Top
110°

Multiplayer Only Games- Is the full price justified?

Gameondaily discusses whether paying full price for multiplayer-only games like Titanfall is justified.

"With the announcement that The Order: 1886 will be a single layer only title, one has to ask, why do single player games get a free pass for not having a multiplayer component but multiplayer only games come under scrutiny from console gamers?"

Read Full Story >>
gameondaily.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Thatguy-310890d ago

Nope. Specially when they'll most likely be making you pay for future dlc.

Septic890d ago (Edited 890d ago )

What? Single player games make you pay for DLC. Look at The Last of Us. You could probably complete that ina couple of hours. Compare that to an MP game; how much longer are you going to spend playing on the extra maps etc?

MP games, more often than not, tend to have loads more replayability value than single player games. Just by virtue of that fact, a full price is justified no?

carlingtat889d ago

Actually The Last Of Us had both Single Player and Multiplayer so there was replay value all round. Paying full price for multiplayer is not worth it as you're only getting half of what other games are offering for the same price.

user9597082890d ago

The titanfall beta alone has had the value a full retail game to me.
Multiplayer has the longest reaching appeal to most games. It's the single player only games that often leave me wishing I had gotten more for my buck.

You sir, are wrong.

carlingtat887d ago

So you're happy to play €/$60 for a game with just two maps and 3 game modes that should only be worth about half of that which is exactly what the BETA was?

Replayability is great but companies are ripping gamers off more and more for less content and your attitude is the exact reason why. Some players prefer single player, others prefer multiplayer but charging so much for less content is ridiculous?

What about the next titanfall? all it will be is a basic DLC but they'll charge you €/$60 because gamers think that multiplayer only games are worth it just because of replayability.

user9597082887d ago

No, it's people like you who are the problem. The ones that feel entitled to more and more while paying less all while constantly whining about how developers are insidious a-holes who want nothing more than to take your money and leave you hanging until the next shallow iteration. People who decide that a subpar game is somehow better because it has an extra 20 hours chocked full of uninteresting crap that nobody wants to do.

I judge the value of a game by how well it executes it's goal and by the amount of enjoyment I get from it.

Battlefield 1943 was better than Battlefield 4
Halo ODST's short campaign was better than all other Halos
And the Titanfall beta by itself was more fun than any modern first person shooter developed in the last 5 years. I can't even imagine how much better the game is going to be in its entirety.

And I would happily have payed $60 for any of those games knowing how much fun I have had with them.

Go have fun slogging through the next 60 hour Final Fantasy-esque grind fest.

JohnKenway887d ago (Edited 887d ago )

Just because you want to pay $60 for less and less content doesnt mean the rest of us do.Noone is feeling entitled but the way publishers treat gamers I feel, as the paying costumer, that I shouldn't be treated like shit by these publishers. If EA had its way you'd be paying $60 for the BETA which is in fact a DEMO of the full game.

And its the publishers not developers who practice anti-consumer bullshit trying to get as much money out of the comsumer for less content. An article recently re-appeared that said DICE would not charge for extra maps and would have free DLC. Are they doing that now? No because they know people like you are willing to pay $60 for a demo.

Just because a game isn't 50+ hours doesnt mean I'm not getting my moneys worth. And I would say that Titanfall will be worth retail value when it has the full game mode of loads of maps and loads of game modes. However what about the next one? You know well EA will charge $60 which will basically be a DLC update of maps as a full game. That is some anti-comsumer bullshit and you're already opening your mouth to eat it.

megazero12890d ago (Edited 890d ago )

are $60 single player only games with little to no replay value justifiable? (there are exception hence i put little to no replay values, before you start wanking about games like skyrim)

Value is justifiable to worth. If you feel that you will get hours in a mp games then IT IS worth it.

also people there is something called renting, neither EA or Respawn locked the game with an online pass.

lolCHILLbro890d ago

What kinda question is this? multiplayer games add the most replayability with hundreds of hours of gameplay, single player only games need to justify the price more than a multiplayer only game

example: counter strike

Septic890d ago

I don't know who disagreed with you. Like I said in the video, the mp has the biggest replayability. I guess my mate Ilyas differs on the basis that single player games offer more 'memorable experiences' but that's completely subjective.

But look at the comments above; people still think that MP only games aren't justified in charging full price. That makes no sense to me.

lolCHILLbro890d ago

@Septic, i know right, multiplayer games can be replayed countless times, singleplayer games with some exceptions are pretty much the same everytime

aiBreeze890d ago

I think it's sad that such questions are even being asked in 2014. Respawn are a small team by today's standards, I'd rather they take their talent and focus it on improving the MP than pulling a Battlefield and having a mediocre single player just to say it's there.

CrossingEden890d ago

When they have alot of maps, guns, modes, and consistent support from the developer than hell yes it's worth ti, especially considering that multiplayer automatically has higher replay value(if it meets the standards above).

Show all comments (38)
The story is too old to be commented.