Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Bethesda Explains Why There's No Multiplayer in Wolfenstein

By - Source: Eurogamer | B 26 comments

There will be no multiplayer in Wolfenstein: New Order. End of discussion!

Bethesda VP of public relations Pete Hines recently spoke with Eurogamer to talk about the company's recent E3 portfolio which only consisted of The Elder Scrolls Online, Wolfenstein: New Order and The Evil Within. What I totally missed last month and didn't even think about while capping Nazis in the upcoming shooter was that it will not have a multiplayer component. That's surprising given that the game, at least in my opinion, screams deathmatch and capture the flag.

"We talked to Machine Games about the game they wanted to make and multiplayer wasn't in their thought-process," he said during the interview. "We're not going to force it down their throats and say, 'well, the last games did, so you have to do it.'"

"These guys do cool stuff," he added. "If you look at The Chronicles of Riddick or you look at The Darkness, those games have a creative element to them that is similar to the things they're doing in Wolfenstein and that's what attracted us to them, and that's what attracted us to their vision of Wolfenstein. And we said "okay, run with that." We're not going to say, "Oh, we'll find somebody else to do the multiplayer." Wolfenstein: New Order is as you describe it. End of discussion."

He also shot down rumors that Bethesda showed Fallout 4 to certain members of the press. If the company did, I didn’t have any part of it. The appointment consisted of (1) watching The Evil Within gameplay, (2) watching Wolfenstein gameplay, (3) playing The Elder Scrolls Online for 30 minutes and (4) playing a level of Wolfenstein. Any possible showings were likely conducted elsewhere in the convention center's little dedicated "offices".

Nevertheless, Pete Hines is denying any Fallout 4 showings during E3. "[We're] not talking about what those guys are up to," he said. "They just announced they're moving on to their next project and it is going to be a long while until they are ready to talk. And that's true of all of our studios, whether that's Arkane or whomever. When these guys move off a project- these are not short cycles. You should not expect within a day, week, month, or even a year, that they're just ready to roll out the next thing."

Hines also talked about Prey 2, the second game Bethesda has rejected within the last six months, following id Software's Doom 4. Like the latter demonic shooter, the Prey sequel just didn't live up to Bethesda's standards. The Doom 4 team started over whereas the Prey 2 project was handed over to Arkane Studios who thus rebooted the project and dumped everything Human Head Studios did into the trash.

"We were clearly not happy with where Prey 2 was in terms of where it was in its development," he said. "We're obviously very disappointed that we spent a lot of time and effort and a considerable amount of money supporting the development of that project to make it a great game. But it was also clear in development that it was not hitting the high bar that we'd expected and agreed to. That's ultimately where it rests. We're not going to continue with a project just because we said we were going to make it or people are interested in it."

"If and when we have an update beyond that, we'll let folks know," Hines added. "We understand that folks are disappointed. They're certainly not more disappointed than we are in how all this has played out given our commitment to the game up to that point, but we're not going to blindly stumble ahead if the game isn't living up to its promise."

Display 26 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    brandonjclark , June 22, 2013 6:54 PM
    There's absolutely ZERO requirement to add multi. Just make a great SP campaign. Thanks.
  • 0 Hide
    rohitbaran , June 22, 2013 7:07 PM
    Wow, a really good decision. Better not add MP if the developer doesn't want to add it.
  • 0 Hide
    brucek2 , June 22, 2013 7:32 PM
    Wow an entire press statement consisting of direct talk, good decisions and common sense. Don't see that too often.
  • 0 Hide
    Yuka , June 22, 2013 7:36 PM
    Well, since RAGE MP sucked donkey marbles, I'm not amazed at this decision at all, haha.

    Good call on focusing in the SP and make it a great product instead of giving a half-assed product on both fronts.

    Cheers!
  • 0 Hide
    knight_of_baawa , June 22, 2013 8:16 PM
    Multiplayer = a bunch of 13 year-olds thinking that "ur mom" is funny. Glad that it won't be in Wolfenstein.
  • 0 Hide
    killerclick , June 22, 2013 8:51 PM
    No need to explain, Bethesda. Skyrim and Fallout 3 were single player only, and they did... alright. :) 
  • 0 Hide
    eklipz330 , June 22, 2013 9:14 PM
    it's ok. i can understand why companies want a multiplayer aspect in their games, but these days the multiplayer segments are so diluted, those games aren't even delivering replay-ability. so in my eyes, this was a very good decision. we need more single player stories. just dont make them the standard $60 pricepoint unless it runs a couple hundred hours.
  • 0 Hide
    renz496 , June 23, 2013 12:48 AM
    i actually like when publisher giving more freedom to developer on what they want to do with their games. unlike EA that every game must have MP element or else your project will not get approved. i still remember how yje dev for Spec Ops The Line states that MP makes them to ditch some of the gameplay element they intend to implement because it will not make sense in MP aspect.
  • 0 Hide
    bryonhowley , June 23, 2013 6:49 AM
    Glad to see that. I have zero interest in any multiplayer in any game anyway. Wish all developers would do this. Single player should be first and foremost with multiplayer thrown in if they have time if not no biggy.
  • 0 Hide
    jack1982 , June 23, 2013 6:51 AM
    Thank god there's at least ONE publisher out there who still cares about us people who like single-player and doesn't have to make every damned game to appeal to the Call of Duty kids.
  • 0 Hide
    renz496 , June 23, 2013 7:18 AM
    it is fine for game to have MP if it making sense to the genre and the dev themselves want to do it. but i don't like it when the MP is forced to the game especially the one that has heavy focus in SP. for example how many who play Dead Space game interested with it's multi player portion?
  • 0 Hide
    Vorador2 , June 23, 2013 7:53 AM
    Now they can pool their resources in making an excellent SP. Now they don't have any excuse.

