-
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
ScientificPizza
Banned
They were saying that FPS campaigns weren't dying because these games still exist and out of the six examples two of them are third person shooters and one is a MOBA
I agree that FPS campaigns aren't dying, but you don't need to cite games outside of the genre as evidence
what's more shocking is that people somehow still think neogaf is an enthusiast forum filled with people that have basic knowledge of video games.
Atomic Playboy
Member
It really depends on the game. I have no regrets about paying full price for pretty much any of the Battlefield games, and let's face it, no one was buying those for the campaign mode. But the game I've spent by far the most time in, Counter-Strike, started out as a free mod for a game I bought used for $5. I went on to pay for Condition Zero, Source and Global Operations, but I got 6 years of enjoyment out of a game that cost me $5.... so I can see the argument for scaling back the price. I just think developers deserve to be paid for the work they do, and if a MP game is made well, I feel comfortable rewarding the developer for that. If it's something like Star Wars Battlefront that simply lacks content? No dice.
Well yeah, some high number like that was always assumed.
The problem is pricing.
Publishers have yet to make a compelling case as to why the $60 price point for MP-only games should be the norm.
Until they do, I will evaluate these games on a one by one basis. And so far they have come up EXTREMELY short.
The problem is pricing.
Publishers have yet to make a compelling case as to why the $60 price point for MP-only games should be the norm.
Until they do, I will evaluate these games on a one by one basis. And so far they have come up EXTREMELY short.
It's not hard at all to look at my post like four above you. You are objectively wrong.
CadetMahoney
Member
me neither.
The campaign reused multiplayer maps, which were still assembled using campaign assets.
A few of them were used well, but many of the maps served as little more than empty hallways you walked through on your way to real campaign spaces. So you had these large, detailed spaces with multiple empty floors and many empty side passages and dead ends. They also made no sense in context - Ivory Tower is a fine multiplayer map, but it makes for a ridiculous "fancy office."
maybe they should have spent less time and resources on adding content and more on making sure their servers worked so people didn't experience rubberbanding constantly.
maybe they would have more than 500 daily players
Maybe but when I play Battlefront I can't hide my disappointment how awesome a good singleplayer campaign would've been for this game so cheap out on SP is not always the best decision. They have this fantastic engine, great SFX, outstanding setpieces from the movie, satisfying gameplay and what do they with that? Making an MP only game with 8~ different modes .. oh come on.
FootballFan
Member
In a world of multiplayer with tons of microtransactions, you obviously want to spend time and money on the thing that can make you more money even after you sell your game for $60.
MP only game for $60
DLC pack #1 for $15
DLC pack #2 for $15
DLC pack #3 for $15
or purchase season pass for $40
These guys have it sussed.
MP only game for $60
DLC pack #1 for $15
DLC pack #2 for $15
DLC pack #3 for $15
or purchase season pass for $40
These guys have it sussed.
Springfoot
Member
The campaigns in COD and Battlefield (3 and 4) are hardly tacked on from a financial or development perspective. Say what you will about the linear, often redundant gameplay but the art, animation, voice and sound production in those campaigns represent monumental investments.
Not picking on you specifically here, but holy shit am I seeing a lot of revisionist history in this thread. The Call of Duty series always had well-received and critically acclaimed single player campaigns, with COD4: Modern Warfare being one of the biggest standout shooter campaigns from last generation (I don't know a single person who played it and doesn't remember Death from Above or All Ghillied Up). It wasn't until Infinity Ward imploded that people started dismissing their single player campaigns, and even then it was because the titles had come packaged with such overwhelmingly popular multiplayer modes.
In addition to its popular and praised single campaign, COD4 shipped with a whopping 16 maps that were all playable in every game mode and which included a wide variety of scales with emphasis on various forms of play (I don't think we've seen another COD map on the scale of Overgrown since then). It also created the modern multiplayer system of create-a-class perks combined with tons of unlockable and swappable weapons and attachments. At the time it came out, the whole notion of perks was new to multiplayer shooters and received a ton of press and love from the players for its novelty and break from older classless or class-based systems in other shooters. Again, this was in addition to a complete single player campaign.
Compared to the 12 maps that shipped in Battlefront, with what? 4 of them being glorified skyboxes for the flight-only modes and a number of them locked into only a couple of the handful of game modes, and Battlefront doesn't represent the most robust multiplayer experience even if it included a full campaign. For someone like me, who enjoys predominately larger scale battles, there are literally only 4 maps that offer more than a dozen players at a time.
I can't really comment about Titanfall or Evolve because neither looked substantial enough to warrant the $60 price tag at release, and by the time it dropped, so had their player counts, which made it an even worse value even at the reduced price.
