Support NeoGAF

[Enter the Dragon Punch]

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%

they should be paying ME to play!

 

[Auto-Reply]

I can only assume that statement was meant like "those are 75% I'd rather want to invest into the multiplayer part and just ditch the campaign" and not like "this will make game development and game prizes cheaper".

I guess many studios are eager to have their own mp following and see single player contend as something that just stands in the way of that, an unneccessary hurdle.
Which would be a sad development in my eyes, wouldn't surprise me though!

 

[chadskin]

So I guess CliffyB stole my FPS Campaigns

 

[chronic_archaic]

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.

Titanfall has 20 maps, a coop mode, a fantastic level progression system and a ton of gamemodes. Even if we base it on how it was day one it's still a fantastic multiplayer game. It's like saying Unreal Tournament wasn't worth it because it has no single player yet if it had any nobody would care. Kinda like how no one cares about the campaigns in COD and the like. It's about time investment, not how much content is there - well crafted MP games will probably give you more playtime than most $60 experiences ever will if you enjoy it enough.

 

[Warxard]

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.

Multiplayer-only games aren't even a half a game anymore got damn

This thread lmao. People have such warped values and perceptions of a what a game should be.

 

[RobNBanks]

they should be paying ME to play!

i quoted you and Boo Boo'n earlier saying you guys are wasting your time, but that post...smfh

How long until MP only games aren't considered "real" games anymore like mobile games/facebook games?

 

[Northeastmonk]

I can only assume that statement was meant like "those are 75% I'd rather want to invest into the multiplayer part and just ditch the campaign" and not like "this will make game development and game prizes cheaper".

I guess many studios are eager to have their own mp following and see single player contend as something that just stands in the way of that, an unneccessary hurdle.
Which would be a sad development in my eyes, wouldn't surprise me though!

I wish more and more developers would simply make both. If they're a creator then why can't they find a way to do both? A movie director makes a movie, they aren't saying, "oh this short film is better". They know what they're doing and the market they're making it for. Nothing against a single player or a multiplayer. I just wish they'd all solve the problem, if there is one.

 

[CryptiK]

Battlefield before BC was an MP only game and was worth every cent. Only after they added single player did the games become shit and worth less(Besides BC2)

 

[Enter the Dragon Punch]

i quoted you and Boo Boo'n earlier saying you guys are wasting your time, but that post...smfh

How long until MP only games aren't considered "real" games anymore like mobile games/facebook games?

yeah, I saw, but I feel strongly about this

and tomorrow, probably

 

[Orayn]

I wish more and more developers would simply make both. If they're a creator then why can't they find a way to do both? A movie director makes a movie, they aren't saying, "oh this short film is better". They know what they're doing and the market they're making it for. Nothing against a single player or a multiplayer. I just wish they'd all solve the problem, if there is one.

You're saying "just do both" like resources aren't finite or the decision to favor one over the other can't be justified.

 

[MutonCommander]

I tend to have more fun with the tacked on campaigns than the MP.

: /

Me too

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

i quoted you and Boo Boo'n earlier saying you guys are wasting your time, but that post...smfh

How long until MP only games aren't considered "real" games anymore like mobile games/facebook games?

Well if I'm paying more than $15 for a game, it better be something I can play by myself without needing to rely on servers or a community.

 

[Coda]

Multiplayer is the future no matter whether you like it or not. The only shooter campaign I can remember really enjoying was Gears of War 1 and 2, mainly because you could play them in split screen co-op and I loved playing it with a buddy at the time, it felt classic. We need more split-screen local co-op shooters with more arcade-like feel. None of this realistic bs.

Most FPS games never really gave me enjoyment from their single player experiences. They always just felt like spectacle and not really a fun experience. Most single player games that I had fun with were more rooted in 3rd person action rather than 1st person action. That's just my opinion though.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Battlefield before BC was an MP only game and was worth every cent. Only after they added single player did the games become shit and worth less(Besides BC2)

Can't argue with this... I will also present Rainbow 6 before that Vegas crap as well. BF2 and R6 Raven Shield were pinnacle.

