PC Gamer Video Link
Just saw this on Reddit. As usual this lends to the discussion about pricing for MP-only titles.
Just saw this on Reddit. As usual this lends to the discussion about pricing for MP-only titles.
-
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
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
I'm glad we're moving away from tacked on campaigns. R6S, Titanfall - they did it right. Battlefront didn't.
TriAceJP
Member
Seems to be a problem with the way they are designing their campaigns, then.
$20-$30 with DLC maps released later and paid cosmetic costume changes.
$20-$30 with DLC maps released later and paid cosmetic costume changes.
Primethius
Banned
First post, perfect post.
WaterAstro
Member
So according to CliffyB, multiplayer only games should be 75% cheaper.
Stallion Dan
Member
Which is why Battlefront's lack of content is BS.
I'm fine with no single player in shooters if that budget goes towards the MP, rather than nowhere.
I'm fine with no single player in shooters if that budget goes towards the MP, rather than nowhere.
Yeah, most linear, set piece heavy campaigns have went out the window in general due to cost versus the amount of audience they were getting.
These days games are usually either a singleplayer and/or co-op open world titles (since consumers view that as a great value, and if your game is very systemically driven instead of set piece driven, not actually amazingly expensive), or a competitive multiplayer title.
Mind, sometimes they're both.
These days games are usually either a singleplayer and/or co-op open world titles (since consumers view that as a great value, and if your game is very systemically driven instead of set piece driven, not actually amazingly expensive), or a competitive multiplayer title.
Mind, sometimes they're both.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
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.
It was hard for me to finish both but the first one was alright. Especially for the age and time.
I'd have actually bought Titanfall, Battlefront and R6S if they had campaigns. Even tacked on campaigns in games like COD, Rainbow Six, Battlefield etc have always seemed like fun time killers to me. Personally I really dislike this online only but still the same price malarkey. It's not even as if games like Titanfall or Battlefront had a tonne of multiplayer content either.
Dlacy13g
Member
I could get behind that.
Nightengale
Member
Has there been any insight into why set-pieces and flashy short campaigns are so expensive to produce?
Strangelove77
Member
So mp only shooters should cost like $20 or something, right? Sounds right.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
That's not how this works. It allows developers to funnel 100% of their resources into the mode that actually matters.
Adding a 4 or 5 hour shitty campaign where you mow down literal hallways full of AI for hours on end isn't worth the trade off and doesn't magically make a game better or worth $60.
Development isn't inherently cheaper just because they remove a single player campaign. A game doesn't automatically lose it's value if it doesn't have a single player story mode.
Titanfall had a fine amount of content.
Brian_FETO
Banned
Yeah... I don't think a lack of campaign should automatically mean lack of content. Obviously its unplayable for folks without internet connections, but if you're making a game with the focus on the online I'm all for putting all resources towards it
It's just an issue when the MP stuff seems lacking content-wise, makes the omission of a campaign way more noticeable
Phreakuency
Banned
It all comes down to the quality of the multiplayer though. Battlefield 3 and 4 (while I thought the campaigns were decent enough and worth playing) I would have been happy to just pay for the multiplayer.
Battlefront... what a heap of crap that game is. The noise gamers have made for a campaign come from two reasons, 1. the base game is so generic 2. the visuals and attention to detail in the models as well as the great audio would be perfect for a campaign.
Battlefront... what a heap of crap that game is. The noise gamers have made for a campaign come from two reasons, 1. the base game is so generic 2. the visuals and attention to detail in the models as well as the great audio would be perfect for a campaign.
misses bull
Banned
That's probably because multiplayer shooters aren't for you.
Gears 2 and 3 had way bigger budgets than 1 and the MP for 1 was tacked on and made in less than six weeks lmao what are you talking about
Steverulez
Member
That's bait.gif
Gears 2 has the best campaign of the franchise, both are longer than gears 1s, plus 3 has awesome 4 player co-op and player scoring mode
I mean, some singleplayer games don't cost that much either.
Even if it took four years, there were only 108 people making Fallout 4, so it should only cost 25% of what Assassin's Creed: Unity did.
I don't think titanfall did it right. They shouldn't have bothered with the 20gb of voiceovers in a mode no one played after a week (at least on pc), and focused on more gameplay content at launch. I'm all for a game without a campaign, but don't include a fart in a ziplock bag and call it a campaign mode.
Pretty much this.
Alternative would be to offer a lot more content (game mode and maps).
Don't see why i should pay full price for a MP game when i can buy a game with both for the same price.
Just look at CS GO which is probably the best fps around and priced perfectly fine between 10-30.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
The supposed problem with this is that people think that if it's not full $60 price, it must be of lower quality.
Gunslinger
Member
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.
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.
LifeBrandRobot
Member
I don't mind MP only games, but most MP only games feel like they just chopped off the SP and add nothing to extra to MP. Feels like they're just saving money from the SP and not funneling it into the MP.
Based on some of the recent online only releases, that doesn't really seem to be the case though. Instead it's as if devs are saving money and extracting more from us for less. Or at least it feels that way based off of games like Battlefront and Titanfall, which if anything have less multiplayer content than several fps titles that have both a campaign and content rich multiplayer. Just feels like we're getting less value proposition with these games.
i usually need to play through a campaign first to get a feel of the games quirks, and so i can suck at said game discreetly. though i understand why they're falling by the wayside
in that respect i don't so much mind "tacked-on" campaigns. i probably would've shelled out full price on Battlefront if it had one, regardless of how half assed it would be
in that respect i don't so much mind "tacked-on" campaigns. i probably would've shelled out full price on Battlefront if it had one, regardless of how half assed it would be
WaterAstro
Member
That is how it works for CliffyB's example. Of course what he says doesn't apply to every game, but to make a strict statement like that makes it sound like you can lop off the single-player and sell it cheaper.
There's also the fact that all of the singleplayer assets will get used in multiplayer, so no one should take "75% of the budget" on face value.
And if a game has a campaign doesn't make it shitty. Naughty Dog has been making GOTY campaigns with extremely fun multiplayer.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
This is such horseshit. The industry isn't turning into a scam, and multiplayer games can and should be worth $60. Counter-Strike's price is one of the lesser reasons it's so popular - and a lot of the content is entirely created by the community. Hell, the entire franchise started as a mod. They're not giving a 4 year old game that was never aimed to be $60 the same development funds as a modern AAA multiplayer game.
If a game has enough content, is fun, and works... Then it shouldn't automatically be reduced to $30 or lower simply for lacking a single player campaign.
This mindset is just as bad as wanting to pay $15 or less for indies at max.
My man.
Barakov
Gold Member
It depends on the game but the campaign is the first thing I go to. I loved the campaigns in Rainbow Six Vegas 1 and 2 and given that Siege lacked one made me skip it. Chances are if a game is mp only I will either skip it or wait for a price drop.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Voice acting, programming, scripting, making sure it doesnt fall apart in a minute. Something like a chase scene can be expensive because they have to program a whole city and make sure it doesnt fall apart, as well as the scripting and ai.
Focusing on multiplayer in comparison is loads easier. Like, antithetic to the example above, a small map where 8 players can go around.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
Very uninspired, boring and ugly levels. It's bad when a football stadium feels like one of the better levels.
I couldn't even finish 2 and 3 ah.
They just couldn't catch some of that atmosphere from one.
I'd assume with it being a sequel it wasn't that much more expensive to make. Definitely shorter development
I don't know......the Last 3 multiplayer only games seem to be on par or with even less content then those with tacked in single player. So apparently they don't feel the same.
fredrancour
Member
it's funny to me to hear campaigns referred to as the tacked-on side of the game because when i complained last-gen about tacked-on game modes, I invariably meant "your multiplayer mode is pointless because i'm only going to seriously invest myself in a couple multiplayer modes a year. stop thinking you'll compete with halo or CoD or L4D or TF2 and give me an interesting campaign to experience." I guess that's why I always have been on the "multiplayer-only games are inherently going to make me expect a lower price tag" side of the equation.
Granted, I've been checked out of shooters for the last couple years, so I guess my opinion won't matter on these things until I build myself a good desktop pc.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll