Support NeoGAF

[Maintenance]

You aren't the audience then. Remember, not every game is made for you.

You could say that to anyone complaining about a game in any thread, still does not make it right.

I'm still trying to understand how you reached this conclusion, going from "publishers are not going to spend SP money in MP" to "well if you don't want to pay full price you're not the audience".

 

[Phoenix Fang]

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.

I do. Matter of fact I spent more time playing the SP of Gears than I did the MP.

 

[Anton Sugar]

R6 is just as much an offender as all the other titles. With how many maps did it ship? Sure you get some for free but the new operator you probably rather want to buy with real money because everything else is a grind.

Siege launched with 10 MP maps. Technically, it's 11 maps, but one isn't available in MP (yet). Plus the four maps that *all* customers are getting for free.

10-11 MP maps at launch is kinda the norm, but map count isn't the best way to judge these things. The procedural destruction and hero/Operator system makes almost every round feel unique.

"Everything else is a grind"? Like what? It takes about 25 hours to unlock one of the DLC operators for free (the original roster doesn't take anywhere NEAR that long), which is about two weeks of playtime. Given that operators are being released quarterly, most players won't have any trouble earning enough renown to unlock the operators in time.

Do your research, please.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

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.

Conversely I could say that when I beat a campaign only game I'll never touch it again because it's the same thing every time. Single player and multiplayer games have different strengths/weaknesses in relation to longevity, who would have thought?

Personally I get way more time out of multiplayer games a vast majority of the time.

 

[Poop!]

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.

Yup, I always wait to buy single player games as they don't change. With so many games out, it is silly to pay full price for the same game that will be more than half price in a month or two.

 

[JumpCancel]

Conversely I could say that when I beat a campaign only game I'll never touch it again because it's the same thing every time. Single player and multiplayer games have different strengths/weaknesses, who would have thought?

The point they were making is that a campaign is guaranteed to be the same every time. Online is subjective to the community and other players you are with. Single Player is only reliant on the game itself rather than other players, meaning its the same the day it's released and in 10 years time, rather than becoming unplayable due to fewer active players or the online service no longer existing.

Who would have thought?

 

[_machine]

I guess it went into the licence in this case...

Thank you.

I'm still pretty stunned that I haven't seen people mention the IP as a part of the equation. Of course you should factor in that the IP is not just an upfront cost, but also probably somewhere between 10-20% gross revenue (at least according to some of the analyst data my current company pays for). The Star Wars IP is inherent value in the product, though naturally not all players will agree, but it's not like they have other ways of buying new AAA Star Wars titles.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

The point they were making is that a campaign is guaranteed to be the same every time. Online is subjective to the community and other players you are with. Single Player is only reliant on the game itself rather than other players, meaning its the same the day it's released and in 10 years time, rather than becoming unplayable due to fewer active players or the online service no longer existing.

Who would have thought?

Right...and that's one of a single player game's strengths. One of multiplayer games' strengths are that they usually have high replay value due to the complexity of player interaction. When the servers go down the game goes down, sure, but when it's a popular enough game they'll probably bring it back on another system or just have a new iteration of the game. They're different beasts.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

The poll is RUTHLESS SHADE and I love it.

 

[RobNBanks]

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.

You usually move onto a better and/or newer title.

Kind of like how people are playing Fallout 4 instead of Fallout New Vegas, or posting about FF XV even though there hasn't been a good FF in over a decade. No one plays the same shit forever

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

You could say that to anyone complaining about a game in any thread, still does not make it right.

I'm still trying to understand how you reached this conclusion, going from "publishers are not going to spend SP money in MP" to "well if you don't want to pay full price you're not the audience".

Why doesn't it make it right? There is no logical reason for multiplayer only games to be priced differently than singleplayer only games. If Battlefront should have been $40 then so should have been Arkham Knight. One could argue that both games could lead to the same time spent, the same abstract level of enjoyment taken from either. Both made by hundreds of people passionate about their game, both licensing massively successful IPs, both with large advertising budgets and presented as the crown jewel of each's publishing house's fiscal year.

