That is the point. They are no longer committed to SP experience.

People on this site came lamenting that SP experience was being destroyed by corporations.
When one of the favourite companies announced they drop their commitment to SP, suddenly, the tune is changed: something good might come out of it.

Double standard people.

No. People like what they like, they enjoy what they enjoy.

Others discuss tastes and likes and quite often to push them over others'tastes.

It is about being committed to SP. Developping online features show commitment is abandoned.

Being committed to something for no rational reason is potentially harmful. I wouldn't want people with that kind of irrational mindset to govern policies related to their irrational point of view.

So, people who dismiss any kind of online integration as "bad" no matter the specifics - should be ignored.

And, fortunately, they are.

Rationality means little these days as many things under double standard people.

Beside, this tends to discussing tastes whereas it was told not.

People can like as much as they want their vid products released by a company no longer committed to SP, it wont change the company is no longer committed to SP.

Being commited to something doesn't mean to the exclusion of everything else. You can be committed to your girlfriend without abandoning your job or familiy, for instance.

So, that's yet another irrational point of view. Irrational meaning it's not a logical conclusion - no more and no less.

The only way to know if they're commited to SP or not - is to play the game.

Or to watch others play.

As for the rest, it is only shifting.

It is not about commitment, it is about commitment to SP.

SP is exclusive to online features. Including online features means dropping the commitment to SP.

I'm afraid commitment is about commitment - in the real world. No, SP is not exclusive to MP features. Having multiplayer features doesn't magically remove SP or high quality SP content.

Well, not in the real world - or the rational world.

A great example for demonstration purposes would be System Shock 2. That game was released without multiplayer - and wasn't intended as a multiplayer game at all. Cooperative multiplayer was added in a later patch almost like an experiment - and made for an absolutely fantastic multiplayer experience.

What you're suggesting is that means they weren't committed to SP - and that System Shock 2 doesn't make for a great singleplayer game.

I guess I don't have to explain why that seems off.

You don't seem to understand the concept of commitment. What you're thinking of is exclusivity - which is something very different and doesn't relate to anything CDPR has said or promised, as far as I'm aware.

You seem to be suffering from not being able to think in nuance - and you seem unable to even entertain the notion that other people might do just that.

Not to watch game streams? :p

In my experience, watching other people play is not the best way to achieve certainty about a game and its qualities.

So, if you want to be sure how a game plays, looks and feels - you have to run it on your own rig and experience it like it was meant to be experienced.

A video is a great way to get a "sense" of a game - but unless you watch hours and hours of it - including the beginning and ending - you will invariably miss a lot of potentially important details.

It has nothing magical.

SP implies the existence of one player in one place.

MU implies the existence of two or more players in the same place.

One player occupying one place relieves from synchronizing: a SP is always synchronized with oneself, no matter what.

MUs are quite different as they must include incentives for players to synchronize.

Example: day/night cycle. In SP, its management is left to one player. If a player wants to play through the night or skip it by sleeping, it adds no constraints.

In MU, it adds the constraint of agreement between players: they either play through the night or skip it together. One can not play through the night and the other skip it.

I'm confused.

You seem to be saying that I couldn't play, say, Original Sin 2 alone and not depend on other players.

I'm afraid that's not true. I can play that game alone without "synchronizing" anything with anyone.

Even so, it has a great MP mode as well.

Conclusively, you're wrong and you're not making any kind of sense.

Chien: Format C: /s [Enter]
Yes [Enter]

I *think* what he is saying is that MP will prevent some features in SP. His example is you won't have day/night cycle in game if it has MP mode. Does OS2 has day/night cycle?

Edit: to be more specif, you can't control day/night cycle. For example, Skyrim has day/night cycle but the player can control it. However if Skyrim has MP mode, then chances are the player won't be able to control it even in SP. Or something like that….

You seem to be assuming that any online or multiplayer elements means a company isn't committed to single-player. I'm curious as to what brings you to that conclusion.

Yes, I sort of got that. What I don't get is how that means you can't be committed to great SP.

That makes zero sense.

Unless you think in black and white - and only 100% focus on SP to the exclusion of everything else is what you're talking about.

But, again, that's exclusivity. Commitment is a much broader concept and will always be subject to point of view and personal preferences.

For instance, would D:OS2 be a better SP experience with no MP? It certainly could be.

In a meaningful and significant way that changes the experience in a wholesome manner? That's much more doubtful, but that's still possible.

However, we're talking about commitment. Commitment is about investment and dedication.

In other words, we're asking if, say, Larian was invested in and dedicated to creating a great SP experience.

To me, the answer is utterly obvious - whether you happen to like the game or not.

Apparently, Chien doesn't think Larian was committed to making a great SP game.

I claim he's entirely and obviously very, very wrong.

Yes I agree. SP and MP are not mutually exclusive as he claims. I think the same game can be both great SP and MP. Yes you might give up some SP feature but MP in game is also a great feature. I am willing to give up control over day/night cycle without a thought if it means having MP! The MP in Neverwinter night made up for the short coming of the boring main campaign!

Agreed.

But, yeah, some people think the quality of a game is based on how many resources you dedicate to making it.

The real world is slightly more complicated than that, though. At least, such would be my claim :)

Chien, I think commitment isn't the ying/yang you think it is.

You can "commit" to someone or something without diminishing or degrading "commitment" to something else. The term "commitment" doesn't mean I'm locked to doing one thing and one thing only. As Dart pointed out, that's exclusivity.

I'm committed to my partner as a longtime consort, just as I am committed to my friend as a longtime companion. My appreciation or "commitment" to them isn't diminished because I'm not exclusive to one person. I can dedicate time to them both in different ways.

I believe it is possible to compromise a single player experience by adding multiplayer to your game, as the potential for developers to emphasize focus on multiplayer is always there. However, I also believe it's possible to deliver a product that has a stellar single player campaign while featuring multiplayer.

I don't ever think it will be as black and white as "the moment multiplayer is added, the game's single player is ruined".

With this and the rest of your posts in this thread you only demonstrate my point.

I thought of expanding on the above, but going down that road is a point I don't see.

Quite meaningful that people keep shifting to commitment when the point is about commitment to SP.

Even better when on this site, this all subjective thing prevails and suddenly, commitment which is subjective is not.

Commitment is subjected to what is committed to.

Relation:

Case one: relation with a partner includes faithfulness.
Case two: relation with a partner does not include faithfulness.

Case one: having an affair ends the commitment to the relation.
Case two: having an affair might not end the commitment.

When a job demands secrecy, leaking info ends the commitment to the job etc

As often, that could have something behind it if people stick behind their own course of thoughts, but generally, that type is the first to drop out of it.