Support NeoGAF

[papo]

IMO great games with great campaigns beg to differ. Also there are a lot of FPs experiences that do give us longer and better campaings. The Bioshocks, the Metroid Primes for example.

Also the best of the FPS campaigns are either short and good enough so that want to play it again after you beat it( Short good/evil type FPS or short action games are good for this) or are long and have enough content to be satisfied with just one go at it.

 

[AaronMT86]

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.

New titles are $79.99 in Canada.

 

[MANGOD]

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

PREACH IT

 

[grandwizard]

I still play unreal tournament 2004, quake 3, Starcraft, street fighter and battlefield.

I don't mind paying full price for a game that I still play a decade later. Not sure where that mp only games should be cheaper thing came from.

Console only people for which it is a new phenomenon. PC gamers got over it back in the Quake 3 and UT days, as well as the following decade of MMOs.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Console only people for which it is a new phenomenon. PC gamers got over it back in the Quake 3 and UT days, as well as the following decade of MMOs.

So we have what, 3 maybe 5 years for this outrage culture on consoles to end for this topic?

 

[papo]

Console only people for which it is a new phenomenon. PC gamers got over it back in the Quake 3 and UT days, as well as the following decade of MMOs.

So we have what, 3 maybe 5 years for this outrage culture on consoles to end for this topic?

If only console only MP FPS worked as well as those games on PC. I've been playing MP only games on PC for a long time. Team Fortress classic and Quake 3 used to be my favorites back in the day. But there is something about how console MP only games have been implemented that feels totally different. Maybe it's the DLC, connection issues and other stuff. I've just never been a fan and gotten into online gaming in consoles as much as in PC.

There have been wonderful exceptions of course. Warhawk was one of my favorites games ever and it definitely deserved its full price.

 

[TheSeks]

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

Yes, because I totally can play Battlefield: Bad Company 2 on my PS4--OH WAIT! (Next half of your post is relevant at the end wait)

The poll is RUTHLESS SHADE and I love it.

Poll is a joke and why I voted "Yes." I laughed out loud at the absurdity.

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

--Now to to get to you and the other persons point: Sure, that happens. But at the same time, does that really need to happen? I'd love for EA to port all their Battlefield maps into one release and support that for a good 2-4 years. Battlefield 4 is unfortunately the exception, not the rule. In order to squeeze money out of people, Activision/EA/et. al. release yearly sequels that play the same with small tweaks to get another $60 out of people instead of supporting the previous shooter-title and making balance changes while creating new maps/"content" for that for a good 2 years.

But besides which, for those folks that want to play the title offline/local: They can't. Shooters now a days have NO bots support. NO LAN options. NOTHING. It's "online only or the highway" for them. I can't blame people for wanting "more content" or even offline options for their own reasons (they don't like the community/too fearful of people shitting on them for being new, etc.) and not buying an online-only title.

 

[Grover]

i would be ok with getting rid of tacked on campaigns

 

[BriGuy]

Campaigns are like the only thing that distinguish most shooters from one another. You could randomly select MP maps from a hundred different games and still have a coherent experience whether you're playing with Destiny, Halo, CoD or Titanfall mechanics.

 

[Gnome Scat]

The solution is to dump multiplayer and spend 100% on the singleplayer campaign.

Worked for Wolfenstein.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Campaigns are like the only thing that distinguish most shooters from one another. You could randomly select MP maps from a hundred different games and still have a coherent experience whether you're playing with Destiny, Halo, CoD or Titanfall mechanics.

what

 

[Chuck Norris]

Wouldn't MP being cheaper be because they repurpose most of the single player assets for multiplayer?

If you tell me a ground up multiplayer only game costs a quarter of the cost of having both I won't believe it.

 

[mckmas8808]

Poll is a joke and why I voted "Yes." I laughed out loud at the absurdity.

.

Thanks for explaining that, because I couldn't figure out why the vote went that way.

 

[Journey]

So... we should only pay 25% for multiplayer only games?

 

[Sylas]

So... we should only pay 25% for multiplayer only games?

Because the budget for a game should always dictate how much it's worth.

 

[RevenWolf]

Campaigns are like the only thing that distinguish most shooters from one another. You could randomly select MP maps from a hundred different games and still have a coherent experience whether you're playing with Destiny, Halo, CoD or Titanfall mechanics.

