As for the snobbish elitism of gamers, I'm not convinced it's as common as you seem to think. Sure, there's always a vocal minority on the boards every time something like this comes up. But for a lot of people, a publisher's / developer's insistence on modifying a product for wider appeal signals a fundamental shift in design strategy and priorities. It shows a willingness to modify or discard other aspects of the game (which may be part of the reason current fans play at all), in order to lure other sorts of fans (which may or may not be interested anyway). 

We have to understand that the gaming world isn't just divided into 'hardcore' and 'casual' as so many seem to think. Within either of those categories, there's a lot of diversity and variation in what we actually find enjoyable to play. Personally, I don't like first person games. It's not just the hyper-militarized power fantasies or shooting of all the foreigners (though certainly, that's why I don't play CoD/Battlefield), I actually find the perspective and motion unnatural and a little bit nauseating. I'll make the odd concession for a truly stellar game, but I'd rather 3rd person it up all day. 

That's a small example, and there are many others. Point is, there are certain design choices in games that are popular, yet some gamers find unsavory. It's not elitism, it's a desire to continue to enjoy the franchises that you do in your little niche of gaming space, irrespective of whatever else is selling 11 million copies. And it's frustrating for many fans of an established series to see a pub/dev go this route, because those 11 million are already so catered to, while a gamer who doesn't necessarily enjoy what they do is left with a handful of titles per year. It's why people freaked out when From said Dark Souls II was going to be 'more accessible'. It's not elitism in the sense of  'I won't enjoy this game if you can' (at least not for me, and I suspect not for many others), it's a desire to see continuity with the design choices in the series that made people fans of the game in the first place - design choices that might have frustrated or alienated some other players.

Now, does multiplayer necessarily affect the design choices of single player? I'd argue (as below) that yes, it can.

SP and MP budgets aren't always separate though. I remember reading an interview (on this site?) last year with one of the lead developers of Spec Ops: The Line. If you recall, the game was received as an average-esque shooter in and of itself, but praised for its narrative by all on high. Anyway, the gist of the interview was that they had to pull resources that were aimed at making the single player experience even better, in order to develop some thrown together multiplayer that no one played, and no one liked. So yes, apparently it does happen.

Now, how common is this sort of thing? Problem is, we don't really know, and sources of information are scarce and anecdotal at best, nonexistent at worst. When fans get worried, there is often a reassurance by a publisher that 'this will in no way affect the quality of the single player experience'. I'm willing to throw those statements out wholesale, not only because they're vague and unverifiable, but also because it's in the publishers direct financial interest to convince potential buyers of the superior quality of their product. Don't think a corporation would lie to you to get your money? Grow up.

So, we're left with the sometimes random outpourings of frustration from blindsided dev teams, which frankly I'm willing to meet with far less skepticism, as it's not really in their personal or financial interest to go flinging this stuff around in public (and probably to their detriment - which also means these sorts of things are less likely to enter the public realm). So, it's likely a hell of a lot more common than we think.

I gonna have to mostly disagree with this.  I think sometimes gamers do go to far like in the case of mass effect 3 but they do have valid points more often than not. In many cases its a mix and there are valid ignorant views mixed in with the reasonable like with Bayonetta 2. If you look at the fanatics than yeah its silly they way people omplained but talk to reasonable people and you just see disappointment not in the fact that nintendo saved it but in that many if not most people who played bayonetta do not intend on getting a wii u abd thus a great series with a metric ton of potential might be lost to them. Its hard to stay interested and or excited in a game you cant play. Ill admit though some people are ignorant and blame nintendo, but in reality yes they saved it.

In the case of tomb raider though there's some valid issues there imo. You said it yourself that tacked on MP can be a desperate attempt to appeal to more gamers and it pretty much id say it is  99.9% of the time. You also argue that Resources spent on MP don't have to cut into the SP but they do. Any time and or money spent on it is time and money taken form the SP part of the game even if they have a separate team working on it. The sp will suffer for an MP mode that most hardcore and causal alike wont care about. TR is a classic and the things that made it great to all people not just gamers by the way was the strong SP elements. The story, adventuring,  puzzles ect. People who know this also know that its not the type of stuff that works well with MP anything they do MP wise is gonna be purely so that they can say on the box MP included.

The worst part of all is the assumption  that this tactic of adding MP leads to more sales which inst true. Stats probably do show that games with MP have more sales but in reality its games like COD, BF, and Halo that bring in those type of numbers for MP not TR. Id argue that it has the reverse effect because the industry has a history of doing this to games and now people are aware of it when they were at first. Making a better game period will lead to more sales period. 

Now i wont say that im gonna ignore TR completely because it has MP whe i havent even tried it yet but from what ive seen of it it and facts like that i cant say im excited for it. They are clearly trying to go the COD blockbuster route with it and i dont think its a good fit for TR imo. Its like taylor swift making a hip hop album. Not because im a self entitled gamer that dosent want anyone to enjoy TR. I actually want as many people to enjoy it as possible but i dont think many people will this way which could be bad for TR as a whole and i would hate to see TR fade away.

If it comes it and is an awesome game then great but all my exp as a gamer is just screaming average at best.

I'm not sure the new "Tomb Raider" really needs competitive multi-player modes, but a 2-Player Co-Op feature can make sense within the context of the storyline.

Ideally, the best case scenario would be if the developers had great Single Player & Co-Op Modes in the game.

Honestly, I wouldn't lose sleep or get angry over the inclusion of any Multi-Player in "Tomb Raider." If I personally felt so strongly about disliking the addition of Multi-Player Modes in this title, I would just avoid it altogether.

But seriously, in the grand scheme of things, TR is a video game. At the end of the day, it's entertainment. There are plenty of other choices to pick from should this game suffer from the inclusion of MP.

Also, we could simply wait for the game to be released first (and to play it for ourselves), before drawing any harsh conclusions about it's overall quality.

Multiplayer won't cause me to not play a game. But to be fair look what happened to Mass Effect 3. They spent so much effort on the new multiplayer that probably could've been spent on making a better ending for singleplayer. lol

I can't stand multi-player, too many rude idiots and just running around the same maps shooting people. Still, MP won't stop me from buying a game if the SP is good and not short.

"Other people want to play my game, so I no longer want to play it."

LOL.

that's not the reason I don't want games to have MP.

Title is misleading. I thought this was going to be a discussion about the hipster tendencies of some gamers. But I'll go ahead with the argument you've presented.

The issue is that once again a normally single player game is having multiplayer shoved into it because developers are still struggling with how to make games more profitable beyond the yearly release cycle and to keep players from trading in their games. To be blunt, it's just lazy. Rather than devote time and resources into creating new content for after launch, the industry has realized it's more cost effective (read: cheap) to create a multiplayer component and release map packs. Granted, this doesn't mean it can't be successful. Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is fairly good. And it works because it actually has an impact on the main campaign. However, more often than not, it feels tacked on and has the bonus effect of cheapening the package as a whole. The single player campaign might be made of pure gold, but if the multiplayer is a stinker, it's going to weigh the whole thing down. There's nothing like spending $60 for a full-course meal where the steak was great but everything else was utter crap.

But I think you're misreading who multiplayer is aimed at. Multiplayer in games such as Tomb Raider are not made for casuals, quite the opposite in fact. Multiplayer is specifically designed to capitalize on the competitive voracity of hardcore gamers. The ones that need to be "in the fight" as often as possible. The ones who will shell out $15 for map packs. You tell a casual player that they can get four maps for $15, they'll laugh and move on to something else.

As for Bayonetta 2, people are understandably upset because a game they really want is being released only on a console that they have no interest in. And for a lot of them, that might actually be the only game for the Wii U they would ever care about. If they want Bayonetta 2, they also have to shell out at least $300 plus the game just to get what they want. And then it becomes an even bigger slap to the face if the game turns out to not even take any meaningful advantage of the system's hardware.

Is there some hyperbole from the consumer base? Undoubtedly. Is there some overreaction? Yes. However, these are legitimate complaints and concerns regarding an industry that can't seem to pull its shit together. This is not an issue of casual versus core, but rather an issue where consumer expectations are being poorly gauged by the industry.

Seems like just another apologist post for the industry. People clearly have legitimate concerns for the game.

lol the new tomb raider sucks not because of the multiplayer

but the REBOOT

Developers can learn a thing or two from Dark Souls when it comes to MP or just general game design. None of these QTE's and handholding bullshit. The new Tomb Raider appears to be just another generic action title with more emphasis on cutscenes than quality or novel gameplay. Its corporate guff, do not want.

The reason people don't want multiplayer in Tomb Raider is because it doesn't NEED multiplayer. It just seems that they are putting it in just for the hell of it, and it takes away from single-player. Tomb Raider has always been a single-player experience, so this sounds like a gimmick tacked on at the last minute.

I hate to be "that" guy, especially since this was very well written and I agree with you on just about every point, but...

