Support NeoGAF

[JumpCancel]

Campaigns are 75% of a games budget yet we have games like Rainbow Six: Siege and Star Wars: Battlefront release at $59.99 with the same amount of modes and maps you would normally see in games with campaigns.

So MP-Only FPS Games should either be 75% cheaper than FPS Games with both SP and MP so $15, or they should have four times as much content than the MP portion of an FPS Game with both SP and MP. I could live with either option, but don't try to sell me 25% of a FPS game for $60.

If people are buying these games at $60, then publishers will keep making and selling them at $60.

The ratio of the total budget doesn't matter, its looking at the total budget the game cost along with the quality of the product. It can be disparaging when you do the math thinking:

"This cost x amount less than the y, and they want to charge me the same amount?!"

But the final decision is with the consumer. It's up to you whether you pay them to access their content or walk away. I rarely buy games new, look for the best price and always research enough to determine the apparent quality of the game I'm interested in. My track record is fairly spot on so far. I think developers need to be upfront with their budget and strive to add as much meaningful content as possible.

However the games industry is a business for the most part. It's about making money for the majority so my original statement stands true. If people buy it, they'll keep doing it: And that doesn't make it right.

 

[crazygambit]

Counter-Strike was going to sell regardless of price. Valve could've made that shit $60 and people would still buy it. It's an established IP.

Obviously Valve disagreed, otherwise they would in fact have priced it at $60. Why leave money on the table?

 

[NotMyPsn]

Of course, cinematographic presentation, voice talent, among other things.

If a game is multiplayer only, no campaign, there should be no community fragmenting dlc. They are saving tons of money!

 

[Alpha Phoenix]

I've never played a CoD campaign, it's just not why I buy the game. I'd be all for a multiplayer only CoD if it were cheaper.

Too bad, because some of them were actually good (e.g. COD 2, MW 1+2, AW, etc.)

 

[Crossing Eden]

Making a hamburger, the meat is like 75% of the budget. Why can't you guys just eat the bun and be happy?

Terrible comparison but ok.

 

[Fuchsdh]

If people are buying these games at $60, then publishers will keep making and selling them at $60.

The ratio of the total budget doesn't matter, its looking at the total budget the game cost along with the quality of the product. It can be disparaging when you do the math thinking:

"This cost x amount less than the y, and they want to charge me the same amount?!"

But the final decision is with the consumer. It's up to you whether you pay them to access their content or walk away. I rarely buy games new, look for the best price and always research enough to determine the apparent quality of the game I'm interested in. My track record is fairly spot on so far. I think developers need to be upfront with their budget and strive to add as much meaningful content as possible.

However the games industry is a business for the most part. It's about making money for the majority so my original statement stands true. If people buy it, they'll keep doing it: And that doesn't make it right.

Pretty much this. These discussions always seem to have people ignoring the fact that "value" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and even a game that on paper is objectively less to offer might still be worth a $60 price tag by a percentage of people; that's just how business works. When you can't find any more of those people you drop the price accordingly.

I don't think budgets matter, though. Ultimately no one cares (or should) what difficulties there were in development, or how much money went into the realistic sweat on a character's face, it's about the ultimate value of the game as-is.

I bought Halo The Master Chief Collection at $60 and I don't regret the purchase—four remastered campaigns was worth it for me, even when the multiplayer was borked. That purchase was not at all worth it for other people, and that doesn't make one of us wrong or right about how we choose to spend our money.

 

[JumpCancel]

Making a hamburger, the meat is like 75% of the budget. Why can't you guys just eat the bun and be happy?

The meat would be 75% of the content, not budget for most burgers. Also they don't cost $60 for most of us, and we can justify our price paid for the quality we get.

 

[OléGunner]

MP only games for me now are a tough sell.

Especially in this era where it feels publishers give us less for more money i.e. MP only game+season pass.

I don't mind a potential MP only game where it can satisfy me more long term, but the suits are actively butchering/scaling back content to string players along and milk them dry (hey Battlefront and Evolve)

I don't see any campaign resources being significantly used in favour of a better MP only experience from the games of that kind I've played.

 

[GootecksShimmy]

As much as GAF is hating on Umbrella Corps coming out this year, I am all over this one so far.

$30.00 MP only game, set in the RE universe, focused for the e sports community, and has some fantastic looking gameplay going on.

$30.00 is EXACTLY what I'd pay for a game like that on release, or R6 Siege. Too bad for Siege its ship has come and sailed for me personally as SF5 comes out in 2 weeks, and 2 weeks after that will be The Division.

 

[JeffZero]

Well they get 100% of my interest so a series without one probably wont get a purchase from me

Same, same.

 

[DerZuhälter]

Whose idea was this poll? Because it's terrible, not funny nor poignant sarcasm.

 

[RedSwirl]

The cost of a game comes from a combination of factors including production budget, marketing budget, and sales expectations.

Examining the poll, GTAV could still be sold for $60 despite its massive budget because everybody knew it was going to sell a shitload, and Rockstar was justified when the game made back a billion dollars in three days. The Witcher 3 was never going to sell like that. Also, one reason Witcher 3's budget was way smaller is because it was developed in Poland, where I imagine the cost of living and thus the cost of man-hours is lower than in the UK.

Star Wars Battlefront could get away with its price likely due to high sales expectations. It was a Star Wars shooter coming out during the same holiday period as The Force Awakens, and EA was vindicated when the game sold like 12 million copies. Assassin's Creed can charge just $60 even though each game is made by like 500 people because there's a reasonable expectation the games will sell a few million copies (I don't actually know Creed game sales). Fallout? Same thing, they know a lot of people will pay that price for the next Bethesda game, plus it got a massive marketing campaign.

 

[Nameless]

I can't picture the split being anywhere near that with Battlefield campaigns; they're completely worthless and most of the fan base couldn't give a good god damn about them.

 

[JumpCancel]

Pretty much this. These discussions always seem to have people ignoring the fact that "value" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and even a game that on paper is objectively less to offer might still be worth a $60 price tag by a percentage of people; that's just how business works. When you can't find any more of those people you drop the price accordingly.

Yep. People who value MP shooters will be willing to pay more money than someone who values JRPG's more. That's why not every game is the same. They wouldn't sell.

 

[The_Dama]

Whose idea was this poll? Because it's terrible, not funny nor poignant sarcasm.

Seriously.

 

[_machine]

I'm not quite sure what I can say here other than 'Yes'. Or rather - to be a bit more precise - to make the same game as you made last generation to a PS4/XBO level of quality will cost more.
-
The market is straining to accommodate the costs of developing the games the market is demanding; something of a catch-22!
-
Betting the farm is getting priced out, because - correct or otherwise - you feel you need to spend that much to compete, but can't afford to fail. Screwed by a publisher is getting priced out, because they aren't signing up to fund things that they don't feel will make a profit that justifies the opportunity cost.
-
They're all different ways the budgetary push manifests itself, I would argue.
-
And one of the ways they're doing that is reducing the scope of what's on offer. It's an option they hadn't explored that much in the past - but that's exactly what they're trying here.
-
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to paint them as in need of charity - just trying to highlight what I believe are the thought processes that led to this. It may well be woefully incorrect, of course it might. But we're here now, and it's worth exploring how we got here.
-
Well, no, I'd bet on the latter - because just trying to break even is really dumb business. It means you're always balancing on a knife-edge.
-
Can I suggest the following, and this may possibly be tainted by my own perception of things: If there wasn't a rise in budgets as we entered this generation, why are we now seeing a particular rise in MP-focussed titles? There were exceptions, of course, one or two last gen that spring to mind, but the ones that are being bandied around in this discussion are rather more high-profile.
-
I would suggest that it's not a particularly new idea, but it's being done now because - for now - it may be perceived to be a necessary idea.

Thank you for putting into words what I couldn't, and I totally agree that rather than MP games "should" (by I mean realistically, it's going to be very tough for any publisher to expect a drop in price for nearly any title, though I am very curious to see how well the Hitman will do financially) cost less, SP campaign should cost more.

Also, I get the feeling that most people expect that a game company should "aim to break even with games" rather than do at least 2xROI, which when talking about game development (which again, is notoriously hard and risky) is absolutely, completely absurd and ridiculous.

 

[AEREC]

I'm glad we're moving away from tacked on campaigns. R6S, Titanfall - they did it right. Battlefront didn't.

I don't get it...whats the difference between Titanfall and Battlefront in this regard? They're both MP only with offline matches if you want it.

I also really did not like the way titanfall integrated it's "campaign" into the multiplayer, it was incredibly sloppy and made me not give a damn about what was going on. Battlefront seems pretty straight forward with multiplayer and the singleplayer mission mode being separate.

 

[Hoffelcopter]

Alright. Then charge you MP only games accordingly, or put that "75%" of the budget into more guns, modes, maps, free map DLCs and lead the paid DLC to cosmetic changes. I mean if cutting the SP saves so much money there shouldn't be a problem, right?

RB6 did this near perfectly. Great game, tons of classes, and maps, and mode variations. All future DLC is free. Microtransactions are cosmetic only and the game doesn't push you towards them. If it were $40 instead of $60 it would have been perfect.

 

[AEREC]

Whose idea was this poll? Because it's terrible, not funny nor poignant sarcasm.

The poll makes no sense.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Why don't people sling shit about SP only games costing $60?

You can play a SP game anytime you want for many, many years to come without too many problems. I still have have Dreamcast, PSOne, PS2, Gamecube, XBox games that I can pop in and play at will. MP only games will die as soon as people stop playing them. Let's just say Tomb Raider 2013 was multiplayer only. The game would of been unplayable as soon as the community migrated to another game. I suppose I prefer a memorable campaign such as Wolfenstein or Alien Isolation over a multiplayer experience.

 

[Tallshortman]

If you're using 25% of the budget then it should be cheaper. If you're putting it all in multiplayer then fair enough.

 

[whitehawk]

This is why people complain about MP only games still costing $60.

$40 seems more fair.

 

[ObiDin]

As a consumer, I don't care about development costs as far as it not impacting the price of the game. As a consumer, I am looking for value and enjoyment for my spending dollar(or $60). Personally, I still see multi-player as the add-on value not the main focus of my spending. I like to play with my friends but I like co-op more than deathmatch.

So I am not the type of person that will pay $60 for a multiplayer only game. If I see the gameplay as intriguing then I may pick it up after there has been a price drop, but not for full price. The downside to this is that multiplayer games tend to die off population wise before the price drop happens.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

This is why people complain about MP only games still costing $60.

$40 seems more fair.

By that logic singleplayer only games should also only cost $40.

 

[legacyzero]

So according to CliffyB, multiplayer only games should be 75% cheaper.

Ill take that deal.

Battlefield should never do a campaign again if the quality of BF3 and BF4 are the quality we can expect.

And Black Ops 3... Ugh....

 

[Warxard]

Singleplayer games should be $20 at the most.

Why would I want to play a campaign again when I saw all the cutscenes and hallways

 

[justjustin]

lol, that poll-- I like what it shows. Should GTA V have cost $180 because its budget was 3x larger than The Witcher 3? Absolutely. I certainly would have paid $1000 for Final Fantasy VII when it was released.

 

[Haunted]

I remember hearing somewhere that Respawn's people did a survey on why people didn't buy Titanfall. The top two reasons were that it wasn't on PS4 and that it had no single-player. I would imagine that for some MP games there are a lot of people who may be interested in the game's setting/mechanics/etc. but don't really like competitive multiplayer.

To be fair, if you make an SP only FPS and do a survey on why people didn't buy it, you bet your ass one of the top reasons would've been that it has no MP.

You just have to decide which demographic you want to cater to/gives you the best roi.

 

[RedSwirl]

I still hold to the theory that console gamers generally aren't as used to MP-only games. PC gamers have been paying full retail price for MP-only games probably since the 90's, likely because internet connections and thus the possibility for online have been ubiquitous for a long time on PC. That hasn't been the case on consoles. You still can't say that 100% of today's consoles are connected to the internet. Console gamers are more likely to think "what if the servers die or the MP population dies in a short amount of time? What if I lose my internet connection?" With an SP game there's at least always the guarantee that you'll be able to play it as long as the console itself works.

Now, Cliffy B didn't break down what things actually make campaigns more expensive. Is it voice acting, art assets, cut scenes, scripted set pieces, or the level design? Depending on what it is there could be less expensive ways to do campaigns. Maybe instead of focusing so much on cinematic-looking campaigns developers could turn towards SP with more systemic gameplay. Early in the thread someone already said a reason open-world games are numerous now is because they seem to be an easy way to extend play time and thus perceived value. I think it's the same reason you see things like crafting system and experience points packed into games -- it's probably a relatively cheap way to make a game seem thicker. I personally wish more developers would try more dynamic and systemic gameplay systems. My top shooters of last year were probably MGSV and Fallout 4 -- two games that are mostly built on the interplay of systems instead of the developer's scripting.

Also, I'd personally like to see more horde/survival modes, and more of them that are balanced for solo play. They seem to be catching on, but I don't think there's any shooter that wouldn't benefit from having one. They basically serve a lot of the same purpose as MP, but are better for people who don't like PvP.

 

[BRocknRolla]

I am baffled at this thread. Thought the poll was a joke, but based on the responses, maybe it isn't.

How many other creative industries use this Budget = Price metric for selling their products?

Do smaller budget movies cost less at the theatre? Do albums generally cost a lot less if they aren't by Taylor Swift? I just don't get it.

If anything, we should be judging the worthwhile price of a product based on its quality. (Which is basically an impossibility.) And that's why we have just the market to work out the price. If a game is unpopular (Maybe it's exposure, maybe it's quality, maybe it's content, maybe it's too expensive, etc), the price will come down over time. That has its own injustices as it means quality games without exposure might not get the return they deserve, but it's a lot better than saying, "X studio spent Y amount of money, however frivolously, however unnecessarily, and as such, you as the consumer deserve to pay Z amount of money." At least if the market is there, the market gets to decide what games should actually be valued at.

 

[ramparter]

So according to CliffyB, multiplayer only games should be 75% cheaper.

Did he say that games should be priced according to budget?

edit: The poll is funny, the people who take it seriously are eve funnier. I voted yes, I wasn't serious.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I still hold to the theory that console gamers generally aren't as used to MP-only games. PC gamers have been paying full retail price for MP-only games probably since the 90's, likely because internet connections and thus the possibility for online have been ubiquitous for a long time on PC. That hasn't been the case on consoles. You still can't say that 100% of today's consoles are connected to the internet. Console gamers are more likely to think "what if the servers die or the MP population dies in a short amount of time? What if I lose my internet connection?" With an SP game there's at least always the guarantee that you'll be able to play it as long as the console itself works.

Now, Cliffy B didn't break down what things actually make campaigns more expensive. Is it voice acting, art assets, cut scenes, scripted set pieces, or the level design? Depending on what it is there could be less expensive ways to do campaigns. Maybe instead of focusing so much on cinematic-looking campaigns developers could turn towards SP with more systemic gameplay. Early in the thread someone already said a reason open-world games are numerous now is because they seem to be an easy way to extend play time and thus perceived value. I think it's the same reason you see things like crafting system and experience points packed into games -- it's probably a relatively cheap way to make a game seem thicker. I personally wish more developers would try more dynamic and systemic gameplay systems. My top shooters of last year were probably MGSV and Fallout 4 -- two games that are mostly built on the interplay of systems instead of the developer's scripting.

Also, I'd personally like to see more horde/survival modes, and more of them that are balanced for solo play. They seem to be catching on, but I don't think there's any shooter that wouldn't benefit from having one. They basically serve a lot of the same purpose as MP, but are better for people who don't like PvP.

Good post, and I agree.

I am baffled at this thread. Thought the poll was a joke, but based on the responses, maybe it isn't.

How many other creative industries use this Budget = Price metric for selling their products?

Do smaller budget movies cost less at the theatre? Do albums generally cost a lot less if they aren't by Taylor Swift? I just don't get it.

If anything, we should be judging the worthwhile price of a product based on its quality. (Which is basically an impossibility.) And that's why we have just the market to work out the price. If a game is unpopular (Maybe it's exposure, maybe it's quality, maybe it's content, maybe it's too expensive, etc), the price will come down over time. That has its own injustices as it means quality games without exposure might not get the return they deserve, but it's a lot better than saying, "X studio spent Y amount of money, however frivolously, however unnecessarily, and as such, you as the consumer deserve to pay Z amount of money." At least if the market is there, the market gets to decide what games should actually be valued at.

I find this thread hilarious, because these arguments you presented, which I agree with, are also the same ones used by people in the Indie game pricing threads.

Oh gamers, you act as if games do not drop significantly lower within weeks if not sometimes days after launch this gen. It is the most affordable gaming generation as a consumer, software wise, in history.

 

[Nimby]

Do people really buy Uncharted and Gears and say "Oh boy! Can't wait to replay this linear corridor shooter all the time until I die!" So that's what makes a game worth it to you, the faulty idea that you will always have it to fall back on? What if you lose it or sell your system? What if you get bored replaying it for the umpteenth time?

Besides RPGs, many other genres lack the drive (for me at least) to bring me back in after completing it, and many others feel the same too. Arguing that replay value is what makes a game worth $60 is kinda silly considering competitive multiplayer-only shooters give you unlimited possibilities for strategy and teamwork, they aren't skimping you on replay value (especially on PC). If the idea of $60 multiplayer games is such a turn off to you, that's kinda what sales and price drops are for right? Buy it at whatever you feel it's worth.

 

[Syrus]

I will never buy a MP game at $60 ever again. Titanfall was brilliant but servers were barren mere weeks after launch.

Uhh...what??? I found games for half a year of constant playing on amy game type.

 

[Jawmuncher]

I buy the titles for the SP though. If I'm just gonna get screwed over I'll just skip them then. Battlefront was not worth it.

 

[BRocknRolla]

Did he say that games should be priced according to budget?

edit: The poll is funny, the people who take it seriously are eve funnier. I voted yes, I wasn't serious.

I agree that he isn't saying that. I'd be amazed if he didn't laugh at the suggestion. I think the person you quoted might even have been joking when they posted what they did. It's hard to say.

Because honestly, there are plenty of folks here who actually believe that. And between the people cracking jokes, and the people who are actually serious, like you who jokingly responded to the poll, it's actually tough to know what the pulse is on this sort of thing. It's hard to separate the sarcasm from genuine feelings in a thread like this. (Though I suppose that's symptomatic of "the internet" as a whole in a lot of ways.)

 

[WrenchNinja]

Do people really buy Uncharted and Gears and say "Oh boy! Can't wait to replay this linear corridor shooter all the time until I die!" So that's what makes a game worth it to you, the faulty idea that you will always have it to fall back on? What if you lose it or sell your system? What if you get bored replaying it for the umpteenth time?

Uncharted and Gears aren't corridor shooters.

 

[Hibiki Kurosawa]

Makes sense. With set pieces and more content needed as well as actors and whatnot.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Do people really buy Uncharted and Gears and say "Oh boy! Can't wait to replay this linear corridor shooter all the time until I die!" So that's what makes a game worth it to you, the faulty idea that you will always have it to fall back on? What if you lose it or sell your system? What if you get bored replaying it for the umpteenth time?

Lol, yeah. By that logic, you should not be buying consoles at full price, since they will one day stop making them, and there is a chance it can break which then you would be assed out for all the games.

Makes sense. With set pieces and more content needed as well as actors and whatnot.

The most sensible post on the entire thread in reference to what Cliffy B said. And it was only one sentence.

 

[KORNdoggy]

Do people really buy Uncharted and Gears and say "Oh boy! Can't wait to replay this linear corridor shooter all the time until I die!"

already played the uncharted series 4 times through. same goes for last of us. great games deserve to be replayed. simple as that.

 

[Bluth54]

I still hold to the theory that console gamers generally aren't as used to MP-only games. PC gamers have been paying full retail price for MP-only games probably since the 90's, likely because internet connections and thus the possibility for online have been ubiquitous for a long time on PC. That hasn't been the case on consoles. You still can't say that 100% of today's consoles are connected to the internet. Console gamers are more likely to think "what if the servers die or the MP population dies in a short amount of time? What if I lose my internet connection?" With an SP game there's at least always the guarantee that you'll be able to play it as long as the console itself works.

Yeah I think this is a real possibly, we really haven't seen any big multiplayer only games on console until this gen but PC has been getting them for so long, I remember having no reservations buying UT and UT2k4 despite being MP only.

Of course I do feel console focused multi only games could be doing a better job of providing more value by having more maps (and making all maps free) but I also think there is also a fundamental difference in the way a lot of console gamers view multplayer. I feel like a lot of console gamers don't stick with multiplayer for as long as a lot of PC gamers do. A lot of that has to do with a lot of PC games getting support for longer while many console publishers want gamers to move on to the next big thing. I personally have been playing Team Fortress 2 since 2007 and don't plan on stopping anytime soon. 2007 is when CoD4 came out, how many people are still playing that game? I see the same thing on my Steam friends list, most of my friends tend to stick to one or two multiplayer games for years that still get dev support, like TF2 or DOTA2 or CSGO. Some may play the new MP hotness for a little while but they'll typically go back to their favorite game after a little while.

 

[JumpCancel]

Do people really buy Uncharted and Gears and say "Oh boy! Can't wait to replay this linear corridor shooter all the time until I die!" So that's what makes a game worth it to you, the faulty idea that you will always have it to fall back on? What if you lose it or sell your system? What if you get bored replaying it for the umpteenth time?

Value and worth are subjective. There are people out there in the sea of 7 billion that prefer to spend money on a focus SP campaign than an online only MP game. There opinion could be influenced by personal preference, internet speed limitations and so on.

The "faulty" scenarios you listed are less likely than an internet connection being slow or cutting out, for most people. If people prefer a Single Player campaign then I would assume that replaying it "for the umpteenth time" is something they enjoy doing.

Arguing that replay value is what makes a game worth $60 is kinda silly considering competitive multiplayer-only shooters give you unlimited possibilities for strategy and teamwork

It's also dependent on the amount of time you invest to hone your skills, along with having a competent team. Where in a single player game it's about you and only you. As long as my system powers on and my controllers work I can play against the game, rather than finding other people to improve my experience to the level it was intended to be played at.

 

[cRIPticon]

Fair enough Cliffy B if 75% of your budget is SP and you want to cut them out then cut the game price too. Since you will not need enough man power now and your cost of production will be lower. Only fair for the consumers that way but oh wait gaming industry is turning into a scam now. You still want 60 dollars for a game that cost 75% less than it originally would. Gaming industry......MP only games should not cost more than 29.99. CS:GO is an amazing example of this. Great online but also priced accordingly and it sold millions of copies. No wonder why.

Oh god. Ok. What Cliff is stating is that, in the case of building a game where SP is a significant focus, 75% of your budget can go into creating this. That money is appropriated at the expense of other things (i.e. art, sound, design, units, etc.). If you don't have the SP in there, then the budget goes towards everything else!

Does anyone really think that BF looks like a cheap game? The amount of artwork, modeling, engine work, etc. is phenomenal. The infrastructure to support this; not cheap. Just because there was no SP does not mean that less money was spent. It means that the money was spent elsewhere.

MP only games should not cost more than $29.99? Says who? You? That's just nonsense.

 

[Lonely1]

If a game is MP only, I will wait for a 75% discount. And when that happens the community will probably be dead already and I won't get it at all. I'm not interested in MP only games. Sorry. :S

 

[blastprocessor]

I hope to buy one of his games will full campaign but if that does not happen then of course he's lost me as a customer. No crafted single player story campaign = no buy.

 

[RedSwirl]

Do people really buy Uncharted and Gears and say "Oh boy! Can't wait to replay this linear corridor shooter all the time until I die!" So that's what makes a game worth it to you, the faulty idea that you will always have it to fall back on? What if you lose it or sell your system? What if you get bored replaying it for the umpteenth time?

For a lot of people, those things are still less likely to happen than losing internet or the servers dying.

Also, some linear shooters are just that good to some people. I don't know how many times I've replayed Resident Evil 4. I certainly consider Uncharted 2 and COD4 to be games worth replaying many times just because I enjoy their campaings that much. It's like a book you like to read every year or a movie you like to watch again every once in a while because it's your favorite.

 

[blastprocessor]

It's like a book you like to read every year or a movie you like to watch again every once in a while because it's your favorite.

Absolutely.

 

[DavidDesu]

Disappointing thing about all of this is that the campaign in games like these is now a tagged on afterthought and ultimately completely irrelevant. I loved Halo 1, it was hands down a great game and the campaign was what I remember it for. I didn't play local multiplayer with it. Do we now have a situation that purely because multiplayer is where most people spend their time, for obvious reasons due to the repetition and competitive nature, that the campaigns in games like these are now deemed completely worthless? If there's another Halo, will they just decide we don't need a story? If games like The Last Of Us and Uncharted have good multiplayer modes that many players might spend hours upon hours playing, does that mean the actual story element of these games will get pared back?

I'm annoyed that seemingly a good story in a FPS is now not going to happen, and devs will focus purely on creating a multiplayer experience of some sort. Is it Destiny/Division style games or all out competitive FPS only from on?

 

[Megabat]

Just like the No Man's Sky and The Witness price threads, no one takes time to consider that actual humans take risks and sacrifice time to make videogames.

If The Witcher 3 cost 1/3 of Grand Theft Auto V, it needs to sell 1/3 the copies at the same price to break even. Without even knowing sales numbers, I'm certain the latter will sell 3 times as many copies (at a more rigid price point) in its lifetime.

And multiplayer-only games should only cost less if they take 25% of the time. The biggest budget consideration in development (by far) is employee salaries, which scale >= time. And come on: imagine how great your favorite multiplayer game (that has a single-player campaign attached) could be if four times the work went into it.

 

[RobNBanks]

If you're using 25% of the budget then it should be cheaper.

Yep. Every game made gets 50 million to spend and that when making Siege and Battlefront, EA and Ubisoft only withdrew 12.5 million from the National Video Game Bank

it's just not right