So why, tell me a rational, objective reason why multiplayer only games should be priced differently.

 

[Tagyhag]

I'm still blown away that people are whining about $60 games.

Games have never been CHEAPER. Damn whippersnappers.

I imagine that if $60 releases bother you, you would have loved when games were $150 (adjusted to inflation) in the early 90's.

AND games were insanely cheaper to make back then as well.

You guys have no idea how easy you have it, and how badly devs have it.

 

[JumpCancel]

Right...and that's one of a single player game's strengths. One of multiplayer games' strengths are that they usually have high replay value due to the complexity of player interaction. When the servers go down the game goes down, sure, but when it's a popular enough game they'll probably bring it back on another system or just have a new iteration of the game. They're different beasts.

And that's a different debate entirely. That's essentially having to buy the game again in order to play it. Would you consider that a point in favor of your argument?

Complexity of player interaction is once again dependent on the community. Would you not consider SP games to have replay value and complex interactions?

I've clocked countless hours in DMC3/4 due to the "complex interactions" the games give me with the enemies. Replay value is

Spoiler

subjective

to the player. Some people love MP for that reason, others enjoy SP for that reason and there are some the love both.

I'm still blown away that people are whining about $60 games.

Games have never been CHEAPER.

When you think about the cost/time ratio you get a lot for your money. People often forget that about games.

 

[friday]

I really don't get all of the people who think $60 games are overpriced. The production cost are so insane on these games and the risk is pretty damn big.

I would much rather pay for "overpriced" MP only games than continue to suffer through "Free" games.

 

[Kinyou]

If sp campaigns take 75% of the budget then we should be getting $15 mp games with the same content, or $60 mp games with tons of content. Instead we get $60 content-starved mp games like Battlefront or Evolve or Titanfall. I don't think his math is right.

Pretty much. This doesn't quite make sense for me.

 

[RipperGrim]

I'm still blown away that people are whining about $60 games.

Games have never been CHEAPER. Damn whippersnappers.

I imagine that if $60 releases bother you, you would have loved when games were $150 (adjusted to inflation) in the early 90's.

AND games were insanely cheaper to make back then as well.

You guys have no idea how easy you have it, and how badly devs have it.

Games are not cheap and if you are in a country like mine it's equivalent to $70 now.

 

[EGM1966]

Man this thread has taught me something: most of you don't have the faintest idea about price mechanics in a free market and the role of target demographic and perception of value.

People pay what they will. Anyone selling anything makes a decision about how many people will buy at price X, what the cost to produce X is, and whether it's worth making at all based on the profit they will derive.

If enough people would pay $1000 dollars for an online only game with one map to be comfortably profitable someone will make and sell them that map.

There's no single rule and the idea of using whether a game is SP or MP a a metric is just nuts.

Cost is a factor but only in so far as it impacts what revenue is required to turn a profit.

Cliffyb might be right but it you need the SP to sell you game (which is a demographic and marketing question) then you have to accept the cost and decide other stuff accordingly. Similarly if you only think you need MP that's fine too.

Just making games MP only because it's cheaper is useless if they don't sell. Obviously its preferable to take lowest cost route but only if it will sell and you then have to consider competition. Bit of a bummer if you're competing with 100 other MP only games for the same wallets while another developer has the only SP game and gets all the available wallets for SP content.

In short its not that simple in totality and just because CliffyB has commented on one element doesn't suddenly "mean something" overall. It's just a datum.

 

[Ricky Ricardo]

If I'm buying a MP-only game, I'd really like it to have a co-op component some how. I like donging on scrubs just as much as anyone else, but I'd take a well-crafted survival/horde/firefight mode with some production value over a fully fledged campaign mode in an MP-only game any day ending in Y.

 

[Maintenance]

Why doesn't it make it right? There is no logical reason for multiplayer only games to be priced differently than singleplayer only games. If Battlefront should have been $40 then so should have been Arkham Knight. One could argue that both games could lead to the same time spent, the same abstract level of enjoyment taken from either. Both made by hundreds of people passionate about their game, both licensing massively successful IPs, both with large advertising budgets and presented as the crown jewel of each's publishing house's fiscal year.

