Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by MariaHelFutura 893d ago | opinion piece

Titanfall: $60 Price Justified For The Xbox One Multiplayer Only Game?

Titanfall is Respawn Entertainment’s next big title coming out for the Xbox One and PC sometime in spring 2014. The game makes use of the aging 10-year old Source engine with some updates made by the Respawn team to bring the title out for the next gen. (PC, TitanFall, Xbox 360, Xbox One)

« 1 2 »
greenpowerz  +   893d ago | Well said
Many of the biggest next gen games are online only. These types of games justify their price more than any other types.

The replay value in these new cloud based online games on all platfoms is sick. Change the game on the fly and add to it? I mean come on.

Rather spend my money on games like The Divsion and Destiny than Tomb Raider(don't get me wrong TR was one of the best offline games of this gen)
#1 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(23) | Disagree(103) | Report | Reply
dazzrazz  +   893d ago
I'm wondering what you gonna say 2-3 years from now when they gonna turn of the servers for that "sick cloud based game" of yours because it will not sell or something... and all you gonna be left with is a useless coaster
Enemy  +   893d ago
Pretty sure Destiny and The Division aren't multiplayer only. They both have solo campaigns. I'd like to know what these "many" are that greenpowerz speaks of.
Tony-A  +   893d ago
No, I'm sure TitanFall will sell just fine, especially when they announce it's PS3 and PS4 debut (obviously) because of the install base and bigger audience present on those platforms.

I mean, come on... it's so obvious that the game isn't exclusive that it might as well say "look out for the PS4 version coming next month!" on the back of the XBO version.

Oh, and as for this topic. I'm not entirely sure. I'd have to play it more to see if it's justifiable, but Warhawk was a great online-only title. It was, however, $20 cheaper, which I believe is the sweet spot for those games.
#1.1.2 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(29) | Disagree(17) | Report
s8anicslayer  +   893d ago
Two or three years from now people will be playing titanfall 2 or 3.
corvusmd  +   893d ago
If the game gives me enjoyment for 2-3 years and then goes P2P...I think it will have been worth $60
Corpser  +   893d ago
What awful company is going to turn off servers for a multi player only game so soon after release?

it would be like if Sony turn off servers for MAG in 2014, 4 years after the game release

JoySticksFTW  +   893d ago
Gotta love it when gamers say they don't mind this, but when Warhawk released earlier this gen, people were all up in arms over paying full price for a multiplayer only game (that even came with a Bluetooth earpiece).

Some journalists were even deducting points off their review scores due to pricing; and not due to the quality of the game itself.

Sony couldn't catch a break back then. Shame too. Warhawk was one of my favorite gaming experiences this gen and deserves a proper sequel ( Warhawk 2; NOT Starhawk).
H0RSE  +   893d ago

Not if it has bot support...
#1.1.7 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
HammadTheBeast  +   893d ago

More like MS shutting down every Xbox original server 5 years after the release.
joab777  +   893d ago
Not a great argument. If I spend $60 on a game that is gonna b amazing...look at all the awards it is getting...and I play it for months to a yr, I am gonna b happy with my purchase. Developers and publishers have already thought about this. If in 3-5 yrs no one is playing an online only game...similar to will go f2p somewhere and then eventually it will die. This will have no impact on whether I spent $60 on it yrs ago! I would rather battlefield do no sp at all and focus resources on the multiplayer. Some games would b better with 8 more maps and modes (like CoD). By the time most online only games die...their sp counterpart would cost $5 at gamestop.
Narutone66  +   893d ago
I see a SimCity joke somewhere.
ohiostatesman  +   893d ago
This game is the next big thing. It's gonna sell millions on Xbox One and 360. I hope MS makes this series exclusive to the Xbox One like they did with Epic's gears of war series. That would be fantastic.
#1.1.11 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(4) | Report
Gamer1982  +   893d ago
Destiny is a fully evolving world you pay for that this game is an online shooter you cannot compare.. This will be the very first ever premium online only shooter. This is to pay for those MS servers as Respawn wasn't gonna pay for them were they?
trafalger  +   893d ago
"I'm wondering what you gonna say 2-3 years from now when they gonna turn of the servers for that "sick cloud based game" of yours because it will not sell or something"

then i guess i'll have to go back to the bank when i want to buy a new game to play and ask for another loan, stretched out for 36 months. hopefully i get approved.

hmmm. 10,368 hours of online fun versus an average 10-14 hour single player game. you're right, $60 is asking way too much.
#1.1.13 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
malokevi  +   893d ago
"2-3 years from now when they turn off the servers"

lol. I hear this ridiculous statement again and again so that Sony's faithful can have justification against Always-online and online-only games.

