110°
Submitted by Septic 274d ago | opinion piece

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?" (PS4, The Order: 1886, TitanFall, Xbox 360, Xbox One)

Attached Video
dboyc310  +   275d ago
Nope. Specially when they'll most likely be making you pay for future dlc.
Septic  +   274d 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?
#1.1 (Edited 274d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
carlingtat  +   273d 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.
user9597082  +   274d 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.
carlingtat  +   272d 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.
user9597082  +   272d 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.
JohnKenway  +   271d 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.
#1.2.3 (Edited 271d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
megazero12  +   275d 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.
#2 (Edited 275d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
lolCHILLbro  +   274d 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
Septic  +   274d 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.
lolCHILLbro  +   274d ago
@Septic, i know right, multiplayer games can be replayed countless times, singleplayer games with some exceptions are pretty much the same everytime
aiBreeze  +   274d 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.
CrossingEden  +   274d 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).
Mikelarry  +   274d ago
My fear is this will start a trend and you KNOW activision is looking closely at this so get ready for the next cod to be multiplayer and single player being sold separately
alb1899  +   274d ago
After played TITANFALL......HELL YES!
#7 (Edited 274d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
il-JumperMT  +   274d ago
Battlefield 2 says Hi!
Kingoftherodeo  +   274d ago
Was the price justified when video games first became 60 bucks?
vikingland1  +   274d ago
@Kingoftherodeo

That's exactly what I was thinking. But, most AAA games sp & mp cost so much to make. I think it's justifiable just because of the cost to make games. And that counts for both sp & mp games.
Linchpin  +   274d ago
No.
Tedakin  +   274d ago
I don't understand how an 8 hour single player campaign you'll beat once, maybe twice, and never touch again is justified, but a huge multiplayer only game that lasts forever and includes an online story mode you play with friends isn't.
trage  +   274d ago
well until they shutdown the servers for that game and it becomes a 60 dollar paper wait.
Tedakin  +   274d ago
That usually doesn't happen for a very long time, and how many single player games do you play over and over again? A good single player game is something most mess with for a few weeks.
carlingtat  +   273d ago
@Tedakin
It may not happen for a while but this is EA we're talking about, someone who will shut down Fifa 2012 servers later this year and that game is less than 2 years old. So once Titanfall 2 comes out in 2 years or so, Titanfall's servers will be shut down within a year. At least with single player you can go back and play it whenever you feel like it. If you don't you can trade it in but once Titanfall's servers are gone you won't be able to trade it because its useless.
Abdiam24  +   274d ago
Most single player games offer a much better quality experience than multiplayer, regardless of how short the campaign maybe.
Septic  +   274d ago
What? How are you assessing quality?
xfear2diex  +   274d ago
the ordder 1885
is the single player justify the price
kazumakiriyu  +   274d ago
I have this odd thing where i rather pay 60 for single player games because i know it will last forever. I can play the game years from now while multiplayer games are different. Multiplayer games are mine only till servers shut down. I can understand how people would pay 60 for an online only game but i wouldn't just because of that. I might never play the single player game again but just knowing that i could makes me feel better about the purchase.
Acadius  +   274d ago
Well said. Have a bubble on me.
skoorydook  +   274d ago
Of course it is, can anyone here honestly say they wouldn't swap out the piss poor campaigns in BF or COD for another 6 or so multi-player maps, I would bin those campaigns in a nano a second.

Assume all these questions are coming out because of Titanfall, well if the reported 15 or so maps is correct then that is more than enough content to justify leaving out a 6 hour single player only campaign, they almost always suck in those kind of games.
ALS365  +   274d ago
When they play as well as titanfall. Of course.
Acadius  +   274d ago
I was just discussing this subject yesterday. If they were to offer free or at least partially free DLC meaning the first two DLC then yes. But I've enjoyed the beta of this game immensely so I'll purchase it nonetheless.
infectedaztec  +   274d ago
Sure a MP game only can be worth the 60 bucks. I bought BF3 and never completed the campaign yet it was possibly my most played game ever. Its weird that nobody minds if a single player game lacks MP but does the other way round. Even the great SP campaigns I'll usually only play once.....Halo and Halo2 being major exceptions.