If a game is going to be basically multiplayer-only, it needs to include at least some basic bot modes to allow offline players to practice and familiarize themselves with the game and offer a minimum of 12 maps that are playable on all major game modes. The early Battlefield titles were essentially multiplayer-only, but 1942 shipped with 17 maps (later boosted to 22 with patches), Vietnam had 18, and BF2 had 13 (boosted to 16 with patches). Then you had games like UT2k3 and 2k4 which shipped with 4+ game modes and a whopping 30-50 maps. Not to mention that both of these series had mod support that built and attracted entire communities all on their own. This is a far cry from what modern multiplayer-only titles are offering today for the full price tag.
The number of man hours that go into each minute of a campaign in a linear AAA shooter is ridiculous. Level design revisions, art revisions, script rewrites, voice recording, bug fixing. Constant iteration to get that level of polish, and then optimizing the hell out of it to make sure it runs okay.
Then people blow through it in a day. But to be fair, they still sell really well if the franchise is big enough.
Then people blow through it in a day. But to be fair, they still sell really well if the franchise is big enough.
It is DICE you're talking about.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
You'd be surprised by how many people think MP games are just as intensive to make as an SP game.
He isn't saying they should be cheaper. They should have more budget to make the MP bigger and better.
(Sorry for snipping your post down to just that!)
I've never actually played a single Call of Duty or Battlefield game or really any pseudo "realistic military shooter". Just the more fantastical stuff like Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein, etc. But from what's been said I would probably buy an HD Remaster Collection of just the CoD Single Player campaigns on my PS4.
Pankratous
Member
Campaigns are also responsible for 99% of the fun.
The day FPS's drop campaigns is the day I stop buying FPS. The only exceptions I've bought (Battlefront) are because my entire friend group bought it (because it is Star Wars).
The day FPS's drop campaigns is the day I stop buying FPS. The only exceptions I've bought (Battlefront) are because my entire friend group bought it (because it is Star Wars).
DerZuhälter
Member
I like shitty tacked on campaigns.
Even after going away from Battlefield 3/4 or Blops 2 disappointed, I'd still rather have them do one that disappoints than do none, or offer me singleplayer in the form of multiplayer maps with bots.
Even after going away from Battlefield 3/4 or Blops 2 disappointed, I'd still rather have them do one that disappoints than do none, or offer me singleplayer in the form of multiplayer maps with bots.
Golgo 13
The Man With The Golden Dong
What are you talking about? I played Titanfall for months after release and never had a problem finding games or people to play with. Ever.
And yet people think paying full price for an SP only game is sane.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Yep. Hey devs/pubs, when you decide save a lot of money by cutting the campaign, but still charge full price for your half of a game, the result is that you don't get my money at all! Funny how that works.
(I'm not saying an MP-only game cannot ever be worth full price, but it needs to make up for the lack of a campaign with a lot of MP content.)
Springfoot
Member
The Infinity Ward entries were a lot of fun and weren't particularly dumb until Modern Warfare 2, after they saw the success of the big summer blockbuster that was the first Modern Warfare. Even COD4:MW had an interesting story in which the Americans essentially mucked everything up and relied on the Brits to come in and save the day - something quite atypical for an American-developed military shooter, especially one uninformed critics love to rag on as being "rah rah USA! USA!"
Something that COD4:MW introduced to the series, which also lead to subsequent decline in storytelling was an emphasis on individual characters, who were later deified and demonized into comic-bookish heroes and villains. It wasn't too over the top in MW1, but by MW2 things started to get out of hand. After that is when Infinity Ward internally blew up at the same time Activision was shelling out and restructuring various studios to turn the series into an annual release and the quality took a sharp nosedive for a few entries, primarily surviving only on the solid core gameplay systems created by past entries.
It's almost as if you may have played on a different platform or are located in a different server region than the other poster. No way that could happen or affect the enjoyment of a multiplayer-only shooter though!
Seriously though, for anyone who's interested, check out the disparity between player counts across the different platforms for a game like Battlefront.
For that much money they should have been a lot better though.
Like how the hell do you spend that much on a shitty 5 hour corridor shooter and what makes the multiplayer rather cheap in comparison? One would expect a lot of man hours going into weapon balancing and netcode and whatnot but apparently not...
Like how the hell do you spend that much on a shitty 5 hour corridor shooter and what makes the multiplayer rather cheap in comparison? One would expect a lot of man hours going into weapon balancing and netcode and whatnot but apparently not...
Senhua
Member
Lol'ed at the one's who told Battlefront and Titanfall have a lot of content.
Both clearly have less content than USUAL MP only games (CSGO) with FULL price AAA games $60.
- No bots.
- Too little content for weapon, titans, skin etc.
- No LAN mode.
If you guys want to develop MP only games, make it RIGHT.