 

[Game Guru]

Call of Duty still does. Plethora of maps, modes, etc. Bot matches and local play aplenty.

I've been meaning to get one of the Treyarch Call of Duty games. Only reason I didn't really get into the franchise last generation is because I had Unreal Tournament III to fill my 'local multiplayer and bots' needs and futuristic arena shooter is more my tastes than modern military shooter. Console online has never interested me.

However, it seems like Call of Duty is the exception that proves the rule despite it being the FPS Game all the others want to beat.

 

[Foffy]

Huh. Must be too bombastic and crazy.

I wonder how much Bohemia's military campaigns are for the ArmA games. I would have to imagine their budget is spent on the island and assets, and less on the campaign.

 

[Coffee Dog]

You're saying "just do both" like resources aren't finite or the decision to favor one over the other can't be justified.

Who allocates the resources?

Because it seems that just a few years ago we were able to allocate those resources in such a way that "tacked on campaigns" or "tacked on multi" were widespread complaints.

My point being, that it isn't a stretch to think that some consumers would be displeased with how the developers allocates said finite resources.

 

[User 479360]

Campaigns get about 75% of my interest, on average, so they're pretty important in my buying decision/worth it for me.

I got bored of Battlefront, Rainbow Six and other games like them because there wasn't really any SP content.

Gears' campaigns are more fun than their mp, too.

 

[Warxard]

Well if I'm paying more than $15 for a game, it better be something I can play by myself without needing to rely on servers or a community.

Hey they have these things called single player games you can buy then

Because it sounds like you just do not enjoy playing with other people.

Campaigns get about 75% of my interest, on average, so they're pretty important in my buying decision/worth it for me.

I got bored of Battlefront, Rainbow Six and other games like them because there wasn't really any SP content.

Gears' campaigns are more fun than their mp, too.

The power of the cutscene

 

[Guerrilla]

$20-$30 with DLC maps released later and paid cosmetic costume changes.

This would be the way to go. I would def. Have bought rs6 and bf for 30.

Mp only is only half a game in the current mindset of the consumer(apparently only 1/4 of a game for publishers) so half the price just seems fair

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

Damn, we were spoiled stupid in the 90s and early to mid aughts with fps campaigns, glad I was around to soak it up before the glut of open world and mp focus swarmed everything. Granted a lot of those campaigns were crap but there was still tons of great fare, but I get with asset creation at the complexity it is nowadays it isn't feasible budget wise.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

75% of the budget. No wonder every single game with single and multiplayer the multiplayer lacks depth and all that jazz. They scrape the bottom of the barrel for that last 25% just to make multiplayer semi-likable and burning with repetition

 

[sjay1994]

What does a MP only game need to do/have to justify full price?

Because most of the campaigns I've played felt incredibly tacked on, while something like R6S feels fully realized in terms of the multiplayer its made.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

Hey they have these things called single player games you can buy then

Not for much longer if these trends continue! It sounds like if I want a singleplayer FPS, I should just stop paying attention right now because they're too expensive and also apparently worthless.

 

[joshcam19]

The SP of most games is what actually gets me into MP. I'm much more receptive to trying MP if you hook me with the SP campaign. That's the biggest reason I didn't buy Battlefront or Evolve. They look interesting but MP only does almost nothing for me. So that 75 percent of the budget is what actually gets my money and makes me more likely to try MP or buy DLC.

 

[The Incredible Muffin]

So mp only shooters should cost like $20 or something, right? Sounds right.

Do some of you actually feel that way?

I rather look at the amount of entertainment i personally get out of the package, not what the investment of the developer was.

 

[MaulerX]

I can only assume that statement was meant like "those are 75% I'd rather want to invest into the multiplayer part and just ditch the campaign" and not like "this will make game development and game prizes cheaper".

