What does this have to do with the subject of multiplayer-only game pricing
-
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
Super Moop
Banned
I'm not a huge fan of Cliffy B, but I also thought the amount of content Titanfall launched with was fine.
I am conflicted.
I am conflicted.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Naughty Dog is an awful, awful example for this. They're making narrative, immersive single player campaigns first and foremost. The multiplayer is never the main attraction for a Naughty Dog game. It's not like with, say, Rainbow Six Siege, where a single player campaign would have been an afterthought at best.
TBH even with Titanfall I didn't like their implementation of the quasi-campaign. But it didn't bug me that much as I felt overall the game had a fine amount of content, most importantly having quality maps for the MP.
I didn't know The Last of Us was a multiplayer only game originally in development
Wolfenstein The New Order was a big game changer for me as to what I look for in shooters. Previously I looked at MP first but now I'm much more likely to buy one that dumps MP than one with MP only.
SimpleCRIPPLE
Member
Accurate or not, I feel like this may be the takeaway people people start quoting.
Primethius
Banned
For reals. I would't want Sieges MP to remotely get hampered due to the inclusion of SP.
And I certainly don't want Ubisoft to expect higher sales due to the incluion of SP. MP only kills two birds with one stone as far as I'm concerned.
TheSlySoul
Member
Sounds about right, put 75% less budget in the game and sell it for full price anyway. That budget goes into $30 DLC.
Cannot be too mad because reasonable budget and AAA seem to be two things that do not mix.
Coffee Dog
Banned
[Citation Needed]
We've lost single player and the now multiplayer only games have not had a marked uptick in quality or quantity.
The truth is that dev costs have become so ridiculous that game makers struggle to give us even fractions of what we used to get in the AAA space. Everything but the absolute most immediately profitable aspects are cut.
Hahahahahaha... Oh, wait... you're serious? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No, not at launch it didn't. It took them, what a year or so to get co-op mode and a bunch of other maps in?
Also it, Seige, and other multiplayer-only shooters not even giving people offline LAN and bot matches to practice with/explore the maps in = no value. I'm sorry to say that, but it's true. You can not make a multiplayer online shooter and only have 3-4 maps and expect people to just accept that as "good value!" You need to give them the options to play it even without an internet connection so they can "engage" with the game and make communities pop-up.
Meh.. Mp only games at $60 can go die.
The solution is to simply not make it an after thought, and not make it shit. In other words, try and offer a better campaign to go along with the multiplayer, and in doing so increase value proposition to your potential customers. As I said before, I've enjoyed the campaigns in nearly all of the big shooters, even if they were mostly fun time killers, and generally nothing particularly exceptional.
Hell, Rainbow Six Co op campaign was awesome on the 360. Such a shame to see it missing from the new one. And Titanfall and Battlefront, what missed opportunities. The setting, lore, premise, characters, equipment and world, both would have been perfect for a full on campaign imo.
That's fine and I have no issue with MP only games being $60, they're just usually not games that are for me. I'm okay with games not being for me, since there's a shitload that are.
I would have bought Battlefront if it had a good Single Player campaign though, even though I've never played a single CoD or Battlefield game before, but I'm not upset about it. I just wish we could get some kind of big AAA Star Wars game that has SP.
I would have bought Battlefront if it had a good Single Player campaign though, even though I've never played a single CoD or Battlefield game before, but I'm not upset about it. I just wish we could get some kind of big AAA Star Wars game that has SP.
Titanfall had 15 maps at launch I thought? Isn't that really good for most modern shooters these days?
You can make an argument for weapons and other ranking stuff sure but maps? Modes? Titanfall was packed with those.
Siege has Terrorist Hunt lol what are you talking about
Do you really think the casual multiplayer gamer is going to care about learning the maps of a shooter, because if they did they wouldn't be playing Rainbow Six
a tactical shooter
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Battlefronts lack of content has more to do with DICE having to ship a game in a series they haven't worked with before (all new assests/sounds etc) in 18 months to come out with the movie while simultaneously developing 2 other games. If there had been plans for a single player, I fully expect they died in early 2014 during the battlefield 4 debacle.
Living Proof
Member
Last gen was filled with games that journalists and forums labeled as having tacked-on multiplayer, and generally it was assumed that consumers into multiplayer would focus on a select few titles for longer periods of time rather than dropping their current game for new releases.
I honestly haven't even thought of this in recent years, probably because I almost exclusively play single player stuff. Still, it's interesting to consider how much has changed from the perspective of the consumers.
I honestly haven't even thought of this in recent years, probably because I almost exclusively play single player stuff. Still, it's interesting to consider how much has changed from the perspective of the consumers.
Same here, zero interest in an FPS without a real campaign.
TheSpecialOne
Banned
Evolution of Metal
Member
That information needs more context.
There is a shared budget between many games that offer both campaign and MP. For example, many multi-player maps are usually a repackaged campaign location. Many character models and weapons are also recycled between modules. And what about the game engine and game mechanics, which budget covers that? In a game like Gears of War you get a highly refined third person shooter. Clearly voice acting, cutscenes and single-player scenarios are strictly a campaign expense.
There is no way in hell that Gears of War multiplayer would be doable with 25% of the game's budget, that game shares engine, mechanics, locations, characters, weapons, sounds between modules.
There is a shared budget between many games that offer both campaign and MP. For example, many multi-player maps are usually a repackaged campaign location. Many character models and weapons are also recycled between modules. And what about the game engine and game mechanics, which budget covers that? In a game like Gears of War you get a highly refined third person shooter. Clearly voice acting, cutscenes and single-player scenarios are strictly a campaign expense.
There is no way in hell that Gears of War multiplayer would be doable with 25% of the game's budget, that game shares engine, mechanics, locations, characters, weapons, sounds between modules.
Coffee Dog
Banned
I think its more that people made those requests with the assumption that the multiplayer mode would benefit from the new, tighter focus of the products.
People have not yet seen those benefits, and are left wondering why they sacrificed these elements at all.
Bravo, good sir. Bravo!
At least this gen also is moving away from tacked-on multiplayer. That was such a bore last gen over 'how X will change forever with multiplayer!'
BlazeHedgehog
Member
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
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
NinjamicWZ
Banned
Well, we still get some great blockbusters despite reality TV, and great documentaries despite whatever... we can still have good stuff of all types, and it all takes commitment and money to corner a market someone else may be neglecting, instead of all fighting for the same dollar and losing.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
Sorry will see myself out.
Would you say Titanfall "sacrificed" SP when the devs were up front about it being a multiplayer game? There was never any expectation for the series.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
If that's true then when do we see AAA FPS titles (not F2P) have so much multiplayer content at launch it feels like they're giving the game away?
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Haven't you been banned for your agenda against Titanfall before? Like, waving your dick around in sales threads and unabashedly calling it "Titanflop"? I'm not sure you're exactly in a position to be screaming from the rooftops about how bad it was at launch and be expected to be taken seriously.
Also, I'm glad to know Rainbow Six Siege has no value. I will tell myself and my friends that, and we will refund the title immediately. Thank you!
Nah. I'd take Rainbow Six: Siege over Rainbow Six: Patriots every single time. You're entitled to an opinion, as am I, but it's ridiculous to say an entire method of FPS game releases should die because you don't like it.
I don't think that the development time and money is necessarily worth the trade offs of having a fleshed out campaign for a lot of titles. The more time and money funnelled into these campaigns, the less likely we are to get quality multiplayer modes - which games like Titanfall, R6, etc have been built around from the ground up.
If they want to flesh out the lore and characters in these games, make a seperate title afterwards. Don't 50/50 it.
Primethius
Banned
I dunno. Rainbow Six Siege runs circles around Vegas 1 and 2, so I've definitely seen the benefit. A lot of people also enjoyed Titanfall and it had a pretty significant impact on console FPS games.
misses bull
Banned
I think people are complaining about the wrong thing with these multiplayer shooters. Because it's not a lack of content problem is a depth in the gameplay problem. Battlefront could have 40 amazingly well crafted maps but that wouldn't matter cause the shooting has zero depth to it. People have been playing dust 2 in cs for over 10 years now and that's not because dust 2 is so amazing that you can replay it a million times and not get bored but it's cause the shooting in cs has so much depth to it that you don't mind playing the same map over and over again. 30 hours into titanfall you mastered the game. 30 hours into cs and you barely know anything.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/uncharted-writers-star-wars-game-along-the-same-li/1100-6428492/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/uncharted-writers-star-wars-game-along-the-same-li/1100-6428492/
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
What about the tech involved though? Big map with no coding for quests. That's basically said right out of the box. Look at Halo's maps. A lot of it is endless space with weapons placed here and there, maybe a crane moves up and down. That's my biggest problem with some games. They rely on input from the player for everything.