Even Activision COD is better than this.
Both clearly have less content than USUAL MP only games (CSGO) with FULL price AAA games $60.
- No bots.
- Too little content for weapon, titans, skin etc.
- No LAN mode.
If you guys want to develop MP only games, make it RIGHT.
Even Activision COD is better than this.
Thank god we don't get prices according to budget.
COD and GTA can offer the content they do because they know they'll sell north of 20 million copies.
A studio like respawn, that's 70 guys, doesn't.
It's like the silly discussion around the price of the witness.
eh, if you go by Number of weapons and official Maps and progression CS GO ain't exactly breaking records. Especially when most maps are remakes of maps they put out over 10 years ago. I love the game but bursting with content it is not.
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
Thats no problem. Include that missing content from the SP in the multiplayer in some approximate form, maps, modes, unlockables etc, and I'm ok with multiplayer only games at RRP. Problem is most games developers don't seen to want to do so right now.
Wind's Howling
Member
If your focus lies on FPS Campaigns then of course it is gonna cost more money instead of it just being tacked on.
The only thing is is that you can not tell me that the Call of Duty Campains burn up the same amount of budget than games like The Last of Us with Multiplayer.
It all depends on which direction you tend to choose. It is a shame some developers tend to take the easy route, make a multiplayer only game and cash in with the overpriced DLC and microtransactions.
The only thing is is that you can not tell me that the Call of Duty Campains burn up the same amount of budget than games like The Last of Us with Multiplayer.
It all depends on which direction you tend to choose. It is a shame some developers tend to take the easy route, make a multiplayer only game and cash in with the overpriced DLC and microtransactions.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
.... no.
Senhua
Member
My point still valid with no bots,LAN and price.
Lanrutcon
Member
So you're saying is that we should be happy with devs pricing according to what they can get away with, as opposed to what's reasonable?
Senhua
Member
All games at $60
Choose what you want (regarding the games content, good luck)
I think he means what we choose when buy games depend on luck.
If It's good we get like GTA but if not we only will getting Titanfall or Battlefront.
/s
Nah, do you know how many people I know that didn't buy those games solely because they were multi-player only? TitanFall especially. When you're building a new game, a new IP you need a campaign.
I agree if you know the campaign will be a steaming pile of shit, don't make one and focus on other things like more multi-player maps, things like PvE modes.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Well, I am guess I am truly done with FPS's if they get rid of the single player campaigns. I feel like as soon as the serves become dead and they eventually will even within a matter of weeks unless you are a fairly high profile FPS, you will not be able to play the game anymore. I am not a fan of online only games.
BassForever
Member
I'd rather have a shitty tacked on campaign in my $60 mostly focused on multiplayer game then the same game that "cut sp to focus on mp" yet has the same amount of mp content (or less...) for $60 attached to a $30-$50 dollar season pass.
I'm not saying a mp only game can't be worth $60, but as Jim Sterling put it best "we know what we used to get for our money and if we ain't getting it we're gonna cry out about it"
I'm not saying a mp only game can't be worth $60, but as Jim Sterling put it best "we know what we used to get for our money and if we ain't getting it we're gonna cry out about it"
AHA-Lambda
Member
This keeps coming up, why?
When in any entertainment industry, let alone just games, has products ever been priced according to budget?
Always? It's why there's a lot more than just $60 games, especially with how big digital has gotten.
I mean, each consumer decides for himself if he likes the value proposition or not. A dev is not "ripping you off" if he charges full price but doesn't have the development budget of the biggest franchises in gaming.
Of course many do expect that, which is why we have the publisher situation we have today.
But i don't see the difference of The Order costing 60 or titanfall costing 60. It's a bit headscratching that many players that have no intereset in MP complain about the content of MP games. - these games are not for you.
nah you don't. There's lots of PC IP's (like Battlefield), that got big on their MP mode.
Bobs Big Boy
Member
Couldn't tell you a thing I've ever done in CoD multiplayer outside some boring numbers, could tell you a lot about what I've done in single player.
Neuromancer
Member
If I can play your MP only game offline with bots that would be a fair tradeoff.
NumberThree
Member
Those $60 all have the same budget, then?
But Titanfall was one of the most balanced multiplayer games to come out in a long time. It launched with 15 maps and 5 game modes. If I'm spending $60 on a multiplayer game, I put gameplay over content. Let's not make that Ubisoft "Your map is full of shit to do and although it's not fun/useful, it's content" philosophy a thing we suddenly need in multiplayer.
Devs deciding to not go with a single player makes sense financially I suppose (for multiplayer focussed games), but at least provide a discount on mutltiplayer-only games. Paying $80 Canadian or $60 USD is so much for a multiplayer-only games when there are alternatives that provide more content.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll