New Watch Dogs Multiplayer Details – “Seamlessly” Overlaps With Single Player, Elements of Player Invasion

In a recent PlayStation Blog update, Sony listed seven things you need to know about Ubisoft’s upcoming open-world title, Watch_Dogs.

As it so happens, one of these seven items talks about the game’s multiplayer, set in the streets of Chicago, and how it will “seamlessly overlap” with Watch_Dogs’s single player experience.

Watch_Dogs will feature a full-blown multiplayer mode set in the mean streets of Chicago, though final details are still under lock and key. More intriguing is that multiplayer and single-player will “seamlessly” overlap, an effort by Ubisoft to demolish the wall that has divided single-player gaming and multiplayer for decades. This interconnectivity will extend to a companion experience on mobile devices, though details remain scarce.

Both in-game and in general, Watch_Dogs seems to be all about interconnectivity, as Ubisoft has stated that they intend to create an experience that will “revolutionize the way players interact with each other.”

In addition, Joystiq reported that Watch_Dogs will feature elements of ‘player invasion’ as a form of multiplayer.

During a recent press event, Ubisoft Montreal Senior Producer Dominic Guay said that the team wants to ”to start breaching the wall in action-adventure between single- and multiplayer.” He pointed to the conclusion of the game’s E3 2012 demonstration where another player hacked into the protagonist’s cell phone to plant a virus, and then to Sony’s PlayStation 4 unveiling where the game showcased a player being watched by someone who had hacked local security cameras.

Lastly, he mentioned a mobile companion app would allow users to interact with console players through their smart phone.

Check out some more Watch_Dogs open-world gameplay courtesy of RajmanGamingHD.

Watch_Dogs hits current- and next-gen consoles, as well as PC on November 19.

  • http://www.facebook.com/hollywoodkills Blaine Reinsma

    soooo Ubisoft will require an always-online connection to play the single-player, and they’re disguising it as a “interconnectivity feature.” FUCK you ubisoft.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mike.oneal.984 Mike Oneal

      Dark souls had the same idea and it never required you to be always online to play the singleplayer.

    • MegaMan3k

      They explicitly stated the entire single player game can be played offline. Not that I think they need to do that. I’d personally rather see it require the interconnectivity. The game, the world, the story, are all based on it. Why are you afraid of it being part of the game?

      • Oblivion_Lost667

        It’s because of the fact that if you don’t have internet access (Whether it be because you’re moving, you can’t afford it, or it’s just not working), or you have shit internet, it means you CANNOT play the game. It’s a bad system to FORCE people to have an internet connection to play it.

        • MegaMan3k

          Then don’t buy a game that requires internet.

          • http://www.facebook.com/hollywoodkills Blaine Reinsma

            You people dont get it. This game CAN and SHOULD be playable without internet. It’s a single-player open world campaign just like Skyrim or Far Cry. Where I live, Comcast is the only option and they SUCK in this area. There are ALWAYS connection problems and if I’m going to be booted out of a SINGLE PLAYER game simply because my internet connection goes down, that is absolutely ludicrous.

            Believe me, I would like the interconnectivity stuff if I could do it. But my connection simply isn’t reliable enough for that and I just want a solid, solo, single-player experience.

            • TheTruth

              Yea I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with these people. Always on is obviously so limiting. Wait till PSN goes down, and you guys can’t use your PS4 at all, because there’s no network to connect to, so these “innovative, single player, interconnected” games wont work at all. Lmao. Idiots. They must not remember when PSN went down for like a month last year. LOL- just wait- Mp1st will be filled with these very same people complaining- they will quickly forget how “always on” is somehow “innovative” please. Have fun with that.

        • http://www.facebook.com/AnonTheGreat Patrick Matthew Barahona

          I agree completely.

        • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.huggins.7 Thomas Huggins

          Why spend hundreds of dollars on a console just so you can play by yourself or possibly split screen with a friend?

          • http://www.facebook.com/hollywoodkills Blaine Reinsma

            Because you can still fully enjoy a game like Skyrim or Far Cry by yourself. In fact it’s most enjoyable that way – freedom to explore a massive world at your own pace with no interruption or constant competition.

            • quitcomplaining

              then stick with those games, no need to complain about developers innovating

            • Oblivion_Lost667

              Removing the an option is NOT innovation, since when does removing offline play equal innovation?

            • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.huggins.7 Thomas Huggins

              It’s the seamless overlapping of all modes of the game that’s innovation.

          • Oblivion_Lost667

            Why not? There are tons of games that are a LOT of fun that are single player only, don’t hinder others simply because you think everyone should think or play like you do. Examples being Far Cry, The Elder Scrolls, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Limbo, Metro, The Witcher, Portal (Started SP only, SP is still a major selling point), Half-Life, Batman: Arkham City/Asylum, the list can go on and on.

            • MegaMan3k

              The argument that because a game can be fun in singleplayer, all games must have singleplayer, is tantamount to “if multiplayer is fun, all games should have multiplayer.” I’m not saying that no game should have single player. I’m saying that single player is not inherently required, no matter how subtle the multiplayer experience may be.

              The community needs to get over this notion that singleplayer is somehow the default to which all games must conform. It’s restricting game design.

            • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.huggins.7 Thomas Huggins

              I don’t think everyone should be forced to have an Internet connection, I just implied I don’t see point in spending hundreds of dollars on console/games just so you can play by yourself.

    • RyMann88

      Clearly you haven’t been following the game at all. Since they’ve started to open up more about the MP they’ve repeatedly said that you DON’T have to use it or even be connected to the internet to enjoy the game. Always-On DRM is a failure and Ubisoft knows this. Hell, they’ve already said they’re changing their philosophy on DRM with this gen of gaming.

  • http://twitter.com/blondbassist blondbassist

    For fuck’s sake Watch Dogs, You’re making me empty my Shit Bucket twice a day now.

  • http://www.facebook.com/TheNeoReaper Chad Eugene Rash

    So bethesda does this with Brink & it gets shit on. Ubisoft does it & all praise the holy gaming gods. So ubisoft is taking a page from Activision with steal, copy, & paste.

    • Guest

      Wait how?

    • mrneoshredder

      The reason Brink got shat on wasn’t the binding of SP with MP. It’s the glitches, the lag, the horrendous teammate AI, the fact that Carb-9 is the most overpowered weapon in the game, the minuscule number of maps and how each map only has one game mode, the spotty parkour system, the lackluster narrative, and the fact that Bethesda rushed it weeks ahead of schedule.

      Not to mention it was a complete ripoff of TF2, yet TF2 surpasses it many times over (and it was made 4 years before Brink).

  • NO

    Elements of player invasion? Pre order cancelled.

  • Meh

    Really this game is starting to feel like it is a Phone tutorial. That is all I have seen is a guy in a trench coat with his phone. Sure it it will be cool to hack people in the game but once you do it 100 times who cares. I am not convinced yet on this game. First its by Ubisoft so i expect massive amounts of bugs and rush to release. Then they have not showed some solid gameplay to convince me this is not Sim City Phone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000473322091 Jeroen Jacobs

    drewlllllllllllllllllllllll

  • http://twitter.com/MrACRedwine Andrew Redwine

    Based on the footage I’ve seen so far, MP may end up something like this:

    - Host plays as Aiden, while everyone else jumps into their game as hackers
    - Players choose whether to help or harm the host (digitally and/or physically)
    - Some level of customization
    - XP for upgrading hardware and software, plus weapons and more
    - Everything stays with you in SP and MP: no separate game saves except for character skins

    These are just based on what’s already been shown. Feel free to reply with your 2 cents.

settings

close