The Last of Us Part 2 has no multiplayer

Naughty Dog/Sony Interactive Entertainment
If you buy something from a Polygon link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

Contrary to earlier statements, Naughty Dog has confirmed that The Last of Us Part 2 will not have any multiplayer components. One of its developers confirmed the lack of multiplayer to Polygon at a press event in Los Angeles this week, reversing earlier statements that indicated the game would not be a strictly single-player experience.

“Multiplayer will not be included with The Last of Us Part 2,” said Anthony Newman, the game’s co-director. “I know we had kind of announced that [it would have multiplayer], but as the game has developed, it’s become so ambitious, so grand in scope, and so intricate in its complexity, that it really required the full focus of the studio to deliver this single-player experience.”

This is a shift from an interview Polygon did with Newman back at E3 2018, when he said: “There is going to be multiplayer with the game ... We’re really excited to share details about it, but that’s going to be at a later date.”

That doesn’t rule out the possibility that future Naughty Dog games will feature multiplayer modes, though. Newman mentioned in this week’s interview that “attentive readers will have noticed our job postings,” likely referencing open positions for multiplayer roles at the company. The postings don’t detail which games or franchises these positions would be working on.

The Last of Us Part 2 is scheduled for release on Feb. 21, 2020. Read our hands-on preview to learn about one of the more terrifying enemies in the game, attack dogs, which bring a new level of regrettable brutality to this already harsh world.


Genuinely disappointed. TLOU on PS3 was the last time I got into online multiplayer. I have been looking for a good jumping back in point with any new game and my hopes were on this sequel. Nothing out there really captures my multiplayer tastes right now.

I know this kind of announcement is usually met with a good riddance from gamers, but it’s a loss imo.

The multiplayer on TLOU was absolutely incredible. Yes, the story was amazing but the multiplayer definitely helped push it into my top five games of all time. The pacing, the teamwork, and the terror were all just pitch perfect—haven’t had that in a game since*.

I’ll still get the game, but it will be more to play through the campaign and then move on I guess.

*PUBG and Ghost Recon Wildlands were closest, but the tone was never perfect.

Yeah, I’m definitely going to pick up to play the campaign. And the update about a likely stand alone multiplayer is good news, though worried it will be f2p with all of those trappings.

Hmmm, please clarify.

No multiplayer at all, such as the various modes offered in the original? Or no campaign multiplayer opportunities, i.e. you and a friend controlling Joel/Ellie (for example) in tandem at times through the game?

Would be a shame if the answer is the former; I enjoyed the multiplayer modes in TLOU #1 quite a lot. Actually, I still play it once in a while and might jump back in if the multiplayer community gets a playerbase boost from the PS+ offering next month.

None at all, it seems.

I was tempted to just post "Good." but I guess it’d be unfair to people who like online multiplayer modes.
But I can’t help it, seeing how online multiplayer has killed off solo DLCs for GTAV and RDR2, I’m still glad that at least, this won’t be happening with this game. And the first game had a very good story DLC too…

Well, Uncharted 4 and The Last of Us 1 had multiplayer, and they both got expansions (well, the Uncharted DLC got spun off into an independent title, but you still got it if you ordered the DLC).

You’re right and that was true for GTA4 as well. Naughty Dog might not follow the same path as Rockstar though, there’s no way to tell.

Feel the same.. Good for me, not good for people who like multiplayer. I just don’t play multiplayer so really the only frustrating thing about it is that so many achievements are tied to it. I hate playing through a game and then seeing that it looks like I have only played half the game because half of the achievement are tied to an online portion of the game I will never play.

Yes, that too! I hate it when I’m close to the platinum trophy but can’t get it without playing online…

don’t have a PS4 but glad to see it gone, tacked on multiplayer modes are the worst.

The Last of Us multiplayer is one of the best multiplayer experiences available on consoles. In no way was it tacked on.

While it’s a bit disappointing since the first game truly did something interesting and novel, if it makes a better story, I’m all for it.

That said, I’d love a spinoff with a multiplayer edge building on similar mechanics. State of Decay should’ve taken a few notes.

The Last of Us excelled because it told an excellent story with thought provoking characters, so the very fact that the first game had multiplayer at all just felt completely out of place. Not saying it wasn’t good, just that it felt unnecessary.

Now upon hearing that all of the money and resources are being utilized to tell this continuation to the story is most welcome news.

As somebody who loved the multiplayer in TLOU, I do have to agree that sacrificing it in favor of an even better single-player experience is the right decision…if the game truly is that much better by doing so. If it turns out to be even better than the original, it was worth it for sure.

I agree. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. Given the success of the first game, costs no doubt increased for everyone involved (actors, musicians, etc) which would ultimately determine what will and will not be cut, but if the world and the story are that much better for it, then I have no problem losing a tacked on multiplayer mode.

The Last of Us showed the gaming world why single player experiences will never go away, and just why they are still worth investing in. And I will take a stellar story over a good multiplayer mode any day of the week.

I honestly expected the original Factions to suck, like the rest of tacked-on multiplayer modes at the time, similar to Dead Space 3 and such. I only really played it to get the platinum trophy.

Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be my favorite multiplayer game for years, possibly all-time. I’m generally a military FPS kind of guy, that Factions was something else, with its grit and realism. And the community is amazing to this day.

I sure hope they focus on single player, and then release Factions 2 when they are ready.

All signs are pointing to there not being a multiplayer mode in any way. But you’re not wrong for hoping there would be. As others have stated, the multiplayer mode for TLOU was really good. Naughty Dog created a excellent single player experience, and rightly so wanted a multiplayer mode that could match it.

Upon seeing just how successful TLOU single player proved to be, however, Sony clearly gave Naughty Dog free reign to do what they wanted for a sequel, and Naughty Dog chose to focus on single player. But regardless if it was Sony or Naughty Dog that chose to implement a multiplayer mode in the first game, clearly both parties are fine with the decision made to focus on single player only for the sequel.

Yeah this, I think a UC or a Halo are great for mp stuff, cause they veer into fiction fun a lot more. But games more real or gritty like, I just don’t feel it that much. Feels more cynical.

Exactly. Naughty Dog clearly wants you feeling even more uncomfortable with taking human lives in TLOU2. In the sequel, every "enemy" has a name. And there are clearly established connections that not only do these people have to each other, but also to their animals. Needless to say you lose the weight of such actions with a multiplayer mode, and it’s hard to feel for these people if you can freely hop in-between modes that dull those experiences.

As someone who really dislikes competitive multiplayer, even team-based, and doesn’t care too much for other types, either, I’m not disappointed, but I can see how it must be sad for those who were looking forward to it since it was a somewhat unique approach in the first game. (Then again, they can still play that, I think?)

If anything, at least this shows once again that singleplayer is still considered strong enough to carry a game regardless of how much the industry sings the mantra of how it’s dead.

Why would they be looking forward to a mode that was never announced for this game?

Seems like the disappointment lies squarely in the laps of gamers in this case.

Oh? You cannot be unhappy about something unless you previously have had official and definite confirmation of its opposite? Is this a medical condition? People usually are capable of wanting something without it having explicitly been promised to them. Strange you never heard of the concept.

Can’t imagine why people would think there would be multiplayer in the sequel to a game with highly acclaimed multiplayer and whose developers explicitly stated would have multiplayer, fucking crazy am I right?

View All Comments
Back to top ↑