I guess many studios are eager to have their own mp following and see single player contend as something that just stands in the way of that, an unneccessary hurdle.
Which would be a sad development in my eyes, wouldn't surprise me though!

Or how about "I would rather save that 75% and still charge you $60 for maximum profit!"

 

[Primethius]

Not for much longer if these trends continue! It sounds like if I want a singleplayer FPS, I should just stop paying attention right now because they're too expensive and also apparently worthless.

Well, if you've wanted good ones, they've certainly been gone quite a while barring a couple of exceptions.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Not for much longer if these trends continue! It sounds like if I want a singleplayer FPS, I should just stop paying attention right now because they're too expensive and also apparently worthless.

What do you mean?

Outside of a very small handful that are "MP Only", there are far more single player focused FPS games.

 

[Warxard]

What does a MP only game need to do/have to justify full price?

Cutscenes

Not for much longer if these trends continue! It sounds like if I want a singleplayer FPS, I should just stop paying attention right now because they're too expensive and also apparently worthless.

You've got to be pretty uninformed if you think the majority of FPSes are MP only

 

[Net_Wrecker]

Few trends in the industry right now hurt more than the slow (but gaining speed) decline of singleplayer and campaign focused shooters. I love a good multiplayer experience as much as the next person but damn man. Loot games, co-op, and open world shared experience stuff taking over.



Thank god for MachineGames, I guess.

 

[misses bull]

Not for much longer if these trends continue! It sounds like if I want a singleplayer FPS, I should just stop paying attention right now because they're too expensive and also apparently worthless.

You clearly aren't paying attention to future releases seeing how 4 single player shooters are coming out in the next 6 months

 

[SeanTSC]

Multiplayer is the future no matter whether you like it or not. The only shooter campaign I can remember really enjoying was Gears of War 1 and 2, mainly because you could play them in split screen co-op and I loved playing it with a buddy at the time, it felt classic. We need more split-screen local co-op shooters with more arcade-like feel. None of this realistic bs.

Most FPS games never really gave me enjoyment from their single player experiences. They always just felt like spectacle and not really a fun experience. Most single player games that I had fun with were more rooted in 3rd person action rather than 1st person action. That's just my opinion though.

Have you played Wolfenstein: The New Order? Easily the best Single Player FPS since Half-Life 2, imo. I fucking loved it.

 

[VariantX]

What does a MP only game need to do/have to justify full price?

Because most of the campaigns I've played felt incredibly tacked on, while something like R6S feels fully realized in terms of the multiplayer its made.

Dedicated servers, server browser, being able to rent servers and a decent suite of options for those servers. Matchmaking is a poor subsitute for these things

 

[Northeastmonk]

You're saying "just do both" like resources aren't finite or the decision to favor one over the other can't be justified.

The creator knows how to grab their audience and they fulfill their needs. Imagine how engrossed you were when you followed a game to its 2nd or 3rd installment. What brought you to that world? Splender or awe? How did we fall in love with Mario and his levels? There was a creation by a creator. I'm saying that a creator will justify the market by their product, not what they feel is justified by the market.

I would like to see creators have their Genesis, their reawakening of what they're good at. The end result shouldn't be labeled as a genre or game type in terms of costs. If you have a vision then you'll make whatever that is and it'll do its job is one way to put it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Or how about "I would rather save that 75% and still charge you $60 for maximum profit!"

LOL, that is now how I works. Goodness.

This gen, software has been the cheapest ever in gaming history. You can legit get brand new games for up to 30-50% off full price within mere weeks after launch. Hell, sometimes the same week with some flash sales at certain retailers.

I had to wait months when I was a kid to buy a new NES/SNES/Genesis game, that was still $50-$80 even 4-6 months or more later.

 

[Slammin_Hammon]

What does a MP only game need to do/have to justify full price?

Because most of the campaigns I've played felt incredibly tacked on, while something like R6S feels fully realized in terms of the multiplayer its made.

