We used to have a big action packed multiplayer game, in fact I would have called it a massive action game.
Them were the days.
Finally, the structure of my question is that you would have to disprove every possible outcome to be correct and I would just have to have one that would likely be beneficial. That's statistically in my favor by quite a bit.
Someone doesn;t know what exclusive means.
Y'know, it's quite funny that you say that, because Titanfall is not an XBOX ONE exclusive. It is also coming out on PC and 360. There's a high chance that Titanfall 2 will be coming to PS4 and other platforms. Titanfall is currently stuck with XBO/360/PC because EA bet on the wrong pony for this race.
Also, if Titanfall is to be considered an "exclusive" for the XBO, then Planetside 2 and DC Universe Online are exclusives for the PS4. DCUO is quite big and doing well. It's likely that PS2 will be big on PS4. And then MAG F2P/MAG 2 will come and dominate everything.
Bring MAG to PS4!
Interesting topic. I'm going to state that the following my not be too popular here, but it's true to the best of my knowledge.
I agree with the title that "Sony lacks a big MP game" if it is qualified with the game being 1) a shooter, and 2) 'big' meaning sales over 5 million per release. There isn't any debate that Sony does not have a huge selling, exclusive shooter on par with their main competetor. That is a fact. Is it the end of the world? Nope. Is it an opportunity? Yep.
For reference Halo 3 and 4 sell around 10 million units (give or take with 3 being higher and 4 being less). Killzone sells at best 1/3 of that. Uncharted 1/2 at best. Resistance, MAG, Socom, Warhawk (and I LOVED Warhawk), Dust, etc. just can't be considered on the same level as a Gears (sans Judgement) and nowhere close to a Halo. You're kidding yourself if you don't think TitanFall with sell at least 5 million copies with ease.
So, I agree Sony needs an exclusive shooter that sells over 5 million per release (preferably ~10 million). I would prefer it to be an FPS.
First of all there is nothing wrong with multiplayer itself, as some have stated it creates longevity of game play..
But there is a down fall to having multiplayer on games.
And that is since it is on the disc they shorten the single player story mode..
Which to me is ridiculous because games used to be 15-30 hours in story mode...
Its crazy how they added multiplayer and the story mode went to 4-9 hours...
More if you do side quests, but side quests aren't the game they are something the dev threw in because they were lazy...
Killzone and Resistance are awesome games, they just have to take those games to a whole new level now, they need to be made bigger, focus more on multi player then the campaign. As big as battlefield 4, for some reason the developers for those games refuse to believe that is the best option for the titles. But really, Killzone and Resistance on a battlefield scale, made and balanced right with tons of personalization, customization, and weapons! Who wouldn't enjoy that. Maybe Sony can buy the rights to make another Quake Wars (made by DICE)? or Tribes (Like Tribes 1 of course)?
They should make MAG 2 and have it 400 players. Is that "big" enough"?
Zipper is no more, that game was going to be Socom, it was also going to be 3rd person. Who knows what it'd be like if they tried to make another, in my opinion it was sort of a accident. It was fun ( the first year) but I don't think 2 would be better. They'd have to do alot more to make it good, 3 maps got boring fast and not many weapons.
Resistance was already pretty big. R:FoM had 40p matches, R2 upped it to 60p clusterfrags, and then R3 happened and...well, we don't like to talk about R3. Killzone 2 was 32p. So, FoM, R2, and KZ2 were already bigger than last-gen console BF. FoM and R2 had pretty good customization/personalization.
Why do people seem to forget about quality over quantity? MAG maps were great, they had a lot of rereplayability. The maps for ACQ were essentially 2 maps in 1, and the maps for DOM were 4 maps in 1. Black Ops had more maps at launch than MAG did, but just about every single one was dull off the bat. Of course, that might be more to do with CoD's gameplay being boring...
Too many weapons makes it difficult to achieve proper balance. It's why BF and CoD lack good weapon balance nowadays. Don't get me wrong, weapon variety is nice, but not when it's just for the sake of having a higher quantity of them. R:FoM had good weapon balance overall; there were only 8 firearms and 3 grenades in the multiplayer. Each weapon was unique and useful for a certain situation. KISS principle, less is more, etc.
I find it kinda funny how some of the best games [FoM and MAG] tend to be "accidental".
Also, Quake Wars made by EA/DICE...
I agree Sony really needs that one huge MP game experience exclusive to Playstation. The closest they've come to accomplishing this was with Uncharted 2 & especially UC3 (which has remained extremely active going into it's 3rd year). Naughty Dog & Sony dropped the ball with how they handled the online though.
Going free-to-play definitely helped keep UC3 active.
Bring MAG to PS4!