"Even if that is true, can you blame them for wanting to make more money? It's a very harsh industry out there. Lots of studios have been closing their doors lately. If they get a few more bucks from tacking on MP modes, then let them do it. Just don't automatically think the single player suffered as a result."

This same concept applies to The Hobbit, but you were bashing on it for being a cash grab in another blog's comment section. The concept applies to everything, not just games. Just because that movie was lengthened into a trilogy for cash purposes doesn't mean the story will suffer as a result.

Aside from that, I fully agree with you. A very intelligent look at this issue.

Well written, and I agree with you on the first point about Tomb Raider and MP.

But I would have to disagree on the Beyonetta 2 issue, some people might think of it in the way you said, and that is kinda ridiculous, but most people (at least the people I have spoken to) aren't saying they don't want the game because it's on a kiddie console as you put it, they are simply annoyed that it is going to be on an console most of them aren't even going to consider buying. Sure it's a novel idea, but a lot of people, myself included, are just not interested in the tablet controller or the WiiU in general.

I had the same reaction when Dragon Quest 9 was made for DS, I'm not into handheld gaming, only handheld I owned was a GB Color which was a gift, and I borrowed a PSP from a friend to play a couple of specific games (crisis core and 3rd birthday) other than that I just don't play handheld games, so yes it pissed me off that the sequel to one of my favorite games of it's generation, and probably the the generation after it (not many games beat it for my on PS3 either) was going to be for a gaming device I will simply never consider buying for myself. I didn't say the game should never be made, and PS to handheld is a bigger leap, but since it is going exclusive to a device that is comparable in processing power, it rankles all the more.

Sorry, Wall of text :P

Excellent post.

that's called a "poser". i don't even readed your thread by the way. i know you're a poser too. idiot.

People just like to nitpick on the smallest things in video games. It gets pretty ridiculous sometimes.

You mix two different things. Not wanting resources to be wasted in a MP mode which will be a slight diversion for the CoD crowd in detriment of the SP experience (and yes, there is little doubt it always is in detriment) is not elitism. It's simply players that aren't attracted to MP (we still exist, FYI) wanting, god forbid, that their wishes as consumers be considered too. Far from elitism, just common sense, really.

A stand alone game is becoming an ancient idea in the 21st century. Developers sell us incomplete games so we have to buy add-ons and the next installments. The old teddy bear has its place in our hearts but at sometime it only becomes a fond memory of our childhood.

You make a good point. personally I am not one for multiplayer and see no need for it in a game like Tomb raider but I wouldnt let the tacked on MP mode deter me from playing the game.

Well written and well thought out blog! I personally don't play much MP and am frustrated if too many trophies/achievements are on-line based!

The underlying message that gaming is about having fun is bang on though!

I guess we'll need to go online to earn trophies again? Another platinum trophy denied to me simply because I dislike playing online with others. Wonderful.

If feels tacked on. gamers are allowed to express their opinions especially when sooo many other games out there have set the precedent that if it includes a MP mode, and it was once SP only, the experience will be lacking in every way including length and depth etc. In a desperate attempt to appeal to everybody content will always go south. So what's wrong with complaining about it? Personally I tire of every last developer out there feeling the need to add MP to EVERY game. God of War? Really? Dead Space? You can choose to not believe me all you want, but more than half the time with games like this, the online community is short lived, and then everybody is back to COD or Halo. The problem with this is now you are stuck with a 60 dollar game, nobody online to play with anymore, and a very short SP game. Still, I don't care how many people play the games I like. Where did you pull this information from? I don't think I have ever heard a single soul say they didn't wanna play a game b/c other people are playing it. So this article baffles me beyond comprehension.

What bothers me about it is that they just out of the blue announced a multiplayer mode just 3 months away from release. It makes me feel like they just tacked it on last minute in order to attract a few more buyers.

Interesting and a nice read as well :) 

I do find it kinda obnoxious when every studio feels obligated to jam multiplayer into every game, even those it has no reason to be in. Though having said that I wouldn't turn my nose up at a game just because they added multiplayer, I'd care wether the single player was good or not. Also, hardcore don't get pissed off when casuals play their games(at least I don't), we get pissed off when our games are turned into casual games. The dumbing down of the entire genre for casuals is really annoying to those who like depth. Turning all rpgs into action games, strategy series into fps(i'm looking at you syndicate) just turns really great interesting things into just another face in the crowd. It's mainly just hardcore complaining about the direction of the industry though. Oh and I don't care about tomb raider since it hasn't been relevant since the playstation. If this game is really good I'll give it a 2nd look though, multiplayer or not.

Uncharted... a tomb game with action shooting and ONLINE but did it sell well??????