock was worth $60 a share. Today it is about $14 and usually is less than that.EA is a perfect example of how not to run a business.[/citation]

the way i see it, ea kind of runs in cycles. they go from complete mosnter, destroying everything, to a complete turn around that allow them to release some great games, think of around when dead space was released, and than it would come around again and ruin crap like them forcing origin down out throats.

also, skyrim as we know it would not have been released, but i know several people who would rather have had the game have coop or something along the lines of multiplayer.

right or wrong for a company to refuse multiplayer... its hard to say, i play a crap ton of indie games that are single player only, but i also come across some that are totally fine multiplayer games...

its hard for me to condemn ea for the must have multiplayer in it because any game i got from them would have had multiplayer regardless of it it was forced ot not. the only game that it ruined for me so far was sim city, as i will not buy a game that requires origin, as i got hacked and ea is pathetic in terms of security.

 

[jerrspud]

considering the connectivity issues and the rather bland gameplay that BioShock2's multiplayer featured, it's not much of a surprise that Irrational decided to stick to familiar ground.

considering that Bioshock 2 was not made by Irrational should make you reconsider that surprise

 

[acadia11]

Why can't it have great both, I 'd work on multiplayer as expansion, I mean come on the bioshock universe is interesting in of itself to warrant it. I think it's ripe for multiplayer

 

[NuclearShadow]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]the way i see it, ea kind of runs in cycles. they go from complete mosnter, destroying everything, to a complete turn around that allow them to release some great games, think of around when dead space was released, and than it would come around again and ruin crap like them forcing origin down out throats.also, skyrim as we know it would not have been released, but i know several people who would rather have had the game have coop or something along the lines of multiplayer. right or wrong for a company to refuse multiplayer... its hard to say, i play a crap ton of indie games that are single player only, but i also come across some that are totally fine multiplayer games...its hard for me to condemn ea for the must have multiplayer in it because any game i got from them would have had multiplayer regardless of it it was forced ot not. the only game that it ruined for me so far was sim city, as i will not buy a game that requires origin, as i got hacked and ea is pathetic in terms of security.[/citation]


Making video games isn't easy. It's very time consuming and even worse developers are almost always given a shorter than required time to make it to begin with. Would Skyrim be a better game with Co-op or even a large multi-player? Likely not because it wouldn't have been under the conditions needed. This wouldn't have added time to the development of the game. Instead it would have taken the precious time the developers had to have to focus on it as well. Everything from the developer to the tester's time. This would have impacted the game's quality giving the gamers a inferior product.

This is the reality of the situation. Of course we are speaking hypothetically when it comes to Skyrim if Bethesda was under EA. However we see it effecting their current franchise that they do have. You brought up Dead Space which was a decent game but the first was a rare exception that actually let the dev's focus purely on the core game itself and not have to slap on multi-player.
Of course they are now ruining this for the third game and it's likely going to receive poor reviews and sales thus killing a franchise that had a-lot of potential.

Even a hardcore fanboy of EA couldn't dismiss that it's choices is what caused 76.6% of worth lost in stocks. To fall 3/4ths like that is terrible management that has to stem all the way to the executive level. There is no way anyone who knows even a sliver on this subject could see EA as doing the right things.

P.S. Your indie game example isn't accurate as those are normally developed until the developer/s feel ready to release on their own accord. Not having to deal with a publisher during the development period.

 

[flavorflavious]

That's too bad. I really enjoyed co-op in System Shock 2.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]NuclearShadow[/nom]Making video games isn't easy. It's very time consuming and even worse developers are almost always given a shorter than required time to make it to begin with. Would Skyrim be a better game with Co-op or even a large multi-player? Likely not because it wouldn't have been under the conditions needed. This wouldn't have added time to the development of the game. Instead it would have taken the precious time the developers had to have to focus on it as well. Everything from the developer to the tester's time. This would have impacted the game's quality giving the gamers a inferior product. This is the reality of the situation. Of course we are speaking hypothetically when it comes to Skyrim if Bethesda was under EA. However we see it effecting their current franchise that they do have. You brought up Dead Space which was a decent game but the first was a rare exception that actually let the dev's focus purely on the core game itself and not have to slap on multi-player.Of course they are now ruining this for the third game and it's likely going to receive poor reviews and sales thus killing a franchise that had a-lot of potential.Even a hardcore fanboy of EA couldn't dismiss that it's choices is what caused 76.6% of worth lost in stocks. To fall 3/4ths like that is terrible management that has to stem all the way to the executive level. There is no way anyone who knows even a sliver on this subject could see EA as doing the right things. P.S. Your indie game example isn't accurate as those are normally developed until the developer/s feel ready to release on their own accord. Not having to deal with a publisher during the development period.[/citation]

i think that a large ammount of that stock fall was due to rockband more or less collapsing

yea i know that games are hard to develop, and that they can be time consuming, but really the only time that games are rushed that i can see is if its a movie tie in, or even with more testing and development wouldn't get better because of major flaws.

as for time consuming,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCThInmzjXw
7 days and made one hell of a fps experience out of it.
yea i realise that it is a simple game, but still

now, with multiplayer, you don't need to re balance a game for it or without it, i said a key word there, need. skyrim with multipalyer would more or less just be skyrim with a companion that isn't stupid, hell if friendly fire was allowed, than you may have just made the game harder without a rebalance.

and yea, when games just throw the multiplayer in there, you can definitely feel when they give a crap about it or not, but there aren't that many of them because even full release games that are multiplayer focus i can argue are worse than some games multiplayer afterthought games.

and with dead space, yea, it will probably take out the isolationist feel the game had, but to call it outright breaking the game... i dont thing that's fair till it comes out. because they could separate the two players and you need to get to goals or objectives on your own, but in tandem. bring about team work but also makeing you on your own.

resident evil 5 fell on its face in that reguard, but was a decent action game,
this game will still be a good action game, but it may just not be scary any more.

 

[progoth247]

they could at LEAST install story co-op online. saints row 3 doesn't have multiplayer but it has co-op online so this would be a better alternative. (saints row 2 had multiplayer but it was a bit bland. then in the next one they only put co-op in)