I.... Wha....bu....

All I can say is if you don't like multiplayer games that's fine, but you clearly don't understand a single thing about actual mechanics, and how they impact map design, let alone aesthetics.

This thread has gotten pretty ridiculous with multiplayer hate, a good multiplayer only game can literally give you hundreds or thousands of hours of entertainment, and yet somehow that's not worth $60?

Yes single player games are great but just because I can play them two decades from now doesn't mean I will ever reach that number of hours simply because only the biggest of the big games come even close to pulling those numbers.

Hell I've played and completed every souls game multiple times, and my r6 siege play time is quickly starting to reach several of their total play times in a few months.

At the end of the day if you don't like multiplayer only games that's fine, but literally asking for a reduced price to games that from a value/hour proposition crush 90% of what's available seems ridiculous.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I.... Wha....bu....

All I can say is if you don't like multiplayer games that's fine, but you clearly don't understand a single thing about actual mechanics, and how they impact map design, let alone aesthetics.

This thread has gotten pretty ridiculous with multiplayer hate, a good multiplayer only game can literally give you hundreds or thousands of hours of entertainment, and yet somehow that's not worth $60?

Yes single player games are great but just because I can play them two decades from now doesn't mean I will ever reach that number of hours simply because only the biggest of the big games come even close to pulling those numbers.

Hell I've played and completed every souls game multiple times, and my r6 siege play time is quickly starting to reach several of their total play times in a few months.

At the end of the day if you don't like multiplayer only games that's fine, but literally asking for a reduced price to games that from a value/hour proposition crush 90% of what's available seems ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm straight-up puzzled by that post. Maybe he forgot some words or something.

 

[kikonawa]

for me online is tacked on. I want to enjoy my game as one adventure.

 

[Anth0ny]

Surprised we still get so many at this point. All the money is in multiplayer.

The Star Wars Battlefront method is going to become the norm as time goes on, I think.

 

[family_guy]

They just want more money from you for less effort on their part. A multiplayer-only game has no real value once it gets old enough. You see that Titanfall regularly goes for less than $10. Gamestop will give you $10 or less as trade-in value for the previous year's Call of Duty. There are few multiplayer games that people still play years later. They just move on to the next one, which is what publishers want. At least I can replay my single player games whenever I want regardless of the population.

However I will say that if you want to go the route of multiplayer only, have a very robust offline bots mode.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Campaigns are like the only thing that distinguish most shooters from one another. You could randomly select MP maps from a hundred different games and still have a coherent experience whether you're playing with Destiny, Halo, CoD or Titanfall mechanics.

I'm more a Campaign guy and even I can tell you this is grossly incorrect. Advanced Warfare should have taught the world that you can't throw Titanfall mechanics into regular CoD maps. Shit is a clusterfuck.

 

[Anton Sugar]

They just want more money from you for less effort on their part. A multiplayer-only game has no real value once it gets old enough. You see that Titanfall regularly goes for less than $10. Gamestop will give you $10 or less as trade-in value for the previous year's Call of Duty. There are few multiplayer games that people still play years later. They just move on to the next one, which is what publishers want. At least I can replay my single player games whenever I want regardless of the population.

However I will say that if you want to go the route of multiplayer only, have a very robust offline bots mode.

Using your reasoning, SP games would never or rarely decrease in value or have a low trade-in.

Most games have no "real value" when they're old, if we're talking monetarily. Value to an individual is far more subjective.

 

[ramparter]

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

10/10

Seriously people act as if there's a standard budget. We shouldn't even care when talking about prices and values. All that matters is what you pay and what you get. Even companies know that. They will never try to sell you a game for say 150$ just because it cost them 200 millions because they understand they are screwed.

 

[Neuromancer]

if you buy FPS/TPS games that are MP oriented to play the campaign, you lost

"Stop liking what I don't like," in other words?

Plenty of people enjoy the campaigns in the Call of Duty series, plenty of people enjoy the MP, and plenty of people enjoy both.

 

[RevenWolf]

"Stop liking what I don't like," in other words?

Plenty of people enjoy the campaigns in the Call of Duty series, plenty of people enjoy the MP, and plenty of people enjoy both.

I'm not sure how that's in any way a stop liking what I don't like thing.

I think what he was saying is that if you prefer single player content there are games that specifically accomodate that, and this do it significantly better.

This by playing a tacked on campaign that wasn't the focus instead of something that will almost certainly be better is literally treating yourself to a poor experience for no reason.

Ie would be the equivalent of playing only the multiplayer aspect of dragon age inquisition when you care mainly about story and decisions.

Frankly the single player camp of this argument strikes me as saying the stop liking what I don't like argument. For every person that says they don't like multiplayer thus weren't interested, there were those that basically felt all multiplayer games should fail if they are full price.

Don't get me wrong both sides are pretty defensive, and yes there are people that enjoy both, but just because someone enjoys both doesn't mean every game should have both.

 

[family_guy]

Using your reasoning, SP games would never or rarely decrease in value or have a low trade-in.

Most games have no "real value" when they're old, if we're talking monetarily. Value to an individual is far more subjective.

If the community is dead then what value is left to you? The single player experience will remain the same no matter how old it gets.

 

[woodland]

Meant to comment earlier but I was out.

I really can't understand why people expect MP only games to be worth less because they cost less. Obviously, as the poll shows its ridiculous to expect something to cost less because it had a smaller budget or only used X% of a normal budget. The developers put in the same amount of hard work and go on to make a new game filled with hard work.

Mainly though - multiplayer games have infinitely more replayability. "Bu-but in 10 years with no servers what will you do?". Well in 8.66 years I can still play Shadowrun on the 360 just fine, a game with a much smaller online community than almost any game played nowadays. Additionally, please, anyone, elaborate how much you'll be playing a single player game in 10 years time. Will it be as much as those playing Brood War? Dota? CS source, 1.6, and Quake? What about Halo 1 on XBC. Multiplayer games last longer - their communities stick around longer, their players put more hours into the game, and they get more enjoyment out of the game (can't wait for someone to argue that putting 400 hours into a single player game got more out of it than someone putting 2k hours into an mp game).

That's all I have to say really. It's ridiculous how people want to avoid paying full price for MP games by claims of "lack of content" when MP games have more replayability and SP games can have shitty titles just like MP games can.

 

[SeanTSC]

Meant to comment earlier but I was out.

I really can't understand why people expect MP only games to be worth less because they cost less. Obviously, as the poll shows its ridiculous to expect something to cost less because it had a smaller budget or only used X% of a normal budget. The developers put in the same amount of hard work and go on to make a new game filled with hard work.

I think that a LOT of the sentiment on that is due to Battlefront's perceived lack of content which is only made worse by having a $50 season pass holding the rest of the game hostage. It's really a $110 game. It's something really fresh in people's minds.

 

[Rocketz]

I'm more a Campaign guy and even I can tell you this is grossly incorrect. Advanced Warfare should have taught the world that you can't throw Titanfall mechanics into regular CoD maps. Shit is a clusterfuck.

Preach it.

 

[Hurt and Scared]

New titles are $79.99 in Canada.

Don't remind me

 

[User 479360]

Don't remind me

$74.99-84.99 it seems. Or, maybe the lower price has gone the way of the dodo bird.

It's Hellish. Controllers are up to $74.99 on PS4 and some Xbox One.

 

[Drkirby]

The Answer to the poll is clearly yes. Also all indie games should range from free to $1, since their budgets aren't even 1/360th of GTAV's.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think that a LOT of the sentiment on that is due to Battlefront's perceived lack of content which is only made worse by having a $50 season pass holding the rest of the game hostage. It's really a $110 game. It's something really fresh in people's minds.

This same silly narrative was long before Battlefront.

Again, value is subjective, and you don't need to buy day one. There has been plenty of opportunity to get Battlefront for half the price within mere weeks after launch, since it benefited from the holiday season sales that most games do.

It is a bullshit narrative that those who push it don't like hearing when flipped.

 

[Gaz_RB]

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

Word.

Meant to comment earlier but I was out.

I really can't understand why people expect MP only games to be worth less because they cost less. Obviously, as the poll shows its ridiculous to expect something to cost less because it had a smaller budget or only used X% of a normal budget. The developers put in the same amount of hard work and go on to make a new game filled with hard work.

Mainly though - multiplayer games have infinitely more replayability. "Bu-but in 10 years with no servers what will you do?". Well in 8.66 years I can still play Shadowrun on the 360 just fine, a game with a much smaller online community than almost any game played nowadays. Additionally, please, anyone, elaborate how much you'll be playing a single player game in 10 years time. Will it be as much as those playing Brood War? Dota? CS source, 1.6, and Quake? What about Halo 1 on XBC. Multiplayer games last longer - their communities stick around longer, their players put more hours into the game, and they get more enjoyment out of the game (can't wait for someone to argue that putting 400 hours into a single player game got more out of it than someone putting 2k hours into an mp game).

That's all I have to say really. It's ridiculous how people want to avoid paying full price for MP games by claims of "lack of content" when MP games have more replayability and SP games can have shitty titles just like MP games can.

Speaking of Shadowrun, I need that shit backwards compatible yesterday.

 

[the1npc]

New titles are $79.99 in Canada.

Indie games and sales it is then

 

[Xplatformer]

So this is why gears 2 and especially 3 felt so lifeless, a bit boring and uninspiring. Cutting that budget.

It was hard for me to finish both but the first one was alright. Especially for the age and time.

Wait you're saying the original Gears was a better single player experience? Gears 2 did not feel lifeless. At all.

Okay, but get this: It's not going to make me want to play multiplayer any more than I do. When I put in Halo 1 or Gears 3 or any older shooter back in to my console, it's rarely for multiplayer. I don't want to get wrecked by the crazy people who have been playing Gears 3 online for the last 5 years.

And there are a lot of scenarios like that where having singleplayer campaigns are beneficial over being strictly multiplayer. I remember the old UT3/UT2004 factoid, that despite being a 100% multiplayer game, 75% of UT2004's player base played offline, in the game's "singleplayer" mode (the weird ladder/training mode).

So if this is to somehow justify the elimination of the singleplayer campaign, then FUCK THAT

This.

 

[Duxxy3]

$74.99-84.99 it seems. Or, maybe the lower price has gone the way of the dodo bird.

It's Hellish. Controllers are up to $74.99 on PS4 and some Xbox One.

On the other hand you won't go bankrupt if you break your hand.

So you've got that going for you.

 

[Eusis]

Huh, maybe my prior post really isn't so "going off track" as I thought.

I'd like to know how many seriously voted "yes", and perhaps who bought it on sale but voted "no" anyway. I'm admittedly the latter, but it's a tighter situation than when Witcher 2 hit, had I been in a better spot (and perhaps had completed Witcher 2 at least beforehand) I'd definitely have wanted to jump in day one at full price, or certainly far closer to $60 than $30.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I only buy shooters lately for the campaign and nothing else. The only online shooter where I've ever taken the multiplayer portion serious was Counter-Strike 1.5/1.6.

 

[woodland]

I think that a LOT of the sentiment on that is due to Battlefront's perceived lack of content which is only made worse by having a $50 season pass holding the rest of the game hostage. It's really a $110 game. It's something really fresh in people's minds.

I would agree that one's complete bullshit - but a lot of the "other" cases don't seem worth bringing up to me. Battlefront's pass is insane and I'm glad it got flamed, just sad it results in overall MP-only flaming.

 

[ZOONAMI]

The solution is to dump multiplayer and spend 100% on the singleplayer campaign.

See Wolfenstein: TNO.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I like Absolution Cliffy more and more every time he speaks.

 

[Andrew J.]

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

Price is determined by supply and demand, not the cost of production.

 

[Kurt Angle]

sell me the multi for 30
single player for 30

so i don't ever have to sit through single player ever again

 

[RobNBanks]

See Wolfenstein: TNO.

one of only 3 good FPS in this millennium

From the developer that made 2 of the 3

seems like its more of the except than the norm

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I voted yes to take the piss haha, whoops. Silly poll.

Anyways, I'd like to see more games just dump multiplayer and balloon that campaign budget, but I guess that's not happening

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

If FPS campaigns cost 75% of the budget, then a multiplayer-only FPS with no campaign has no excuse to be light on content, as that means the multiplayer has four times the budget.

 

[NIN90]

This "price needs to be in relation to budget" narative that has started to crop up recently on this site is so dumb.

People can be so dumb.

 

[TriAceJP]

I gave a sarcastic answer for the poll and was shocked on how high the percentage was for Yes.

 

[Z3M0G]

Nobody is sirprised by this right? Writing... motion capture... musical score... actors... set piece moments... environments you walk through in seconds never to see again...

Multiplayer costs very little compared to all that.