So, tell me, what source was it that stated these games would be taken offline in a matter of years?

Because I still play R6 Vegas 1 on my Xbox360 years later.... seems to be chugging along quite nicely.

Lets obviously selectively and conveniently forget the fact that MS has invested billions in a cloud service that offers servers and unbelievably low prices to all of its developers, and can sustain them for as long as they see fit.

Would they see fit to take a title, that by all counts is going to be a system selling and unit moving showpiece title, offline after a few years?

Seems like wishful thinking on the part of a few butthurt Sony zelots.

Get your fix, fellaz, because when this thing drops everyone is going to stop listening to you.
Tw1tch3D  +   893d ago

you've just done yourself a no no...

how the division or destiny came into the picture, IDK!

Anyways, $60 is more than worth what this game is going offer. Ask yourselves, you didn't literally buy the BF or CoD for it's single player, right?!
Good_news_every1   893d ago | Spam
Tw1tch3D  +   893d ago
And why you have two bubbles good sir...
kayoss  +   893d ago
I only play cod mainly for the single campaign. To me the multiplayer is just icing on the cake.
showtimefolks  +   893d ago

destiny and division both have solo campaigns

my thing is let's wait and see how titanfall delivers, let's not judge a game before its release. it has single player story elements mixed in to MP
Narutone66  +   893d ago
I see, greenpowerz already received his white XBox 1. Too bad you only has one bubble left. Maybe you could use your alternate accounts.
Shadonic  +   893d ago
add to it but theres probably going to be a price to pay for DLC expansions and stuff, I mean really MS invented DLC right? whose to say they wont push on that again.
#1.5 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
1nsomniac  +   893d ago | Well said
No! This is exactly whats wrong with the industry, silly naive people think the price should be based on replayability So devs think they can get away with it. Where normal sane people understand that price is be based on content as with every single other industry or product available in the world.

This is just proof of the immaturity that still runs strong in the gaming industry & the people who allow it to go on.
#1.6 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
staticdash22  +   893d ago
This, This, This x 100 !
iamnsuperman  +   893d ago
I bubbled you up for this (I hope others do). This is a big problem in the gaming world. The price should be based on content not re-playability (especially when a lot of that re-playability comes from paid DLC). If re-playability was a factor in price then Logoz quiz, Score, angry birds, temple run (all mobile games) should cost £100 because I managed to sink in hundreds of hours into these games (especially when I went away to a third world country for 6 months). Those games had a lot of re-playability
#1.6.2 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Gamer1982  +   893d ago
Exactly I been banging on about this for years now. Companys using multiplayer to sell a game. The great thing about that is your using other gamers to do your job for you essentially.
rainslacker  +   893d ago
So, it's OK to disregard those of us that prefer a single player campaign, and might like to go online once in a while? Seems this gen publishers had no problem taking on MP to every SP game out there, which not do the same in reverse next gen?

There are plenty of SP gamers out there, and our $60 is worth as much as the MP $60. If they don't want my money, so be it. I can find value in a good SP game to warrant spending $60, I've never found that value in a MP only game, barring an MMORPG, which tend to be quite repetitive after a while in content. Cloud may fix that, but given that most MMO's don't have content change that often, I doubt any publisher wanting to make money is going to push out new content on a frequent basis. They can't even do that now when they sell that added content. All the more reason why I'm skeptical of all this MP only trend.
trenso1  +   893d ago
"The game makes use of the aging 10-year old Source engine with some updates made"

why is no one bashing them for this? Any COD article will have at least one comment about the engine, but since respawn is doing it is ok? Not being a troll fanboy or what ever label you would like to use, just wondering about this double standard.
caseh  +   893d ago
Because Titanfall is a clean build from the ground up, it isn't a sequel. If they can build a new game based on that engine then why shouldn't they?

If Titanfall sequels are built on the same engine then you will no doubt see the game geting the same treatment as CoD. take into account, it took 3-4 iterations of CoD before people complained about it being a cut & paste job.
iamnsuperman  +   893d ago
I do agree with you. Also no one is bashing the apparent twitch control scheme. From what I have read and understood this is a twitch based shooter. I love that (one of the reason I like COD) but the countless times I see people discrediting COD because of its twitchy gameplay. You can't have it both ways. I am interested in Titanfall but I don't hide the fact I like COD and its gameplay
Baka-akaB  +   893d ago
"why is no one bashing them for this? Any COD article will have at least one comment about the engine, but since respawn is doing it is ok?"

Because for their first forray with source engine Titanfall is already looking way better than Ghosts ? And only time will tell if there will be small incrementations of quality as seen with cod , or actual graphical upgrades ?

And because hiding behind the 60fps excuse will not that easily works next gen with most announced running at 60 fps anyway ?
#1.8.3 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
FamilyGuy  +   893d ago
This isn't an MMO, it's just online only, like Warhawk, yet Warhawk launched at $40. Titanfall is launching at $60 because that's how much they want to launch it at. It has enough hype for them to get away with it too.

That's just all there is to it. If they release tons of free DLC I can see it being "fair" otherwise it's just price gouging.
caseh  +   893d ago
MAG released at the same price point that Titanfall will launch for.

It's price shouldn't be dictated by the fact it is online only but by the game itself. I poured in about 800 hours on MAG, how many hours are you putting into your single player games to justify the price tag hmm?
FamilyGuy  +   893d ago
MAG, with 256 players in a single game, is on par with MMOs.

"how many hours are you putting into your single player games to justify the price tag hmm? "

This, however, is a very significant statement. I definitely get more hours from playing a game online but the argument is for the fact that those games STILL HAVE A SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN.
I may still play them online but the story mode gives the back story and usually has some extra production value behind it.

Having actors voicing roles, the motion capture for cut-scenes, writers for the story etc all cost money. A game coming out at $60 without having to pay for any of that is basically price gouging.
It's costing them a lot less to make the game so they should in turn charge less.

Either way it's all about perceived value, Titanfall looks fun so people will pay the price.
#1.9.2 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report
vickers500  +   893d ago
"MAG, with 256 players in a single game, is on par with MMOs."

How so? Just because it has 256 players that means it's on par with an MMO? Player count is all it takes to make a game 'on par' with an mmo?

I'd think that the content itself would determine that fact, not the amount of players possible in the game, and although I only played MAG for a few hours, I don't think it has quite as much content as your average MMO.

"I definitely get more hours from playing a game online but the argument is for the fact that -->those games STILL HAVE A SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN<--"

Simply saying something like that doesn't really mean anything, as it doesn't say anything about the QUALITY of the game one way or another. It seems your implication with that phrase was basically to say "it doesn't have single player, so clearly it's an automatically inferior game", which isn't true, it's simply your opinion.

"Having actors voicing roles, the motion capture for cut-scenes, writers for the story etc all cost money."

I don't know about you personally, but I don't think most people attach value to something based on all those individual factors, at least not all the time with every game. Therefore it's not really right for you to say for a fact that the game is an attempt at price gouging. For you that could certainly be the case and that's fine, but don't state your opinion on it for yourself as if it is a fact, because it isn't.

All those things are nice (great voice acting, mo-cap, good cutscenes, good story), but they mean absolutely nothing to me if I don't find the game fun, and if I don't find a game fun at all, the games value is absolutely worthless to me.

People pay for the amount of fun they believe they will have and also length. If one of the more detailed elements are lacking (crappy voice acting) it's not a lesser value game to them (well, not to ME anyways).

"It's costing them a lot less to make the game so they should in turn charge less."

I don't think you are in a position to claim that the game costs less than other games to make, (neither am I or anyone not involved with the development of the game for that matter), because we simply don't know. We haven't even seen all or even most of the game yet. There could be aspects of the game that are just as expensive or even more expensive than some other games.

"Either way it's all about perceived value, Titanfall looks fun so people will pay the price."

That is true. Unfortunately it's also true that if Titanfall were to launch below $60, the general public, and even a large amount of gamers themselves, would automatically see Titanfall as a lesser game, because generally that has been the case for sub 60 games.

Back to the value point, I will say this to you, if Titanfall does for online fps what COD4 did for online fps back in the day, then it will be worth every penny to me, and nothing you can say will change that reality for me personally, just as nothing I can say will change the reality for you that no single player means a lesser experience. Value is subjective, it's just not something that can be determined by checking off some boxes on a pre-determined list that equates to X amount of value.

The value of a product isn't something that you can decide for others, it's something you can only decide for yourself.
#1.9.3 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report
kickerz  +   893d ago
from article "While the game looks fun, the graphics are a bit lacking when compared to other next gen titles..."
Reading sH#t like that really pi$$es me off sometimes. if its really fun then who cares, honestly. still looks amazing to me. Hey guys instead of reading this rubbish how about read this -
opions from people who have actually played this game
Shadowsteal  +   893d ago
Dude don't be like that. No one praises COD's graphics so so what if he mentioned Titanfall looks like crap? If you follow the mindset "it looks fun, who cares about graphics" then get a Wii U or get the 360 version of Titanfall if you really don't care.
kickerz  +   893d ago
Sorry I lost my cool a bit there. To me the game looks awesome and plays awesome buying it the day it's realeased on Xbox one
LiQuiZoN  +   893d ago
Any online only games are games I will not be buying. Last thing I need is more MMO wannabes. They suck your life out of you and years later you realize how much time you wasted on a game which had zero positive impact n your life. Obviously I speak from experience being 30 now.

I'm sure younger people will eat it up but don't say I didn't warn you when your at the bottom of the food chain when you get older!

iMixMasTer872   893d ago | Spam
Bigpappy  +   893d ago
Sure starting to look like it? There are already a huge amount of gamers who only play certain games online.

I prefer single player, but appreciate that online only has its upsides for a lot of gamers. This game in particular, allows for a lot of options. Your strength seems to be: How well can you use the options at your disposal? This is a game where you need to keep moving. More like Halo than Gears but a lot faster than Halo, because you can fly at anytime.
#2 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
NatureOfLogic  +   893d ago
Simply put, no online only game should cost $60. No matter how over hyped the game is.
#3 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(34) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
Tw1tch3D  +   893d ago
Even if it that's what gives it's value through replayability?!

Having more gaming stamina than single player, shows me my $60 worth. IT'S A FPS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

nature of logic...?
HammadTheBeast  +   893d ago
If it's MP only, there better be a hella lot of content for multiplayer.
Mario18  +   893d ago
Warhawk was 60$ and it was so worth it. (it also came ith a bluetooth mic)
Jeff257  +   893d ago
You could also download it at launch for 29.99 or buy it at retail without the headset for 39.99. But including the headset at that price was a good move. It was also something Sony did with SOCOM Confrontation and MAG. Both released as stand alone for 39.99 or with the newer headset for 59.99.
#3.2.1 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(0) | Report
ginsunuva  +   893d ago
No it was technically $40
Swiggins  +   893d ago
....You mean like MAG?
ZBlacktt  +   893d ago
Well, you have to consider these guys are Call of Duty. Most all COD fans talk about how their single player is only 5 to 6 hours long. But the real reason they buy COD is for the multiplayer of course. So knowing who these guys are, they are going to get their asking price most certainly for this game. In fact, they won't even have a hard time selling it. Just like SOCOM's huge fanbase. This is what COD fans are just waiting on to come out.
#4 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
urwifeminder  +   893d ago
Yeah its fine I don't really play single player anymore same stories meh, I do love co op it helps me be bothered to finish the story.
#5 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(12) | Report | Reply
Fireseed  +   893d ago
Multiplayer only... BUT making the single player campaign part of the multiplayer experience... I don't get the confusion.
Shadonic  +   893d ago
true but if it has the quality of say spartan ops ( i thought that though) I can see it bombing. I't needs to be like spartan ops for the expansion of story though completely free
annus  +   893d ago
The confusion may come from single player meaning one, and multiplayer meaning more than one.

How do you have a single player campaign while people are running around playing team death match?
The_Infected  +   893d ago
IMO yes it is. If I play CoD it's almost always online. Same goes for Titanfall even if it did have a single player I'd most likely end up online in no time. Lol
_QQ_  +   893d ago
Very dumb question.People buy 60$ games for just the online all the time, Should SP games be less than 60$ when they don't have online too? Especially considereding how much more you get from an online experiences vs a SP one.Ive spent at least 800 hours on starcraft2 since launch.780 were from online.
#8 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
edonus   893d ago | Spam
dark-hollow  +   893d ago
Only if it was packed with content.

I expect 20 maps MINIMUM for such a price.
KwietStorm  +   893d ago
20 maps? lol I guess you're not getting the game then?
90Supra  +   893d ago
Even after a couple of DLC packs, I doubt it'll hit 20 maps...
deathstriker  +   893d ago
Well, BF3's campaign doesn't exist to me since it's so bland/lame and I spent $60 on it plus premium and never regretted it because I've spent 50+ hours playing it.