    Please be good.
  • 0 Hide
    dextermat , June 23, 2013 8:54 AM
    Sorry be in 2013 multiplayer is a must... just hurting your sells.
    What so hard in making a single player campaign + co-op at least.
  • 0 Hide
    hotsacoman , June 23, 2013 9:29 AM
    I think this is a bad idea. One of the best multi's that was ever released was RTCW and of course its successor, the original Enemy Territory. On top of that, ET was free! Hell, all they would have to do would be to copy the system of the previous games with the new maps. Slight modifications would be included to account for multiplayer, but other than that it would be just as amazing as the previous games.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , June 23, 2013 9:47 AM
    Quote:
    There's absolutely ZERO requirement to add multi. Just make a great SP campaign. Thanks.


    Quote:
    Sorry be in 2013 multiplayer is a must... just hurting your sells.
    What so hard in making a single player campaign + co-op at least.


    personally, i dont care much for multiplayer online, i prefer lan and bots if i do play multiplayer
    co op requires either a complete rebalance of everything, or always haveing an ai partner, who... has never been done well in a game once, it would kill single player. if you go a CoD co op... that is what most people play in those games with single player being throw away, but its also another design choice.

    now if i remember right, return to castle wolfenstein was the multiplayer gold standard for a while, i didn't have a computer/ good enough computer when it was still popular, so you can see why multiplayer in this game is a bit more than a "oh yea we need to check this box to" it was literally the CoD of its day, where people played the game at times just for multiplayer.

    i seriously doubt they will be able to make me care about this game with single player only, so it will be another game i add to my "if i see it for less than 5$ list"
  • 0 Hide
    bustapr , June 23, 2013 9:51 AM
    i like that theyre giving free reign to the dev team. I just hope machine games didnt just get cocky and signed a contract like Obsidian did for Fallout New Vegas. Make a good game that sells good, but falls short 2 points on metacritic to the agreed score, they get screwed over while bethesda swims in money. I certainly hope this isnt the road bethesda still takes.
  • 0 Hide
    clonazepam , June 23, 2013 10:23 AM
    Having a multi-platform game (PC, xbox/360, and PS2/3), and having it have to fit on a single disc, obviously the platform with the smallest storage space, hurt the game's potential. Then when forcing a multiplayer aspect, and having to devote a significant amount of storage to that, really killed a lot of solid single player games' potential. A great example was when Splinter Cell started out as single player, and then they moved to adding a multiplayer component. The single player campaign's length most of all, and other aspects suffered greatly in my humble opinion. The multiplayer game was different and fun to me for a few minutes but I would have much rather had the full single player experience, which to me, felt like it was literally cut in half. I wish they'd had the sense to say NO to multiplayer for the SplinterCell series back then. I still love the franchise but the single player game wasn't worth the sticker price since adding MP.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , June 23, 2013 11:31 AM
    Quote:
    Having a multi-platform game (PC, xbox/360, and PS2/3), and having it have to fit on a single disc, obviously the platform with the smallest storage space, hurt the game's potential. Then when forcing a multiplayer aspect, and having to devote a significant amount of storage to that, really killed a lot of solid single player games' potential. A great example was when Splinter Cell started out as single player, and then they moved to adding a multiplayer component. The single player campaign's length most of all, and other aspects suffered greatly in my humble opinion. The multiplayer game was different and fun to me for a few minutes but I would have much rather had the full single player experience, which to me, felt like it was literally cut in half. I wish they'd had the sense to say NO to multiplayer for the SplinterCell series back then. I still love the franchise but the single player game wasn't worth the sticker price since adding MP.


    no, just no... its not a space issue. multiplayer reuses many assets from single player with very little being multiplayer only, in terms of crap that takes up space. now the code and the framework to support multiplayer, that can take up a bit of space.

    here, look at a game with full modding. unreal tournament 3, a recent game i got as an example. the levels themselves are relatively small, 30-60 mb range, and allot of what i'm looking at isn't reusing assets at all.

    with splinter cell, that is hard to say. the multiplayer i only got to play a little bit of because i didn't have a cable modem at the time, but what i did play was honestly, some of the best the game had to offer. and if i remember right they had co op for the game after... was that co op only stuff or main missions now with co op?

    i think, at least in splinter cells case, the game was served well by having a shorter main story with multiplayer, but it came out before online multiplayer really took off on consoles.

    now, to go back to the space issue. dragon age on the console came on 1 disc.
    dragon age on the pc is 20gb...
    they can compress the hell out of things to get them onto consoles, or in masseffect 2s case, multi disc it, and that was 15 gb.
  • 0 Hide
    GagaTroll , June 23, 2013 5:05 PM
    i miss the multilayer of return to the castle Wolfenstein
    though they are going to do a similar one here
  • 0 Hide
    Aidan Brenkovich , June 23, 2013 9:29 PM
    Because Wolfenstein Enemy Territory worked out so badly... oh wait one of the gaming communities favoured memories for all those that ever played. That xp system developed what Teamfortress did and I doubt tf2 would be what it was today if not for W: ET
Display more comments