Why are all good ole 80s cult franchises bound to be released as ASSsymetrical Multiplayer-Only crap?

First FRIDAY THE 13TH, then PREDATOR, so was THE EVIL DEAD as well as the upcoming THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and now Killer Clowns From Outer Space

It´s true, gaming was having its best days, the industry are money-addicted powermongers, devs are stupid, publishers greedy and games just suck monkeyass...

...fu** em all!

Probably due to the success of Dead By Daylight. Devs wanting to cash in on that.

Ghostbusters: The Video Game is a thing. May just be a port of an older game but it's still kinda what you are looking for.

Probably worth looking into Terminator: Resistance by Teyon too, and they're working on RoboCop: Rogue City, which I believe is also Single-Player focused. The team also made a Rambo game but I've read they've come along way since that disaster.

As such seen the same argument be made when games are only Single-Player, honestly plenty of both so I don't personally consider it an issue.

Plus I read the Evil Dead game is pretty good. Was considering looking into it with a few friends once all the major bugs are ironed out.

Multiplayer games also typically make more money and sell more copies. Because it incentivises more people to get a copy to play together, not to mention all the add-ons they typically add to multiplayer games.

Despite peoples gripes with Dead By Daylight it is also a remarkably fun multiplayer experience and a long-lasting love-letter to horror fans.

That´s why we are getting flooded with BATTLE-ROYALE multiplayer-only games since PUBG.

Of course they all want to have a big piece of the cake, so then there we have way too many multiplayer-only games and as a matter of fact those who aren´t top-notch are already struggling to keep their heads over water at their initial release dates, so then most of them are good as dead two or three years later.

There are countless Steam User-Reviews claiming "Don´t even bother, dead already!" and so are games getting flushed down the toilet! It doesn´t even matters much if its F2P or a 60 Bucks title, coz once there aren´t enough users playing, servers will be shut down and then you can´t even play it if your life depends on it.

Are in fact all multiplayer-only games making more money while selling more copies or did you actually wanted to say "They just try to make more money and sell more copies."?

@wladolfputler: ”all good ole 80s cult franchises”

You pretty much answered your own question: These are cult IPs. Asymmetrical games are cheaper to make than a full-fledged adventure game, or something open-world, so slapping Evil Dead or KIller Klowns on one of them makes the most financial sense.

Asssymetrical Multiplayer-Only games are cheaper than regular old-school Multiplayer-Only Games and this is why CULT FRANCHISES have been picked for that?

Or isn´t it more the fact that sadly the same sack of shits who already made FXIII are also making those other CULT FRANCHISES along with the fact that those CULT FRANCHISES are "just" having one or a handful of VILLAINS/HEROES so that makes it "great" for asssymetrical crap rather than "regular" multiplayer-only games to begin with?

Does this really answer my question at all?

My point is, they could as well make a "cheap" HITMAN as well as other certain well-known-games being asssymetrical multiplayer, so why don´t we still have those yet but instead almost the complete bunch of classic horror-cult franchises from the 80s.

They could service Fans with giving every one of those lousy asssymetrical-bullshit-games at least the same style of "Hitman-Mode" they already gave FRIDAY THE 13th, which was actually a great success with people loving it. But no. It has to be cheap!

But it´s ok, if all games are asssimilated with asssymetrical retard-games because it´s so cheap and rewarding for devs and publishers, then i probably have to just swallow that buttugly shitpill.

Can´t wait for HALO turning asssymetrical cheap crap shit or better yet STAR WARS or why not making an asssymetrical GTA-ONLINE shit-game.

Fu** that cheap-shit asssymetrical industry and their fu**ing cheap shit, worthless asssymetrical crap games.

@wladolfputler: Nah a lot of those multiplayer games do sell more units and are played more than the single-player alternative. This isn't me twisting the knife it's just factual, as I too enjoy many SP games.

Just look at the top selling/ most played games of all time and you'd be hard spent to find one of those being a single-player game with no multiplayer.

Grand Theft Auto V sells as well as it does because online, and less so its campaign. Genshin Impact, Minecraft, League of Legends, Among Us, PUBG, Roblox, heck even Tetris technically is popular due to multiplayer, even Tetris 99 was a huge success.

One could argue the intent of multiplayer over single-player for many developers is the aim of making profit, though it's a case by case basis.

For all we know the developers who happen to grab these IPs also specialise in making multiplayer games as well and wouldn't succeed in making a good single-player experience anyhow. Speculating doesn't really get any of us anywhere, as we simply do not know the reasons why, we can only make vague guesses.

That is a great example because...and i am probably getting virtually stabbed, hung, beheaded and strangled now....in my opinion GTA V is the most overrated and overhyped game ever, with its campaign sucking monkey-ass just as GTA IV already was so bad at, so i actually spent way more time with GTA V´s online-game rather than wasting my time with its dead-boring single-player missions...

....and that´s coming from a person who stopped playing multiplayer games already years ago and one who honestly HATES them.

The general question that interests me: Were gamers actually ever asking for so many multiplayer-games we are having these days, or is the industry forcing them upon us so they can milk us like a bunch of cows?

No doubt there are many successful multiplayer-only titles, but in my opinion we already passed the point of having enough of such titles, so what´s following now is the industry forcing us to buy and play that shit...

....and if one day, all single-player games are gone and worthless multiplayer-only titles exist...next to free2play titles of course, then this is the final end of gaming, at least to me as i rather start sniffing crystal meth than playing multiplayer-only games with mentally challenged and thinking-impaired russian kids who are constantly yelling awkward things into their mics.

Never been one to call a game "overrated" myself, ironically the term is a bit. . overrated.

Regardless it's just easy to pick apart games like Rock Star open worlds when they fail at basic gameplay fundamentals/ mechanics in the hope that gimmicks will win me over. I find this very common with the genre in general. Typically all sense of level design is thrown out the window.

Haven't played a Grand Theft Auto game, let along the really popular one. I did try the first Red Dead Redemption a long time ago and just wasn't for me for many the reasons I note above. Usually people praise the size of the world or its story; meh.

As flawed as they are much prefer Bully and Manhunt if I had to pick games by RockStar. They just seem more focused.

Understand why some people find multiplayer, online multiplayer to be exact, off-putting.

It's about the company one keeps on my end. Relying on randoms for a fun gameplay experience when plenty of competitive environments are toxic and unwelcoming isn't ideal.

Now that´s ma boy!

I am so happy to see at least a few people who didn´t fell victim to brainwashed Red-Dead-Redemption-Rockstar brainwash-tactics, giving so much "realism" with a game when in fact it is just making the gameplay DEAD-BORING rather than something new, interesting let alone being something "amusing" to begin with.