Top
280°

Is a Multi-Player Only Game Worth Sixty Dollars?

It’s no secret that video game campaigns have become shorter over the years. Defeating an RPG on the SNES could take more than one hundred hours. But there are no rose coloured glasses here, a large amount of this content was padding. The fact that a game’s length was long was due to padding jaded both gamers and developers towards making a game long for the sake of being long.

Read Full Story >>
obstructedviews.net
The story is too old to be commented.
Bigpappy843d ago

This one apparently is. Selling like hotcakes

Sammy777843d ago

Easy there man . Lets wait for the numbers . As for whether it is worth it or not, we will see on what the consumers think

Bigpappy843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

Ok. I'm with that. I can wait for official numbers.

So what am I suppose to do with my crystal ball now?

My point is: how it sells, will determine it worth. If huge amounts of people buy it, the it is worth the asking price. Someone written opinion has no place in determining worth.

1nsomniac843d ago

@BigPappy That's not exactly how it works though. You're more likely to get an accurate answer from it's sequel as people then know what they can expect from it as a whole.

lolCHILLbro843d ago

Multiplayer only games hold more replay value than Singleplayer only games except for some RPG's, both depend on quality aswell though, if its not good its not worth money

mcarsehat843d ago

"Easy there man"

Where does that reluctance come from? What reason cold you have in mind for someone to go "easy?"

How does that news, be it true or false affect you?

Why o why843d ago

Depends on the quality and content of the game. The cynicism can't be leveled at all multiplayer only games. If you enjoy it for a year then you could easily argue it being worth it. Hate it then its obviously not worth it. Personal preference.

DarthZoolu843d ago

@sammy777 yeah its really awesome I haven't had any frame rate or lag and I've been beasting already.

ALSO...is a single player only game worth 60? I think games should cost $50 for full games weather it be SP and or MP.

White-Knight843d ago

Apparently they are worth over 100$ when we look at call of duty and battlefield with their season pass...

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 843d ago
hulk_bash1987843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

If the game in question is good, then the answer is yes. The same rule applies for Single player only games. Speaking of which inFamous: SS in less than 2 weeks, hell yes.

Anon1974843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

I think it depends on what the game offers compared to whatever the standards for that genre are. For example, if the norm for $60 is 10 multiplayer maps, splitscreen, singleplayer and an offline co-op mode, for a multiplayer only game to have value at the same price, you'd think they'd have to offer up something to compensate, like more maps or more game modes.

If two restaurants are offering a meal for $50 - one is a complete steak dinner with a couple of sides and the other is just a steak and nothing else...you'd hope the meal that's just a steak either offers more steak for your dollar or it's one damn fine piece of meat. Otherwise, where's the value?

I think a multiplayer only game could be worth $60, but it'd better offer something extra compared to it's direct competition to make up for it's shortcomings. Otherwise, it's simply not worth it. As the article states, either make up for it elsewhere or lower the price.

LoveOfTheGame843d ago

@ darkride
But that's where personal preference comes into play.

Personally I'd take the Filet Mignon over the flat iron steak and two sides.

ifistbrowni843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

I think a multiplayer ONLY game can be $60 if it has continued support and FREE map packs. Not having pre-planned map packs (DLC), like TitanFall.

IMO, the downloadable maps should be free.

UltraNova843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

In your dreams dude.

They will milk those wiling to pay for DLC bone dry. As if 15 maps was worth 60 buck to begin with!

antz1104843d ago

Lol that makes no sense. Single payer games get paid DLC all the time, why should multi be different?

UltraNova842d ago (Edited 842d ago )

In single player anybody can have fun by completing that game or even make an effort to find secrets and get trophies/achivments.

Try doing that in COD or in Titanfall...you will be killed 2 second s after each re spawn UNLESS you are so good you can actually compete in there, which most of us wont even bother!

Thats why games must have some kind of single player experience or be from the start multi-player only WITH either a reduced price or significant content to justify a regular price !

When it comes to DLC thing are a bit shady..is the developer willingly trying to milk you by not releasing a complete game at launch and 'providing' it to you as DLC later on?

Even worse is when they sell you that incomplete game with those missing parts -DLC on disc waiting for you to pay again for them to unlock it! Disgusting!

What do you say in the the case of Titanfall with its 15 maps and a hand full of modes when all big shooters COD/Battlefield/Killzone etc come with just as many and a 6hr plus single player campaign?

I mean if this aint a ripoff then what the hell is?

Beastforlifenoob843d ago

More people buy Toyota's than Ferrari's are you suggesting toyota is a better car?

More people play COD than Fallout, skyrim uncharted or such are you gonna suggest cod is the best game?

Crapton of people have watched twighlight best movie?

Alot of people listen to justin beieber and his songs usually hit #1 chart best artist?

Dont sh*t yourself mate sales do not = quality. HOWEVER IT CAN.

Sales dont make a good game, good games make good games

UltraNova843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

So going by your logic a heck of a lot more people buy the ps4 over the xb1 does that mean its not the better console?

I believe that sometimes sales are indicating a reliable level of quality when the competing sides are pretty similar.

Toyota vs Ferrari? Really the former has a price average car line up of about $15-20000 while the latter over $150,000. Yes Toyota performance wise is not better than Ferrari but when reliability comes in question Toyota wins hands down! Not a good comparison...

If you ask me it all comes down to a combination of consumer awareness, consumer financial state, hype susceptibility and personal preference...

fonger08843d ago

@UltraNova he's not talking about systems, he's talking about games and it's true sales don't always equal quality. If you're going to get 100hrs of straight fun quality multiplayer gaming for $60, that doesn't seem like a bad deal at all. Where as you might have a 10-15hr single player game that's $60, I guess it's all about the experience you get for the money you spend.

antz1104843d ago

Toyota's do go over 300,000 mi if you change the oil regularly....that's a pretty good car.

Goro843d ago

If this game was launching on PS4, your agrees and disagrees would be the other way around.

OCEANGROWNKUSH843d ago

Idk i paid $33 for it is it worth that? sureeeeeee

Magicite843d ago

If a game is MMO, then its worth it, If its something like COD, then hell no!

Back-to-Back843d ago

Nope, because when the servers shutdown its a paperweight. Similar to MAG.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 842d ago
-Foxtrot843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

The way I look at it is if you take a multiplayer game you are the one responsible for getting enjoyment out of matches which later on will become repetitive because you've of played them so many times in the space of a few hours. However with a single player game it's up to the developers to craft a single player experience that you will enjoy, since you won't be replying the ENTIRE single player game in a few hours like how you could play dozens of multiplayer matches in most likely the same time frame then it's up to the developers to give you the best experience you can.

I mean obviously with multiplayer the developer has to do the work aswell, they have to create the maps, the structure, balance it etc but at the end of the day you replaying it over and over is what is making you feel like you've gotten your moneys worth while with single player games it's mostly up to the developer to craft an experience for you which you'll play through....then you have collectibles, and maybe side quests or other smaller things to keep you going.

I think I would get more enjoyment from something like Assassins Creed 4 doing EVERYTHING (Main missions, side missions, collectibles, exploring, upgrades, hunting etc) then doing the same old repetitive modes over and over and over again, which you would find in any online game. If you were given only the online of AC4 would you feel satisfied enough...of course not.

You could play death match dozens and dozens of time in the space of a few hours but if you were playing AC4 for example you'd be not even half way through the main story, by the time you've fully finished a game like that a person who plays only multiplayer games would of been long gone off it and onto the next multiplayer type game. (By the way I'm just using AC4 as an example)

It's hard to explain in my opinion but hopefully you'll see my point.

Robochobo843d ago

This is a silly opinion at best. I don't see how anybody would get that quickly bored with their game unless they had they had a very short attention span, or they really liked to burn money. There are millions of people who play multiplayer only oriented games (LoL, Quake, CS:GO, Dota 2, WoW) and have been doing so for decades now. It's really ridiculous to say it's not worth 60 dollars just because it's a multiplayer only title. The real question should be whether or not the game is as enjoyable as you want it to be for 60 dollars.

Besides, it's odd how you cite Assassins Creed 4 as a good way of putting a bunch of stuff in the game when it's usually already been done in all the games before it. Again, it really comes down to enjoyment. There were probably just as many side quests and collectibles in AC4 as there was in AC3, however I felt like my 60 dollars was justified with AC4 because I ENJOYED the game. Not because of how much padding it had in it.

-Foxtrot843d ago

I'm not saying you would get QUICKLY bored of the online what I'm trying to say is (going by my example) by the time you get half way through AC4's main quest for example you would of played deathmatch (or other modes) so many times that it would start to feel a tad repetitive.

By the time you finish everything in your lengthy single player game (which would take a while) the other person could be on his second/third brand new multiplayer game or even be on an old one....lot of people go back to different online modes when it takes their fancy.

I mean hey if you get enjoyment out of a multiplayer only game fair enough but what I'm trying to point out is it's really up to you to see if it's worth it since you would have to have a very long attention span to do the same matches over and over again. You load up, find a match, pick map, play some rounds, end match, search for new playlist...rinse and repeat.

I chose AC4 as an example because it was the game I'm playing on at the moment, thats all. First game that popped into my head.

"Not because of how much padding it had in it."

You do realise I'm not trying to say thats the ONLY reason, don't you....I'm just trying to say that kind of thing helps when trying to justify paying full price to a multiplayer only title. With some single player games there is a lot of variety, multiplayer games...not so much.

I mean look at DLC, all you really get for online games is maps, new weapons/skins, modes etc but with single player it can be anything the developers like. I'd rather pay for something like Shivering Isles then Five map packs.

vickers500843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

"With some single player games there is a lot of variety, multiplayer games...not so much."

That's only an opinion though. Variety can be what you make of it. Others might find variety where all you see is repetition. For instance, in a game like Battlefield, there are a ton of weapons, multiple classes, a bunch of gadgets and gear, vehicles, destructability, multiple support options, etc.

For the bigger multiplayer fans out there, these things can take on a huge amount of variety, and the game moves away from simply being about killing the other guy.

Things one can do (using BF for this example)

1. Provide sniper support (spotting, picking off enemies)
2. Be the guy going around with an automatic weapon thinning out the herd (for fun, or to help team mates capture objectives.
3. Hide in a tactical spot, providing spawn points close to objectives for other team mates, while also planting a spawn beacon in another spot and a motion sensor to provide even further tactical support.
4. Get in a tank and provide offensive support
5. Get in a tank and provide transportation
6. Get in a chopper and provide offensive air support against ground units, or provide air support against planes and other choppers
7. Get in a chopper as a passenger engineer whilst providing repairs for the pilot and also providing offensive support against other choppers with a stinger missile.
8. Stay at and defend a point the whole match to ensure it stays safe
9. Be the guy that's constantly running to capture the next point as you finish with one, go to another.
10. Be the guy that heals and revives your teammates
11. Be the guy that gives your team mates ammo when they need it.
12. Be a jet pilot and take out other jets and helicopters
13. Have fun by unlocking and experimenting with every single weapon, or try and complete different challenges to unlock everything you can(vehicle weapons, soldier weapons, soldier gear, customization things like gun camos, soldier camos, different knives, etc.)
14. Be the guy that's just constantly driving people around to objectives (whether it's in an attack boat, tank, apc, helicopter, jeep, atv, dirt bike, smaller attack boat, jet ski).

I could list quite a few more things, but I'm sure you get the point of what I'm trying to say, the point being that people such as myself can find a lot of variety in a multiplayer game. There are a ton of different roles to play, and a lot of ways to play them. My personal favorite is to blow up vehicles (tanks, helicopters, jeeps, any ground or water vehicle) with RPG rounds.

Someone who doesn't much care for multiplayer might look at that list and say "but those are pretty much all just slight variations of the same thing", and to those people, it might be, but it isn't to me. I could say the same about many of the aspects of single player games.

You would be surprised what little things people can think up to vary the multiplayer experience for themselves.

But I do think you have the right overall viewpoint on the matter, in that it's up to the individual person to decide whether or not the game is worth it to them. I'm just trying to point out to you, that to MULTIPLAYER FANS, there can be quite a lot of variety and ways to vary the experience, even though those ways might not be so obvious to those who don't play (or like) multiplayer games, they are there.

Robochobo843d ago

Look, all I have to say is that if the game is good the game is good. There are THOUSANDS of people who still play games like CS, Starcraft BW, Quake, and multiple other multiplayer only games because they're GOOD. You only get bored with something if it happens to be bad.

You're so fixated on the fact that it will be repetitive, when in fact every single match can play completely different from the last you played. People play CoD and Battlefield multiplayer year round on nearly all of the released titles and don't get bored with it.

Again, you like saying a game needs variety, yet you use Assassin Creed as an example even though they reuse assets and side quests in nearly all their games. Quake III had 4, count 4 different game modes and around 26-27 maps total. I bet you 100 dollars that you can boot up Quake III right now and still find a playable and active lobby. Quake III released over a decade ago, and is still being played by people in 2014, not because it has a wide variety of sidequests and missions, but because it's fun. Ya know, the main point of any video game.

-Foxtrot843d ago

"Look, all I have to say is that if the game is good the game is good"

So am I but the article is about if it's worth it....yeah it might but for how long. If your not going to get a ton of replay value from it then is it worth the investment, especially when money for some is hard to come by these days.

Things can be good and you can still get bored with them. I played a crap load of The Last of Us online mode after I did everything in the single player...I ended up playing so much I burned myself out. Maybe I'll go back to it, maybe I won't....who knows but if that game didn't have the single player I probably would of sold it ages ago.

"Again, you like saying a game needs variety, yet you use Assassin Creed as an example even though they reuse assets and side quests in nearly all their games"

Oh come on, they are the same structures but they are always different when it comes to missions and such....especially the main ones. Sure the Assasin Contracts play out the same and yeah maybe the collecting is the same aswell but with the new enviorments and time eras, along with brand new features they give us they feel different enough for us not to notice....however with some multiplayer games it's not the case. As I've said

Find Multiplayer Match

Start game

Play a few rounds

Manage loadout/gear.unlocks

Find new match

Rinse and repeat

That gets more old then when your in a single player game even if it's something like AC where some gameplay elements have been done before.

I mean look how long Mario has been going for, I'd take playing Super Mario 3D World over anything online related and would happily pay full price for a single player only game because it's worth it.....more then the same rinse and repeat matches you do on nearly every online game, which houses the same boring structure

If you like it fine, I'm not arguing to that but please don't say someone's opinion is silly just because you don't agree with it

dcj0524843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

Counter strike players have been playing the same game off and on for 10+ years almost every other day with some breaks for some. TF2 still has players that's been many people's main game for 7 years. You get 1000s of hours from certain Multiplayer games and if you absolutely love It then you won't become too Tired of it (sometimes you gotta take a couple of months off to not burn out) my point is the replay valuevis insanely high. Hell look at WOW or Eve Online. Still going very strong. I Don't have an example of something lasting as long as say Pac man because Multiplayer has only been around for around 18-15 years but I'm sure that in 2025 many people will STILL be playing Counter strike or TF2.

Palitera843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

Actually, most SP games are very repetitive, specially the one you mentioned, and are way too predictable.

As I read one of these days from one old MW2 designer, the MP games have to be designed in a way that new people can play, but experienced players keep finding better ways to improve their knowledge and skills.

MW, WaW and MW2 are masterpieces when it comes to level design. In no other MP shooter I've seen so much attention to the position of every object on the map. Every crate, window, door has or blocks a line of sight that means something on their maps.

Sadly, on any subsequent CoD games, this has simply vanished.

Anyway, my point is: usually, SP games are WAY more repetitive than MP games, which are much more unpredictable.

Another thing: What makes MP games so compelling is the improvement of the players' skill, so you'll be playing the same 10, 15 maps, but really differently than one week before.

I know people will disagree. It is the internet trend now, to say that SP games rock, even when 99% of these are ultra boring and only recycle the ideas and mechanics of the other games, but I don't mind.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 843d ago
Ezz2013843d ago

i have never played any multiplayer in my life
i love Single player only
so for me it's a no

LogicStomper843d ago

Really?! You're missing out on a lot of fun!

carlingtat843d ago

Multiplayer isnt for everyone. I played all the call of dutys and from battlefield 2 - BF4 but the first multiplayer I played was Black Ops II. Like Ezz2013 I prefer single player campaigns however I enjoyed the titanfall beta so Im on the fence with this one.

ArbitorChief843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

Why is it okay for a game to be SP only but not MP only? If a developer wants to focus on just making 1 part of the game the best it can be (e.g. SP, MP) why is that only an issue for MP?

Muerte2494843d ago

because one requires internet connection at the other doesn't.

-Foxtrot843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

Why?

You do realise a lot of single player games, when it comes to the reviews, get called and sometimes reviewed a little lower because of a no online mode, even if the game doesn't need it.

Theres just more stuff you can add to a single player game then an online only one.

ArbitorChief843d ago

I've yet to see a SP only game have more "stuff" than an MMO like WoW.

-Foxtrot843d ago

MMO's, well thats different in some areas, I think the article was talking more about games which houses multiplayer games with deathmatch and all that stuff.

When you buy an MMO you know what your getting and they are usually supported and packed way more then what other "death match" type multiplayer only games have

Destiny for example will most likely be crammed full of more content then a game like Titanfall will ever have, even with DLC ....yet your paying the same price for them. I think thats what the article is trying to say.

Kavorklestein843d ago

Foxtrot.
Dude.
60 bucks is good. Especially when you compare it to mmo's which have expansions that are 60 additional bucks, as well as 15 bucks a month just to play ONE GAME. Titanfall has enough content for the money, trust me.

BitbyDeath843d ago

Nothing wrong with it, cost on the otherhand is generally justified for SP games as they require more time and effort compared to MP games.

SP requires extra time for story, sound, cinematics, level design etc.

MP only games should always be cheaper IMO.

No_Limit843d ago

Playing with your friends and family over long distances and every game is a competitive math is really worth. Much better long term investment than a single only player game like inFamous because once you beat it, now what?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 843d ago
Team_Litt843d ago

I have spent 800 hours playing Battlefield Bad Company 2 multiplayer. That is roughly 100 times longer than most single player games.
You tell me if MP only is worth $60!

In the end however, it is all relative. To some its worth it, others want both and some want just SP.

BitbyDeath843d ago

Shouldn't cost be based on time and materials spent rather than random users playtime?

By your line of thinking then even small indie games should cost $60.

Ducky843d ago

Well, I usually base me purchase based on how good the product is, not how much time went into making it.

By your line of thinking, Duke Nukem Forever should've been $600.

Robochobo843d ago

I'm certain if he spent 800 hours on an indie game, he'd be okay with a 60 dollar price tag. Besides, you're using over bloated budgeting for development purposes (CoD comes to mind) for a reason why a game should be 60 dollars.

BitbyDeath843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

@Ducky, the ceiling limit is meant to be $60 US.
Game prices should never be open ended.

@Robochobo, People have already put hundreds of hours into Don't Starve, doesn't make it worth $60. I've put over 300 hours into Warhawk and it is easily in my top 5 games of lastgen but that doesn't make it worth full price.

Robochobo843d ago

So you're telling me that even though you played a game for 300 hours it's not worth it over the game you spent a possible 6 hours on? Are you serious right now?

BitbyDeath843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

Yes, because you pay for quality not quantity of time spent.
A 5 bedroom mansion does not cost the same as a normal 5 bedroom house. You may spend the same amount of time in each but one is of higher quality and features hence why it deserves to cost more than the other.

@No_Limit,
MAG didn't cost $60.
I also wouldn't pay for MAG 2 at $60.

No_Limit843d ago (Edited 843d ago )

Just ignore BitbyDeath, he is a Titanfall hater because it is not on the PS4, simple as that.

Here is the exact quote from him regarding MAG and a possible sequel to that online only full retail priced game on PS3. Post#28

"If they ever do make a MAG 2 it needs splitscreen. That was the only thing holding me back from buying it."
http://n4g.com/news/1216963...

Wait, I thought it was the price?

@BitbyDeath after reply,
"MAG didn't cost $60"
Oh yes it did, it might have drop in prices over time but it was definitely $60 at launch.

http://community.us.playsta...

"I also wouldn't pay for MAG 2 at $60"

You don't have to, just like MAG and every game that is release (single or multiplayer), it will be cheaper after a few months.

BitbyDeath843d ago

Ok, I stand corrected then.
MAG still isn't worth $60 and neither would any online only game.

I'm not singling out Titanfall, nor am I here to hate on it, I just don't believe any online only game which requires less effort than SP should cost full price.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 843d ago