The question is, will Titanfall be diverse enough and replayable enough to warrant a full price? Its too early to tell from the beta. I hope they give a 48 hour trail as a demo
infectedaztec  +   274d ago
Sure a MP game only can be worth the 60 bucks. I bought BF3 and never completed the campaign yet it was possibly my most played game ever. Its weird that nobody minds if a single player game lacks MP but does the other way round. Even the great SP campaigns I'll usually only play once.....Halo and Halo2 being major exceptions.

The question is, will Titanfall be diverse enough and replayable enough to warrant a full price? Its too early to tell from the beta. I hope they give a 48 hour trial of the full game as a demo
shmeedy24685  +   274d ago
For me yes as you play multiplayer usually a lot longer than you play the campaign. I'll easily put in days or weeks into Titanfall over the course of the next year or two and so will many others and if that's not value for money, then I don't know what is!
mcarsehat  +   274d ago
yes it is, people don't buy battlefield for the single player campaign.
SuperDan-Dare  +   274d ago
I think a single player ONLY game has the potential to offer a richer experience when compared to a multiplayer experience. There are simply certain barriers to be offering the exact same experience across both parallels. I think this is part of what you're paying for (aside from preference for a certain franchise or concept) when buying a single player ONLY/domninated game. What you're paying for (caveats above withstanding) with a multiplayer game IS the replayability.
DevilishSix  +   274d ago
It depends on the game. The standard has always been SP and MP make up a complete game package. If the game has no MP and is SP only gamers expect a great story with good length and often these games get critized for being short and/or having no co-op or MP part. A game like Destiny merges SP story an missions with online MP or public events.

I think if its a MP only game like Titanfall then it should be sold at $50 or 40 not $60 like its a complete package with SP and MP combined. Publishers and developers have been trying to stick it to us gamers to make more money by trying to seperate SP and MP.

Titanfall has a problem with MP only. As the first game in the series, by not having a SP then the universe and story aspect of the game is lost. Ideas set forth in a SP can drive the MP forward.

The other problem for Titanfall MP only is the game is giving you 14 MP maps, thats it. So you are pretty much getting two map packs three maps and two map packs with four maps at $15 a piece and I have constantly seen gamers for years complaining about spend $15 for three or four maps or COD or Halo.

So my question is does Titanfall get a PASS because really its just one big map pack?
BlackCarrot  +   273d ago
Warhawk doesn't get a mention? That was worth every penny.

Most fps games do rubbish, quick-time filled single player campaigns which aren't worth chips. I dislike the idea of map packs, but I certainly would prefer to see more emphasis placed on multiplayer if it is made at the expense of a tacked on and useless single player campaign. There are plenty of decent single player games to keep me happy.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
20°

Halo MCC matchmaking issues still present post-patch

12m ago - The update that users hoped would fix Halo: The Master Chief Collection's matchmaking issues is o... | Xbox One
30°

Read+Watch+Listen: Bonus Material for Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare fans

12m ago - Now that you’ve saved the world from the biggest war ever (again), be sure to check out these rel... | PC
20°

Destiny – How to Beat This Week’s Nightfall Event With Ease (Nov 18th)

12m ago - Another week in Destiny means a new Nightfall to indulge in and LzyGmrs have the guide to get you... | Xbox 360
10°

Review: Sportsball (Pure Nintendo)

13m ago - Pure Nintendo: "While Sportball offers nothing for a solo player, I must conclude with a reminder... | Wii U
Ad

Are you bored?

Now - Watch 10 seconds videos about games and game culture at COUB Gaming... | Promoted post
30°

Alphadia Genesis Arrives on Wii U

13m ago - Natsume Inc., a worldwide developer and publisher of family-oriented video games, today launches... | Wii U