So why, tell me a rational, objective reason why multiplayer only games should be priced differently.

It doesn't make it right because it is a strawman (I'm talking about your sentence here). If a MP only game is released without bots or LAN then it already has a built-in obsolescence, since the community / servers will eventually die or become empty. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but the norm is what I said. The current market accepts that mostly, but that doesn't mean that I have to.

 

[Zeta Oni]

I'm still blown away that people are whining about $60 games.

Games have never been CHEAPER. Damn whippersnappers.

I imagine that if $60 releases bother you, you would have loved when games were $150 (adjusted to inflation) in the early 90's.

AND games were insanely cheaper to make back then as well.

You guys have no idea how easy you have it, and how badly devs have it.

Serious question.

Don't you think if the general economy in any shape, way, or form was like it was in the earlier years of gaming (hell, I'll say pre-2000), that's exactly what we would be paying?

If a dev tried to charge $150 for a game, even if it had all that content to back it up, the simple truth is not alot of people can afford that. Not an option at all.

60 bucks is expensive as hell for someone living paycheck to paycheck, and that's a surprising amount of the population around me.

 

[Teletraan1]

The supposed problem with this is that people think that if it's not full $60 price, it must be of lower quality.

That is some old brick and mortar boogeyman shit. Plenty of inexpensive games do very well on all platforms. We just got through a GOTY season where Undertale was on everyone's lips. Not once did I see anyone complain it must be a lower quality game because it was selling for a pittance on steam. Here TW3 was cheaper at launch than any other AAA game on PSN. Never saw anyone question its quality as a result.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

It doesn't make it right because it is a strawman (I'm talking about your sentence here). If a MP only game is released without bots or LAN then it already has a built-in obsolescence, since the community / servers will eventually die or become empty. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but the norm is what I said. The current market accepts that mostly, but that doesn't mean that I have to.

No, you don't. Which is why every game isn't made for you.

 

[Maintenance]

No, you don't. Which is why every game isn't made for you.

Which is still a strawman. Nevermind, we'll just go keep going in circles.

 

[JumpCancel]

We'll just go keep going in circles.

Spoiler

Some people love circles.

 

[Pavaloo]

how much of that single player content gets reused in multiplayer?

there are always variables

 

[Ripenen]

It doesn't make it right because it is a strawman (I'm talking about your sentence here). If a MP only game is released without bots or LAN then it already has a built-in obsolescence, since the community / servers will eventually die or become empty. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but the norm is what I said. The current market accepts that mostly, but that doesn't mean that I have to.

Think of value in terms of cost/hours played. Instead of buying content, you're buying entertainment. Very few things can be expected to last indefinitely as you're suggesting, whether it's a pair of shoes, a spatula, or a video game. Yes games like Q3A, UT2004, Battlefield and others might be relatively dead now, but a lot of people got a LOT of hours of entertainment out of those games, making them incredible values even at their highest price points.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Think of value in terms of cost/hours played. Instead of buying content, you're buying entertainment. Very few things can be expected to last indefinitely as you're suggesting, whether it's a pair of shoes, a spatula, or a video game. Yes games like Q3A, UT2004, Battlefield and others might be relatively dead now, but a lot of people got a LOT of hours of entertainment out of those games, making them incredible values even at their highest price points.

Exactly. For me, obsolescence isn't purely defined by technical factors. A SP game usually becomes obsolete, for me, once I beat it--because I usually don't have a combo of time + desire to play through it again.

MP is the complete opposite for me--it prevents a game from becoming "obsolete". I rarely play games longer than 2-3 years after launch, anyway.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Which is still a strawman. Nevermind, we'll just go keep going in circles.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.



You want multiplayer only AAA games to be something they are not. To live up to your standards or what you think they should be. These games aren't made with your specific tics in mind, they are made for mass market appeal and they generally succeed at that.


How many people outside of enthusiast forums like GAF actually replay old games? How many of even Gaffers have a huge collection of old games and how often are they played in full after the first year or two? Multiplayer titles on the other hand are typically played until the next iteration arrives, and even then a population persists for quite some time. In that time one could easily get 100 hours out of a game while end with maybe 20 in your standard singleplayer.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'd rather have an awesome campaign than a crappy multiplayer mode.

Give more details, lol. Do you mean all multiplayer is crappy? Or just you don't like the crappy ones (who does)?

Because your statement can be easily flipped.

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.

Bingo to the pacing debate.

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.

There are plenty upon plenty of MMO coasters out there. More so than a multiplayer game with LAN/MOD support.

Why doesn't it make it right? There is no logical reason for multiplayer only games to be priced differently than singleplayer only games. If Battlefront should have been $40 then so should have been Arkham Knight. One could argue that both games could lead to the same time spent, the same abstract level of enjoyment taken from either. Both made by hundreds of people passionate about their game, both licensing massively successful IPs, both with large advertising budgets and presented as the crown jewel of each's publishing house's fiscal year.

So why, tell me a rational, objective reason why multiplayer only games should be priced differently.

Personal reasons with maybe a dash of bias/preference.

Which is still a strawman. Nevermind, we'll just go keep going in circles.

It is not a steawman, lol. It is an objective fact. So tell me, do you think Barbie Horse Adventures was made for you and your preferred demographic of gaming?

Think of value in terms of cost/hours played. Instead of buying content, you're buying entertainment. Very few things can be expected to last indefinitely as you're suggesting, whether it's a pair of shoes, a spatula, or a video game. Yes games like Q3A, UT2004, Battlefield and others might be relatively dead now, but a lot of people got a LOT of hours of entertainment out of those games, making them incredible values even at their highest price points.

Exactly.

 

[Beerman462]

I would but CoD yearly for $30 not $60. Most are willing to pay $60 though.

 

[RipperGrim]

How many people outside of enthusiast forums like GAF actually replay old games? How many of even Gaffers have a huge collection of old games and how often are they played in full after the first year or two? Multiplayer titles on the other hand are typically played until the next iteration arrives, and even then a population persists for quite some time. In that time one could easily get 100 hours out of a game while end with maybe 20 in your standard singleplayer.

I don't know how you can believe people don't replay their games.

 

[sono]

The thing that makes an FPS memorable and distinguishable from its competitors is the single player campaign, not the multiplayer.

Why would I buy an endless stream of cheaper, multiplayer only FPS titles only ?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I don't know how you can believe people don't replay their games.

I never said that people don't, rather they don't in the way that some in this thread are using as an argument. They make the false assumption that GAF is representative of the gaming population as a whole.

 

[_machine]

I don't know how you can believe people don't replay their games.

It's not that common though; like most games probably have already less than 50% SP completion rate (I remember at least COD4 having forty-something completion rate, should google for source when I have time). I don't really have access to any reliable data, but an educated guess would be probably on average less than 5% start another playthrough in most AAA-ish games.

EDIT: Actually, somehow my memory serves that at some point during the last generation, a developer at GDC addressed this with data showing an average of 20-30% completion rate (reached the ending). I for the life of me cannot remember which it is, but will do a quick search on GDC Vault though.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Even a more bigger reason for BF to drop that stupid SP campaign.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I don't know how you can believe people don't replay their games.

Where did he say he does not believe hat people in general do not play old games?

He is not obtuse, he knows this, and does so himself.

However, companies like GameStop, as well as Best Buy, Amazon, and eBay prove that far more people, your average gamer, trade their old games in, compared to the more hardcore enthusiasts that sit on account approval game forums.

 

[despire]

SP might cost 75% of the budget but it's 100% of the reason I would buy a FPS game.

 

[Maintenance]

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

You want multiplayer only AAA games to be something they are not. To live up to your standards or what you think they should be. These games aren't made with your specific tics in mind, they are made for mass market appeal and they generally succeed at that.

As I said before, I can go into any argument and say that "you're not the target audience".

People complained about the combat in FFXV. "Why do you complain? You're not the target audience"

People complained about the price of The Witness. "Why do you complain? You're not the target audience".

People disliked the new medabots. "Why do you complain? You're not the target audience".

 

[Messofanego]

Pretty sure the discussion is about FPSs where a multiplayer would be needed, and whether it's best to just excise the forgettable campaign. What was the last FPS that a great campaign and multiplayer, CoD 4?

It's not about touching exclusvively single-player FPSs (which Bethesda houses quite a few like Wolfenstein TNO, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dishonored).

 

[XBP]

I don't know how you can believe people don't replay their games.

That's hard not to believe when most people don't even finish their games the first time.

 

[Cynar]

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

Exactly

 

[cRIPticon]

So it's okay if the graphics look good then even if the content is pathetic?

Who says the content is pathetic? You? That is completely subjective.

Back to the point. MP only /= 75% of cost savings to a developer/publisher.

SP might cost 75% of the budget but it's 100% of the reason I would buy a FPS game.

THIS.

 

[StereoVsn]

I think that the overall premise of MP only or SP only game is very subjective and demands on the target. CliffyB comments on 75% of cost sound weird since I am sure as lot of art assets, engine customization, level design and other parts of SP get re-used for MP and vice versa.

For cost, it all depends on the game and person in question. For example, I have been a Halo fan but mainly for SP campaign and couch co-op. Halo 5 is not worth $60 to me for obvious reasons.

I have also been a fan of some of CoD SP campaigns as I quite liked CoD4. I don't play much of MP now days except a bit on the weekend so SP in general is worth to me more. Titanfall wasn't worth much to me at all due to that. At same time Battlefront Star Wars I might get for $25-$30 down the road just to mess with MP in Star Wars.

 

[Glendemonium]

MP only FPSs are so... boring though.

I mean if that's what they're eventually going to boil down too then fine. Thing is those games only get like a year or two of support and it's dropped like a hot potato.

At least include a training mode so those of us who don't have many friends or just want to play alone could get some practice in.

I'll give Destiny credit, I love the crucible because I can hop in and out and not have to be forced to communicate with players who might scream, swear, and troll you for sucking once in a while. While the option is there, it's pretty simple enough to not get killed so much and kill as many as you can.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

It's not that common though; like most games probably have already less than 50% SP completion rate (I remember at least COD4 having forty-something completion rate, should google for source when I have time). I don't really have access to any reliable data, but an educated guess would be probably on average less than 5% start another playthrough in most AAA-ish games.

EDIT: Actually, somehow my memory serves that at some point during the last generation, a developer at GDC addressed this with data showing an average of 20-30% completion rate (reached the ending). I for the life of me cannot remember which it is, but will do a quick search on GDC Vault though.

An easy metric is to look at trophy percentages now.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

How long it takes to play it doesn't matter if people won't buy it without a campaign. If it takes 75% of the budget but accounts for 75% of the sales then it's not a problem.

 

[bumpkin]

I know I'm in the minority, but I generally shop for games with single player in mind first and foremost. None of my friends work the same hours as I do, so it's rare that I'm able to go online and play with any of 'em. Moreover, my gaming time is so limited, it's hard to find much fun in getting my ass kicked by little kids shouting racial slurs and swears at me when they win because I don't have the 6+ hours a day they have to sit and play video games. lol.

With my SP bias in mind, I'll generally replay a SP campaign if any of these three are true:

1. There are New Game+ unlocks
2. The game has multiple endings
3. The game is just plain fun or satisfying as hell

If it doesn't satisfy any of these three, it's generally a one-and-done for me.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

As I said before, I can go into any argument and say that "you're not the target audience".

People complained about the combat in FFXV. "Why do you complain? You're not the target audience"

People complained about the price of The Witness. "Why do you complain? You're not the target audience".

People disliked the new medabots. "Why do you complain? You're not the target audience".

You are looking at it with far too narrow a lense.


You only need to ask two questions.

"Oh game X doesn't have multiplayer? Then I guess it isn't for me."

"Oh game Y doesn't have a campaign? Then I guess it isn't for me."

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

I guess that is on purpose but the new pol makes no scene at all btw

 

[StarStabbedMoon]

Multiplayer-only games are about 75% less fun than games with a campaign and multiplayer, so this makes sense.