If the multiplayer is good enough to play for months and months then it's worth $60, thinking it HAS to have a campaign is old school logic. Time is more valuable than money.
KwietStorm  +   893d ago
Just 50 hours for full price with premium? Did you just get it a couple months sgo?
deathstriker  +   893d ago
"50+ hours" means it was over 50 hours... I don't remember the exact amount, so it could be 70 something and I do other stuff besides game.
CaptainPunch  +   893d ago
I know people who only buy CoD to play the multiplayer, this is no different.
Williamson  +   893d ago
IMO it doesn't since I usually play single-player through before starting multiplayer, well I did back when multiplayer was appealing to me. But who knows maybe titanfall can justify it.
staticdash22  +   893d ago
Sell it for $40 and its justified. Digital downloads/multiplayer only games are not worth a full price IMO. Games that offer less options than an online + offline game shouldn't be charged like one. For example: Killzone shadow fall has a single player offline and multiplayer. It has the option for those that do not play multiplayer. Killzone has botzone which lets gamers play against the AI offline, even those who just want practice. Titanfall does not offer an option for those that don't play multiplayer. It's only option IS online.
#14 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Jeff257  +   893d ago
I agree that online only games really should come out at a lower price point. But maybe Ttitanfall will have enough to justify the price. Right now from what I have seen while impressive is not enough for me to spend that much on it. I am actually more impressed by Destiny while it is also online only it will allow me to choose to play through the singe player alone or I can join up with other people to play through it. Also with so many F2P games that are also online only there is some really good choices coming out that maybe could make some developers either re think the price point or at least maybe show a little more as to why someone would want to spend that much.

Out of the games that came out this gen that were online multiplayer only, I only bought 2. They were SOCOM Confrontation and MAG. Both of which are having the servers shut down in Jan. They also both came out as stand alone games for 39.99 or you could buy them bundled with the Sony bluetooth headset for 59.99. They both came out at what I thought was the perfect price point and I enjoyed them for the time I spent playing them.
#14.1 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
KwietStorm  +   893d ago
What about a single player-only game that just sucks? These things always come up, but how do you answer the question of whether or not game X is worth $$, especially a game you haven't played? The game industry is one of the only industries where every product is the same flat rate. This is either a good or a bad thing, depending on how you look at it. Game development costs are through the roof, and if they priced games based on dev costs, the same as manufacturing costs, they could be charging us over $100 for a game. On the other hand, we could be getting away with murder, based on the same logic.
staticdash22  +   893d ago
What existed before Playstation network and Xbox Live?

Yea, offline games. Now what does that mean? Single player campaign & split screen local multiplayer. Rarely did you see games centered solely around local multiplayer/co-op. Single player has been, and still is the bread and butter of gaming. What we're seeing is the rooting out of Devs that can't tell competent, engaging, and memorable stories. Those games aren't exactly going to be remembered 10-15 years from now are they?
#14.2.1 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report
KwietStorm  +   893d ago
I don't see what that has to do with what I said.
Gamer666  +   893d ago
Why is this even a question?

Fuse, Socom, Brink, Quake: Enemy Territories, and Defiant were all $50 or $60 games that were either online only or were only worth playing online.

That's like saying a game like God of War and Devil May Cry that doesn't really have online isn't worth $60.

Not every game is Halo, CoD, BF, Killzone, Gears of War, etc. Where they have online, campaigns, and (some) co-op.
Wni0  +   893d ago
Id pay 120 bucks for SC2 even if was only online. It just depends on how good it is.
corvusmd  +   893d ago
Uh yes, this game appears to be one of the few that is actually living up to the hype...judging by all the raving reviews it is getting. Games like Knack should be worried about costing $60...I'm not sure why this is even a question really. The game looks awesome, and if it turns out to not be worth $60, people won't buy it. It just seems odd to me that the first game in as long as I can remember that actually appears to be getting great previews from everyone is the one that is questioned if it's worth it...but Last of Us that porvided a total of 12 hours of gameplay is getting 10 out of 10 reviews. It seems like this is just another attempt by Sony fanboys to belittle XB1...considering that 90% of the people saying it's not worth it are fanboys. Odd that they can't keep themselves busy talking about how great their games are...they have to try and talk trash about games on XB1 that are doing well in previews. Typical. I'll cut a little slack, it's been a tough day to be a Sony gamer...finding out that Titanfall is not in development for PS, hearing that they are having production problems, and hearing that the one area where PS4 could have killed XB1 (system bandwith) now just got flipped in the other direction. makes sense to try and talk trash about the most popular next gen title because it's an exclusive on the other system.
Good_news_every1   893d ago | Spam
Shadowsteal  +   893d ago
Dude the Last of Us gave me and my friends anywhere from 17-20 hours of gameplay even without the multiplayer. Did you play on easy?
#17.2 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
MikeyDucati1  +   893d ago
How is it not? Maybe if we were going all digital for the next gen, then yes.
Funantic1  +   893d ago
Well it's story and multiplayer mode in one. Each round will be longer than a COD match. They'll be cut scenes during matches.
GARBAGE LICKER  +   893d ago
Only the buyer can decide that haha
Johnsonparts23  +   893d ago
No video game should cost $60 but that's what they cost. This game looks amazing so I'd pay as much for this as any other game. If there is less content somehow or it doesn't offer a good replay value then maybe we'll be disappointed but I doubt it.
Mustang300C2012  +   893d ago
The cost of this game is justified for $60 just as much as the cost of a game that is $60 with single & multiplayer where the majority claim they don't even play single player portion of games and just go straight to multiplayer. Or how about the ones that say they have such a huge backlog that they buy games at release but just now get to touch them 6 months down the road or 2 years later. Still in Shrink wrap. Developers put work into these games regardless how they come out and if you feel the game deserves to be purchased for your time to get enjoyment then make the decision.
staticdash22  +   893d ago
Enjoyment is subjective. Does the average consumer really care how much time or money was put into the game? Value is subjective as well. Based on your personal stance. I don't view multiplayer only games having as much value as a FULL offline + online game. Based on my experience gaming before there was playstation network and xbox live. Games thrived off the single player. It has been, is, and will still be the bread and butter of gaming. The games up for GOTY aren't multiplayer only games LOL. Bioshock inifinite, Halo 4, The Last of Us, GTA 5 will probably too. These games mostly offer BOTH offline & online options. Titanfall does NOT. These games offer more value to ALL types of gamers. Multiplayer gamers and Single player only gamers, not one or the other. People have choices, not making the excuse that everyone plays campaign only once and mutliplayer is the bread and butter.
maniacmayhem  +   893d ago
I don't understand this concept?

It cost the same to develop the game. Just because it doesn't have a single player mode it should be less?

What about games that don't have a multiplayer mode and only single player? Should we pay less for those too?

This is such a non-issue and very laughable to say the least.
kingPoS  +   893d ago
For those who doubt an online only game with no single player game will work. Your wrong!
Warhawk say's hi. From 2007 to 2013... it's still going strong.

Butter smooth 32 players matches... it's hard to go back to half of those numbers if your a diehard hawk fan. Four player online split screen was just awesome on a large tv - absolute awesome. (voice chat was crummy though)
#24 (Edited 893d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
annus  +   893d ago
Counter-strike, World of Warcraft, and League of Legends all also say high. All online only, and all have massive followings. Single player isn't needed in every game.
Derajcan2  +   893d ago
Seems simple to me, don't want to spend money on it, don't get it.
MoreRPG  +   893d ago
The game seems really fun to me so why not pay the full price
quenomamen  +   893d ago
Nope, more like $30. No SP, you only get half da money.
waljaber  +   893d ago
this is my only game on my X1 for now and i'm sure it will be the best game for this year, and KILLZONE my second choice here.
Kayant  +   893d ago
I think it's ok IMO.... But it needs to be packed with a lot content like it's been mentioned before.
NateCole  +   893d ago
I am just worried about the precedence this will set. Sooner or later SP games with online will be $70
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Oxenfree Xbox One Review: Heart to Heart | USGamer

34m ago - USGamer: After the first 30 minutes of Oxenfree, if you're not surprised by how much the charact... | Xbox One

Final Fantasy 2 is now available free on mobile through FF Portal App

1h ago - Final Fantasy II is now available, Square Enix announced. | iPhone

List of PS4 Games that are coming out this month

Now - Looking for a new game for your PS4? Head over to our release calendar and see what is coming out this month. | Promoted post

NGB | The Legend of Legacy Review

1h ago - NGB Wrote: "Sadly, The Legend of Legacy is just too monotonous and one dimensional to recommend t... | 3DS

Mirror’s Edge BC is now less than £5

1h ago - Gold members can jump and dive roll for joy! Mirror’s Edge is a backwards compatible game for... | Xbox 360

Searching for Clues in Detective Pikachu: Birth of a New Duo | NLife

1h ago - NL: There is a notable issue with the game, however. It's unfortunately a bit short. As it's a d... | 3DS