Worth is subjective. You personally may not want to play through Gears or Uncharted 10 times but some people will want to do that and there's nothing wrong with that. People value and get enjoyment out of different things.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CliffyB: FPS Campaigns cost 75% of the budget
- Thread starter Renekton
- Start date
Worth is subjective. You personally may not want to play through Gears or Uncharted 10 times but some people will want to do that and there's nothing wrong with that. People value and get enjoyment out of different things.
Maintenance
Member
Until I see the benefits of going MP only (more maps, more everything), those games will be sale-only for me.
So far no MP game that I've seen had those benefits.
So far no MP game that I've seen had those benefits.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Explains why Rainbow 6 Siege, Titanfall and Battlefront were released at a cheaper price than RRP.
as it should Campaigns are the meat and bones of any shooter for me. I get enjoyment out of story. There are too many games on the market that just allow me to enter match and shoot random people. I can get that from 99% of all shooters. It's the campaign that gets me to buy a game and enjoy it. Multiplayer is always secondary to me.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Publishers aren't going to give developers the money saved from not making a campaign to expand multiplayer.
SprachBrooks
Member
Great poll! lol
Not sure what your point is, but yes I spent 350 hours enjoying the Halo SP campaign. And about 350 hours in DS1 and DS2 (offline).. etc etc. I think I replayed the Gears campaign at least 5 times too. love replaying good SP games.
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
That's why l don't get why people get excited over the next COD/BF MP game. I must be missing some glorious set of new features that refresh what is a monotonous concept.
Not to say it's not fun blowing away colleagues at work but that's all it was or the occasional 2 vs 3.
Ivan Amiibo
Banned
The price of a video game should go up one dollar for every time it is pirated.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
COD is now a cemented pop cultural generation thing now. It will keep selling, because there is always younger gamers, getting older, and jumping into the series they heard their older siblings, friends, etc talk about. Just my theory on the phenomenon.
I just don't see how lack of SP would translate into more MP content. Pubs/Devs will decide on how much content is enough based on the competition, not on this pile of money that they aren't spending. They'd rather just not spend it, and make more money in the end when they don't have to earn it back.
hydrophilic attack
Member
lol at the poll
Well, no.
But I think the buffer issue is that just because a game comes from a big studio, $60 is assumed.
Rocket league is also a multiplayer only game, but it only costs $20. Why does rainbow six or battlefront cost $40 more?
I'm sure they had a larger budget, but in that case $40 seems more reasonable.
Side note: anyone remember what shadowrun (2007) lauched for? It was the first online only console game AFAIK.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Thats because so much money is spent on cinematic stories with actor's that are well known, who obviously aren't cheap. Just take out the actors and do story board presentations of story. And focus gameplay, a.I, and level design.
Maintenance
Member
Well then don't expect me to pay the same because it won't happen.
Yes, I routinely reinstall games I've played.
And what's faulty is you thinking the range of an SP campaign is lower than that of an MP game. SP can have special vehicle and story levels whilst MP shooters from the very get-go are nothing but circular arenas where you just perform the same actions over and over and over.
justsomeguy
Member
Agreed... I get more enjoyment from the campaign but sink more hours into the multiplayer. (i.e. I wish the campaigns were twice as long typically).
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Because things are priced with what the seller feels the market will bare or support. Like anything in a 'free economy'.
Why are $2 to manufacture Nike's costing $2-300, when you can go to Payless for $15-20 on average.
And purses, and shitty branded glasses, cars, etc etc.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
How many people don't care about the SP content and will jump immediately into MP and ignore single player mode when given the opportunity? I'm not that into online multi-player but judging from what I've seen it's a lot.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Because things are priced with what the seller feels the market will bare or support. Like anything in a 'free economy'.
Why are $2 to manufacture Nike's costing $2-300, when you can go to Payless for $15-20 on average.
And purses, and shitty branded glasses, cars, etc etc.
....So they're overcharging for games that have less in them because they can get away with it? I agree.
Yeah, that's true. The market has allowed it, just like microtransactions unfortunately. That's why I'm curious how much shadowrun cost in 2007, since the market wasn't used to it. Curious about MAG as well.Because things are priced with what the seller feels the market will bare or support. Like anything in a 'free economy'.
Why are $2 to manufacture Nike's costing $2-300, when you can go to Payless for $15-20 on average.
And purses, and shitty branded glasses, cars, etc etc.
family_guy
Member
So it's okay if the graphics look good then even if the content is pathetic?
Well, they had really good bots, for one. I haven't played them online until years later. Had Battlefield 1942/2, but never played it online at all - maybe one with a friend on LAN, but still with bots.
But dunno, I might be in the minority.
Neuromancer
Member
Well, a significant number of people play the Call of Duty campaigns. Which is why they keep making them.
PeskyToaster
Member
The whole deal is around the weird disdain for multiplayer on GAF specifically. Last gen it was about how multiplayer modes were tacked-on, dragging resources away from the single-player when there are many games with essentially tacked on singleplayer modes that get a pass. Now it's about how multiplayer-only games should be cheaper while single-player games only games never get these complaints. Clifford has added to this by saying that single player campaigns make up 75% of the budget which leads people to ask why aren't multiplayer only games 25% of the cost, since logically they would have much smaller budgets. The poll is pointing out the hypocrisy by asking whether it would be fair to pay so much less for The Witcher 3 than GTA V based on budget alone, which is crazy but that's the point.
Multiplayer is a much better deal for gamers and companies. IN GENERAL (we get it you played Halo single-player alone for 5000 hours over and over and over) people spend lots more time in multiplayer than they would in singleplayer all for the same 60 dollars. If CliffyB's numbers are generally true, the budgets are less so companies are happier and they get that all important engagement for post-launch revenue.
I think the problem comes from companies seem to be saving and making more money from multiplayer but none of that has transferred over to the consumer in terms of A.) More content or B.) Lower price point but we are starting to see some movement where things that would have cost money, maps, weapons, and so on, are being given away for free as part of expected post-launch support.
Side note: Multiplayer isn't about shooting random enemies. It's about outplaying and outsmarting an actual human opponent. Competition. The only single-player game that has replicated that feeling for me is Bloodborne (and I assume the other Souls games would too). It's about being part of a team but also the dynamic nature which is why the 'Only in Battlefield' tagline is so powerful and evocative of multiplayer gaming in general. All the crazy mini stories you can have that just aren't the same without real people. Probably why I have plenty of favorite games involving both modes but all of my favorite memories revolve around multiplayer.
Diablohead
Member
Unreal Tournament's and Quake's both had worthwhile bots to play against so even as a pure MP game you could stay offline, play all the maps and modes with as easy or hard AI as you wanted and it was fun.
The MP only games I dislike are ones that give you zero offline support or very little, 1v1 against a friend in the same room on a game designed for 4v4 or higher just isn't the same and still relies on a second person being there.
Titanfall was a great game and I still own it but I bought into that game knowing exactly what I was going in for and i'll do the same thing with battlefront when I get around to it, but most MP only titles I either ignore or buy on the cheap.
The MP only games I dislike are ones that give you zero offline support or very little, 1v1 against a friend in the same room on a game designed for 4v4 or higher just isn't the same and still relies on a second person being there.
Titanfall was a great game and I still own it but I bought into that game knowing exactly what I was going in for and i'll do the same thing with battlefront when I get around to it, but most MP only titles I either ignore or buy on the cheap.
cantthink9
Banned
I love campaigns in shooters. Black Ops 3 is the first cod I didn't buy because I just am not interested but I always loved COD campaigns. I like linear shooters sometimes. I am so fucking bored of open world rpg games a linear shooter is always welcome. Hell every top game this year is a game with quests. Side quests, main quests, filler quests. Sometimes I just want to go from point a to point b doing cool ass action packed shooter shit.
Depends on what you get out of games. I replay games all the time, not endlessly but several a year. There are some that are 20+ years old that I replay on an annual basis, and none of them (obviously) have any online multiplayer. Online competitive multiplayer has zero appeal to me, so any argument about it's 'unlimited possibilities' is meaningless to me as I'll play a campaign and either trade it or keep it depending on how likely I am to replay it.
The shooters I still replay are Binary Domain, Rwsident Evil 4/5 and Uncharted, purely because I like spending a couple of evenings playing through a campaign where I can pause and quit at will then putting it away again, rather than spending a couple of evenings getting murdered by people who play the same game all week. I just don't have the time to commit to an online game for weeks on end to be competent at it, and to be fair I think I'd be a terrible opponent/teammate for those that do as I have dependents to look after.
To each their own, I understand plenty of people refuse to touch a game after a single playthrough, but I'm not one of them, and would always rather replay a good game because it's just a good game than turn to online matches to extend its lifespan.
A £60 multiplayer-only game isn't something I'd buy even if it was on sale for a fiver. I have little free time (young family) and much prefer buying games after launch at my convenience than hoping a server and a community are still active by the time I get around to them.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
You know how many times I played through RE4, Halo C.E, Bayonetta 2, Metroid Prime. Great games get multiple play throughs and some times are double dipped. So it may purchased more than once, depending on the circumstances.
Games that have several unlocks and unlocks that change up the gameplay experience warrants multiple play throughs. So if the developer put together some half assed effort on single player campaign then why would I play through it.
Games that have several unlocks and unlocks that change up the gameplay experience warrants multiple play throughs. So if the developer put together some half assed effort on single player campaign then why would I play through it.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Why? Why does a game being multiplayer only as opposed to singleplayer only constitute a drop in value? If a multiplayer game should, as a rule, be no more than $40 then doesn't that also imply that a singleplayer only game should also therefor be no more than $40?
You aren't the audience then. Remember, not every game is made for you.
You made the right choice. Black Ops III's campaign was so bad, it made me question if I even actually enjoyed previous CoD campaigns.
John Kowalski
Banned
I don't understand what the point of contention is.
DeathoftheEndless
Crashing this plane... with no survivors!
Developers should charge what people are willing to pay, not how much something costs to make.
well in that post my main point was prices coming out of studio sizes, not the type of game. Psyonix probably couldn't get away with charging RL for $60, buy ubisoft can charge $60 for R6. Why?
I think the term "indie" is hosting back studios. The landscape is very different when that term first started getting thrown around 6-8 years ago when braid came out.
Poop!
Member
Because the single player version holds it's value as it can be played the same today as it can 20 years from now. A multiplayer only game can be alive today and dead tomorrow.
For the record, I support multiplayer only games.
Neuromancer
Member
I think that's the point the poll is trying to make, in a sort of clumsy way, and I agree with it.
However, I will personally never spend $60 on an always online, PvP only game. Never. I'm not even sure I'd even spend $10. Give me a co-op mode or an offline bot matches or something. PvP is something I generally try when I finish a campaign, it's never the reason I buy anything.
He's right, tbh. I touched the BO3 campaign briefly and jumped into the multiplayer asap. I'd rather the budget goes to giving better multiplayer experiences. Or give us a content creator where we can make our own single player and co-op levels for others to mess about in. Pretty sure that would work.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Not necessarily true. If a multiplayer only game has LAN function or a bot mode it is also ostensibly playable forever. If anything more devs need to include LAN and bot modes.
JumpCancel
Banned
- AAA games budgets are high.
- CliffyB stated 75% of budget goes to campaign
- MP only games launch at retail price
- Quality to some is not representative of the theoretical 100% budget put into game, whereas other games had multiplayer and campaign.
As I've stated before it comes down to preference and value, of which they are subjective in nature. Some people are happy to pay $60 for an online only MP shooter as the content is endless in theory, whereas others prefer a $60 release to have a dedicated single player campaign. Online requires and decent internet connection and a solid team to reap the most out of your purchase, whereas single player only requires you to play and is offline.
Others feel online only MP shooters should have their price adjusted due to lack of campaign, despite the budget theoretically being equal but simply funneled into MP exclusively.
However it's also questionable since MP games are released with a full AAA budget behind them, but lack content and quality (e.g battlefront). The opposition to this is R6: Siege which in all honesty is a deep team focused MP shooter that despite its net code issues and pay walls is a quality game worth the retail price.
No one is wrong. No one is wright. As long as people are buying these MP only games at full retail price they will keep releasing them.
abracadaver
Member
I'd rather have an awesome campaign than a crappy multiplayer mode.
goldenpp72
Member
I feel the free market should dictate pricing and nothing more really. A company can feel free to release a single player only campaign for 60 just the same as an online only for 60, or local only, or whatever. If it sells, then someone found it was worth it and if not, well there you go. This is just business.
In the end, I played Quake 3 for almost a decade, but also adore 'full packages' like the Halo series, I value them differently because Quake 3 was WAY better multiplayer wise for me, but in the end I don't regret paying the price I paid for either. If people are getting dozens of hours of entertainment from a multiplayer only game, I really feel it's their individual opinion that matters here. If you don't like it, wait for it to be cheaper. I bought Titanfall for something like 30 bucks and put maybe 10 hours into it, it was pretty fun but not something i'll return to. A sequel having a full on campaign that makes proper use of the unique movement options would inspire me to go the full 60, but that's just me.
In the end, I played Quake 3 for almost a decade, but also adore 'full packages' like the Halo series, I value them differently because Quake 3 was WAY better multiplayer wise for me, but in the end I don't regret paying the price I paid for either. If people are getting dozens of hours of entertainment from a multiplayer only game, I really feel it's their individual opinion that matters here. If you don't like it, wait for it to be cheaper. I bought Titanfall for something like 30 bucks and put maybe 10 hours into it, it was pretty fun but not something i'll return to. A sequel having a full on campaign that makes proper use of the unique movement options would inspire me to go the full 60, but that's just me.
I've been playing multiplyaer games since the clickity clackity sounds of a modem buzzing to life. The increased bullshittery about the value of multiplayer games is really weird to me.
Worth every god damn penny.
Not a single stupid cut-scene in sight.
Evaluate game's on their own terms. Wolfenstein TNO was great and didn't need a shoehorned MP mode. Mass Effect 3 was great and didn't need a shoehorned single player campaign.
Worth every god damn penny.
Not a single stupid cut-scene in sight.
Evaluate game's on their own terms. Wolfenstein TNO was great and didn't need a shoehorned MP mode. Mass Effect 3 was great and didn't need a shoehorned single player campaign.
By that measure you could also say it makes just as much sense to wait on single-player only games. You are buying high. The game will never change significantly. However, MP games are at their best from early life to maturation. That's when you want to play.
RPGCrazied
Member
I'll never buy a multiplayer only game, unless its an MMO.
What happens in 10 years or something when the community dies down and you want to play more? The game becomes a coaster.
What happens in 10 years or something when the community dies down and you want to play more? The game becomes a coaster.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll