Support NeoGAF

[Tal Shiar Agent]

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.

lol, no it doesn't. It means that the budget for the game is likely smaller than if it included a campaign.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

was that poll like literally just added to the thread or have i somehow entered through a black hole of common sense where shit loads of people are acting like they actually want to miss the point

 

[Morrigan Stark]

was that poll like literally just added to the thread or have i somehow entered through a black hole of common sense where shit loads of people are acting like they actually want to miss the point

I'm kind of appalled at the number of Yes votes... surely they're ironic votes somehow?

 

[Huge Succeeded]

I'm kind of appalled at the number of Yes votes... surely they're ironic votes somehow?

i wish i could say that reading through this thread would prove that they are in fact ironic

but alas here we are

i hope the next gta costs $95 usd, you'll all buy it anyway and that's more in line with its relative budget or whatever

 

[Northeastmonk]

My argument is that people felt the whole "Brothers to the End" and Cole Train because of the campaign. Playing Gears for just MP would have had less of what it got IMO. It wouldn't have made any real sense.

Most MP is a continuation of the game or the weapons you acquired while playing the game. Sometimes it just doesn't stick with the game based on its aesthetics. Look at Resistance or even KillZone. People see campaigns and not multiplayer. Not everyone understands Quake or Unreal. I played Unreal 2's SP, but did everyone else play that or just stick to UT2k/2k4?

It's like you can fit in MP or you can just streamline it. The better MP is real because it's what makes people stay. Quake or even Halo are big contenders to that. Gears as well. You sorta need that whole package because you're pleasing one group of people and not the other.

I think there is a separation, like there always has been. I feel like Gears of War was a lot of what Halo or even CoD were before people just went their own way.

Halo owes a lot to having good MP, but that wasn't "Finishing the fight". It was a solid plot with this large scale while Gears of War was "Brothers to the End".

Apparently MP is up there with the Joneses. It looks better than it ever did, graphically, but it's still incredibly selective (still).

Was it worth it, that's the biggest question. I think any IP that had a solid run owes it to their SP, whatever the cost was. I don't think Bungie ever regretted their Halo campaign costs.

 

[Ultimadrago]

$20 for Witcher 3? Time to Double-Dip!

Wait...

 

[RedSwirl]

Sorry to bump this but I had another thought that I didn't see mentioned in the thread:

Maybe another reason we're seeing more multiplayer-only games from AAA publishers is because they're mad about putting all that money into cinematic linear campaigns only to see people watch them in their entirety on YouTube. That's one of the weaknesses of games where one of the main selling points is a story told mostly through cut scenes -- you can watch it pre-recorded like a movie (or a season of a TV show) and get the same effect, rendering it almost uselss as a game.

 

[Sulik2]

Sorry to bump this but I had another thought that I didn't see mentioned in the thread:

Maybe another reason we're seeing more multiplayer-only games from AAA publishers is because they're mad about putting all that money into cinematic linear campaigns only to see people watch them in their entirety on YouTube. That's one of the weaknesses of games where one of the main selling points is a story told mostly through cut scenes -- you can watch it pre-recorded like a movie (or a season of a TV show) and get the same effect, rendering it almost uselss as a game.

More likely its just that the statistics show barely anyone plays the campaigns. You can slash your budget, sell a mulitplayer only title at the same price, load it full of microtransactions and make far more profit on the game then you would have before.

 

[vasametropolis]

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

This is the world I'd rather live in.

 

[UnwrittenZero]

This is the world I'd rather live in.

Me too, not a mp gamer really. I'm in it for the story. I don't care what cliffy does though, I know Bethesda arnt going to drop their campaigns any time soon. Bring on doom and wolf 2.

 

[LordofPwn]

I wouldn't mind paying $60 for a multiplayer only game if the multiplayer gameplay is great and keeps me entertained for a few months.

I payed like $40 in gift cards for battlefront and i've sunk in nearly 50 hours into that game, have 1 trophy left to get the platinum. i've enjoyed my time and that price of $40 seemed fair for what it is.

Conversely i got Rocket League on PS+ and have bought all the DLC packs. would have been happy to pay $60 + a season pass for that game with how much enjoyment i've gotten out of it.

however if rocket league was $60 at launch i doubt it would have as big of a player base as it does and then i probably wouldn't have had as many hours into it as i do. I get on for a few matches every night and there's usually around 6-10K people in standard 3v3.

Going forward I feel $40 for a multiplayer only game is a fair price. $60 if it includes DLC for the next year. O an there should be some form of offline mode even if it's just vs ai. I still maintain that the DLC should not divide the player base or offer an advantage to competitive play. these should be laws for Multiplayer only games.

 

[Bolivar687]

More likely its just that the statistics show barely anyone plays the campaigns. You can slash your budget, sell a mulitplayer only title at the same price, load it full of microtransactions and make far more profit on the game then you would have before.

That's not true - Drift0r said Activision keeps making campaigns because a substantial number of purchasers never log online once.

 

[NullPointer]

That's not true - Drift0r said Activision keeps making campaigns because a substantial number of purchasers never log online once.

And even those who jump into the online aren't all going to be hardcore about it or play it every day. Some players blaze through the campaign once and never again once they jump into multiplayer, while others will play the multiplayer for a few days and then return to campaign.

The combination of campaign and multiplayer seems like a good way to justify the $60 price for many customers in both camps.

 

[Neuromancer]

Sorry to bump this but I had another thought that I didn't see mentioned in the thread:

Maybe another reason we're seeing more multiplayer-only games from AAA publishers is because they're mad about putting all that money into cinematic linear campaigns only to see people watch them in their entirety on YouTube. That's one of the weaknesses of games where one of the main selling points is a story told mostly through cut scenes -- you can watch it pre-recorded like a movie (or a season of a TV show) and get the same effect, rendering it almost uselss as a game.

I doubt that's it. Lots of people watch other people playing MP too.

More likely its just that the statistics show barely anyone plays the campaigns. You can slash your budget, sell a mulitplayer only title at the same price, load it full of microtransactions and make far more profit on the game then you would have before.

Are those statistics real? I can look up any trophy/achievement data for any CoD game and they generally line up with other single player games.

I will agree that people probably spend a lot more time in MP than SP but that is not the same thing as people not playing the SP at all.

 

[system11]

I don't buy MP only games. It would need to be a surefire gangbuster hit for me to consider it, if the price was lower.