I see it now more than I did years ago. You're left in a world that depends on other people to make sense of everything. Of course cost is gonna increase when you want something to happen. I see more open space with multiplayer, but the desire has to be there for players to keep coming back.
Impact the player with a good single player and you wouldn't need to worry about costs. That's sorta happened right? Companies make back their money because they made an impact with their single player. Multiplayer is hard because it really depends on interpretation of what the player expects. You expect one thing and not the other.
I like both worlds, but I couldn't say things would be better if we paid $60 for Mulitplayer only. I have the Season pass for Titanfall and I haven't played it in well over a year maybe? I kinda feel like I have no attachment to it at all and I bought it.
I remember Halo 2's big team battle maps or even 4v4, but I started with the campaign.
I see it now more than I did years ago. You're left in a world that depends on other people to make sense of everything. Of course cost is gonna increase when you want something to happen. I see more open space with multiplayer, but the desire has to be there for players to keep coming back.
Impact the player with a good single player and you wouldn't need to worry about costs. That's sorta happened right? Companies make back their money because they made an impact with their single player. Multiplayer is hard because it really depends on interpretation of what the player expects. You expect one thing and not the other.
I like both worlds, but I couldn't say things would be better if we paid $60 for Mulitplayer only. I have the Season pass for Titanfall and I haven't played it in well over a year maybe? I kinda feel like I have no attachment to it at all and I bought it.
I remember Halo 2's big team battle maps or even 4v4, but I started with the campaign.
Coffee Dog
Banned
of course. it was a genre standard feature up until that point. The fact that they determined that it wasn't worth the investment, just like every other shooter dev not so coincidentally did at that time, points more to adapting to market realities than creative decisions.
I think CoD has a way of distorting peoples' perceptions about this topic due to it having continuity. The series now consists of 3 main studios, each with their own partners helping, continually building off of previous releases. Most of the MP-only releases this generation have been new series or reboots without that basis to work off of. With that in mind, I find the MP focus more understandable.
Bullshit, dude. MP-only FPS had absolutely existed before Titanfall, don't act like it's a concept that was just invented for nefarious purposes. Also, I disagree with the idea that these decisions have to be "either" creative or business. In Titanfall it was definitely both, since it had the smallest team of anything mentioned in this thread and those people were inspired primarily by multiplayer.
Bullshit, dude. MP-only FPS had absolutely existed before Titanfall, don't act like it's a concept that was just invented for nefarious purposes. Also, I disagree with the idea that these decisions have to be "either" creative or business. In Titanfall it was definitely both, since it had the smallest team of anything mentioned in this thread and those people were inspired primarily by multiplayer.
Only if GTA games should suddenly cost 120 dollars.
Mechanized
Member
I will gladly take that tradeoff.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
It was not a genre standard feature. Plenty of FPS games before it did not have MP modes.
So MP-Only FPS Games should either be 75% cheaper than FPS Games with both SP and MP so $15, or they should have four times as much content than the MP portion of an FPS Game with both SP and MP. I could live with either option, but don't try to sell me 25% of a FPS game for $60.
In reality, I would just be happy with a console FPS Game that has local multiplayer and bots usable in every mode in addition to online multiplayer, but no one's making games that have local multiplayer and bots it seems.
In reality, I would just be happy with a console FPS Game that has local multiplayer and bots usable in every mode in addition to online multiplayer, but no one's making games that have local multiplayer and bots it seems.
Hopefully it actually comes out! 1313 getting canceled was sad times.
Coffee Dog
Banned
In the market of AAA console blockbusters? Gears had a campaign, halo had a campaign, COD had a campaign, Killzone had a campaign, battlefield, I could go on.
Of course there were multiplayer only games. They existed. But in the realm of multi gorillion dollar AAA shooters, I don't think everyone stopped investing in campaigns all at the same time for no reason.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Call of Duty still does. Plethora of maps, modes, etc. Bot matches and local play aplenty.
Hold on gymshoe, Battlefield started the inclusion of shitty campaigns for in 2.
*Most* FPS games had an SP mode though, right? Every single game in a genre doesn't have to have a feature for it to be a standard - just the majority.
MP only games are now only 25% of a game damn. a couple of weeks ago it was 50% of a game.
By 2018 MP only will be 5%
Titanfall was a game made by ~70 people whose not-huge budget ran out multiple times before they were bailed out by MS. It was a scrappy project thrust into the role of a big marquee FPS, not one that had everything lined up and decided to skimp on the campaign.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll