With everything going online these days, it’s a sensible question to ask.

Multiplayer is increasingly being tacked on to games on the market. Often when the game is primarily sold on it’s single player story. Developers and publishers seem to believe multiplayer is a necessity. It becomes a problem though when the single player development takes a bit of a back seat.

We had a lucky escape when Microsoft first announced the Xbox One claiming it was always online and this couldn’t be turned off like an on and off switch. But surely enough, after all the backlash, it was. And Microsoft completely reshaped the Xbox One’s idea for fear of players dropping support of it.

There are still people out there who haven’t got proper access to the internet. They could likely download updates from using an internet connection elsewhere but sitting down and playing a full game online with a stable connection would be a no.

Money is also a dangerous prospect to consider with online. Such as back in 2011 when Sony’s servers were hacked and millions of peoples personal information compromised. It just comes naturally that people expect these big brands to be absolutely safe with customers accounts but nothing completely safe and nothing at the end of the day is unhackable. But security must be an extreme issue to consider when most people’s lives are held online.

Gaming has achieved new heights by utilising the internet and is allowed to constantly evolve. Other players can see what you’re up to or communicate across the world. A community is bound together, they don’t have to be shut out, they can be social if they choose to be.

For example, players in Dark Souls can leave tips and warnings in the world on what the player behind them can expect to run into ahead of them. This sort of communication between players is a very useful tool and will no doubt be used in many brands in future,

Players very soon will be able to take over control of their friends game. Virtually passing the controller. Which is extremely useful if your friend or you are stuck on a certain section of a game and need help.

And now with Sony’s programme to allow players to play the same game together without the other even owning the game is very generous Only if it is only for about an hour.

All these features very promising if they work the way they should.

In Playstation Home, you used to have to queue just to play a simple game of bowling. People don’t want to have to wait in real life to do something, only to go into a virtual world and have to wait there too.

With what’s recently happened with Driveclub, online problems because the servers can’t cope with the large waves of gamers trying to get on at the same time. It makes a point that companies need to be more prepared for high influxes of customers. ¬†The Playstation Plus Edition is still yet to release on the store. But why don’t they release it warning people they won’t be able to access the online yet. Let them play through the single player? Maybe it’s a marketing trick to reel in the people desperate enough to play that will give in and pay full price for the full game.

Big games like Grand Theft Auto V were also experiencing problems at the launch of their online component. Too many payers trying to access at once and the servers receiving a crippling.

Games such as the Call Of Duty series have made great success of online gaming and have became mainstream enough to become a household name.

Online means players can be always up to date with the latest news and reached much faster by game companies trying to sell their new games. Experience of buying can be personalised, the customer being shown a recommended lists on past purchases showing them something that may also interest them and the chance to discover something they might not have otherwise.


Online brings fantastic features and possibilities but they need to be guaranteed to work and be efficient enough to support the ever growing community.