I'd say to justify full price it should have a decent amount of content, but more importantly be fun and have enough depth to provide incentive to keep playing for many hours. I also think that unless there is free DLC then there shouldn't be gross microtransactions in a full priced multi-player only game.

 

[Warxard]

I'm pretty sure there are more single player FPSes that outnumber the amount of multiplayer FPSes releasing this gen.

Actually,

 

[SirPenguin]

In business there is a concept called a "loss leader", which is a products or service that purposefully isn't profitable but is instead meant to lead consumers to other, more profitable products or services

I'm surprised that so few gaming execs get that concept. Not every single feature or sub-product has to be profitable. This short term of "if it's not making money, cut it" is and will continue to be harmful

I think the key statement he made is that everyone plays the campaign then goes to the MP - meaning people are consuming the content, enjoying it, and then going off to MP to enjoy it some more

How many people are excluded from that cycle when you abandon the campaign? How many buy the game, play it a few times but don't feel "engaged", and results in extreme depopulation?

 

[Coffee Dog]

Or how about "I would rather save that 75% and still charge you $60 for maximum profit!"

I wouldn't think its that universally malicious.

It's more "We can only afford to make a fraction of the games that we used to. Drop everything but the most immediately profitable features in order to get this thing out the door in a reasonable timeframe".

 

[Hyperbole]

So you're saying there's a 25% cost savings to be had from cutting the multiplayer....

 

[cleveridea]

That's a waste of 25% then

 

[Orayn]

The creator knows how to grab their audience and they fulfill their needs. Imagine how engrossed you were when you followed a game to its 2nd or 3rd installment. What brought you to that world? Splender or awe? How did we fall in love with Mario and his levels? There was a creation by a creator. I'm saying that a creator will justify the market by their product, not what they feel is justified by the market.

I would like to see creators have their Genesis, their reawakening of what they're good at. The end result shouldn't be labeled as a genre or game type in terms of costs. If you have a vision then you'll make whatever that is and it'll do its job is one way to put it.

I think there's a problem when creators do that, settle on something that's MP-only, and are faced with people who act as if that's a fundamentally wrong or incomplete vision because it's not in line with their preferences.

 

[Coffee Dog]

I think there's a problem when creators do that, settle on something that's MP-only, and are faced with people who act as if that's a fundamentally wrong or incomplete vision because it's not in line with their preferences.

So you think that all of these AAA multiplayer developers that dropped single player campaigns in the past few years all had the same vision at the same time?

 

[MaulerX]

LOL, that is now how I works. Goodness.

This gen, software has been the cheapest ever in gaming history. You can legit get brand new games for up to 30-50% off full price within mere weeks after launch. Hell, sometimes the same week with some flash sales at certain retailers.

I had to wait months when I was a kid to buy anew NES game, that was still $70-$80 even 4-6 months or more later.

First of all my comment was made in jest. But really, weren't cartridges more expensive because, they were cartridges?

 

[drotahorror]

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.

I'd take $60 and free map packs to not split up the community.

 

[SeanTSC]

You clearly aren't paying attention to future releases seeing how 4 single player shooters are coming out in the next 6 months

Really? The only First Person Shooter with single player coming out that soon that I can think of is maybe DOOM. And Far Cry Primal, I guess, but that's more of a First Person Action game to me than an FPS.

 

[Orayn]

So you think that all of these AAA multiplayer developers that dropped single player campaigns in the past few years all had the same vision at the same time?

I think it's a combination of what you described in your last post and people also feeling more inspired to work on the MP side of things

 

[User 479360]

Far Cry will always be a favourite of mine. Looking forward to Primal.

The power of the cutscene

How can you boil it down to that?

Sure, I prefer playing story-based games, but there's a difference between online play against others and scripted gameplay segments in campaigns. The latter is much more interesting to me.

Cutscenes aren't the be all and end all. Some online/MP based campaigns have cutscenes, like Titanfall for instance, but that's not the same type of thing.

 

[TheSpecialOne]

Only if GTA games should suddenly cost 120 dollars.

i'm fine with that.