Rumor: Tomb Raider Reboot To Feature Multiplayer [Update: Confirmed]

Single player only is becoming a lost commodity in gaming. Multiplayer is how companies feel they can sell more units of the game. I prefer the single player experience myself. I do play mp (mostly it's been ME3), but I don't need it to get replay value out of a game. I don't know, it's almost like game companies are afraid to release a hgh profile game without mp anymore.

This oh so much. With multiplayer games like Halo and Call of Duty: Insert Subtitle Here selling so damn much, the game industry now thinks they can generate a ton more revenue by slapping on multiplayer so that more people will buy it.


Look at Metroid Prime Hunters. Single player was atrocious because development was focused on multiplayer in a series where it's NOT about the multiplayer. Resident Evil 5 and 6 practically force co-op onto you if you want to be able to get the full experience of the games or you'd have to deal with shoddy partner AI.

With DLC and expansion packs being the norm now, it's only a matter of time until nearly everyone will be making games that only will guarantee profits long after release via DLC and updates to the mutiplayer.

And also, FUCK no to multiplayer in Tomb Raider. The series are about Lara Croft, not some throwaway characters that no one is going to care about.

Does it really matter in this situation? Adding Multiplayer to increase sales, I mean. Do they really believe anyone is going to buy the game for a chance at "an exciting new multiplayer experience" rather than the single player experience the game is intended to provide? No. Will it be a waste of resources for Squenix and Crystal Dynamics? Yes. The cost-to-benefit ratio just doesn't add up as a smart financial decision, but then again, that would fit in with Square's busness model of the past several years.

I'm still extremely excited for the single player, though. I desperately hope Lara can reclaim her former prestige.

I'm excited too, just because it's Lara getting the M-rated treatment. But yeah, tacked-on multiplayer just makes a game look pathetic. I've played a lot of short single-player games this year that I thought were a lot of fun (Binary Domain, Syndicate, Inversion, Spec Ops: The Line, etc), but when I jumped online afterward, the fact that there was nobody else playing multiplayer just made me feel embarrassed for the game. Of the games I mentioned, Syndicate was the most lively, probably because it offers something different than "Play deathmatch over and over and rank up to level 50!" so hopefully TR goes that route...

I just traded Syndicate toward something without ever touching the multiplayer mode. Now I feel like an idiot.

I couldn't agree more. The only games which make a killing because of multiplayer are games which are designed from day 1 to BE multiplayer, and often have a "tacked on" single player game no one cares about.

I guess there will be people that will buy DLC for multiplayer, which may increase profits, but it'll cost money to develop those (unless we have a Capcom Jr. on our hands) and I really doubt the gaming community as a whole will give a ****. At this point, no game is going to steal any of the spotlight from F2P shooters, CoD, Battlefield, or Halo, so what's the goddamn point?

To be fair, Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect both have a decent multiplayer community, but those are only two of maaaannnnnyyyy...

Tacking on multiplayer can actually harm the game's narrative. The story is supposed to be about a young woman making her first kill, surviving the wild, slowly becoming the badass tomb raider we know she is destined to be. This progression is touted to run over several games, she will not be a complete badass by the end of this story. And then BOOM - multiplayer! You're Lara running around with a huge arsenal, mowing down noobs, laughing as you go. If the multiplayer mode is anything like this, it will be a complete disconnect from the world the single player game works so hard to craft.

Worse yet, resources could be taken away from the single player game to work on a mode I will probably never touch.

For some reason all I think of is this turning out like Bioshock multiplayer.

Anybody remember that? No? That's my point.

Do I play multiplayer games like BF3 for the single player? No

Do I play single player games like bioshock for the multiplayer? No

Mass Effect 3 is only a example in which they forced people to play some multiplayer to get the best ending and then they patched it shortly after so you could get the best ending without multiplayer.(ME3s multiplayer wasn't bad but you can tell overall the game just needed a little more work even if its multiplayer was don't by a different team, plus I hate the contriveness of forcing people to multiplayer)

I was actually surprised to find myself enjoying ME3 multiplayer. Once I finished the campaign I never touched it again though.

Yea I don't have a whole lot of faith in the multiplayer either. Although I will point to another game that people were scoffing at that added multiplayer and it turned out to be very well done; Uncharted. Which also is a game that is somewhat like Tomb Raider. Now do I expect Tomb Raider's multiplayer to be anywhere near as good as Uncharted, no I don't, but I'm just saying there's a small sliver of hope lol.

Uncharted's multiplayer was pretty generic and boring. It would have been fine without it. It honestly didn't need the multiplayer.

I have a feeling it's going to be like all the tacked-on multiplayer in ever single player story driven game. I'm going to try it once, then I'm never going to touch it again, then in turn feel maybe more single player content could have been developed had they not wasted time on it.

My faith in this game just dropped some. Whenever a single player only game adds multiplayer, they usually don't concentrate as much on a solid campaign. I don't want tacked on forced multiplayer that will have empty servers 6 months after release. Not everything needs multiplayer damn it!