It takes a considerable amount of money to play a modern game on the current set of consoles, and the price is only getting higher.
I agree. But not only about Titanfall. If a game is going to be online multiplayer only then you can't justify charging full price for it. That's crazy. Granted there are people that will buy it and don't care what it costs. But there are those that wont see the justifiable value in an online only multiplayer only game costing full price. Bad move.
You're right about Titanfall, but that doesn't mean a game couldn't be packed with online-only stuff that justifies the price. Maybe Destiny will. I get your point though. It's a little worrying that $60 is okay for that kind of stuff.
i dont really remember but how much was Warhawk, MAG, Starhawk...? while having an offline mode, those games primary focus was online multiplayer. I dont remember people complaining about paying full price for those games. then again they werent also paying to play online at the time either. i guess the bottom line is when companies know there are people that will pay whatever it takes to get the full experience...they will continue to charge extortionist fees. you are either going to buy into it or play something else.
warhawk and socom were $40 last gen. but development costs DID go up this gen... i always said id never pay full price for a MP only game, but i think gamers have to be more understanding of the times and situation. i know its different for other countrys, too, and, its hard not to hate on everything MS does, and some devs are better/have more money than others; i think its best to address the price of games by each individual developer (hear me out first!). 1.) im not saying this is going to be acceptable from all developers, in fact yeah id hate to see it be widespread. 2.) not to sound clique but, vote with your wallets (e.g. we expect the bigger devs to keep it the way it is and give us what they have been giving us). i dont mind supporting a smaller indepedent dev that comes a long and charges full price for a MP only game, if the game is good. considering the increase in development costs. idk, it may sound wrong and unfair to discriminate thoes with more money but its my money too and thats probably what im going to do. life aint fair and ppl expect a certain prestige out everyone differently. because if warhawk was to charge full price this gen, hell i cant say that i wouldnt buy it if it is good bc i love me some warhawk. i mean, mofo's pay a monthly subscription to play MMO's online... that accumulates to a nice second-hand car, lmao. @darth- this wasnt a reply to you, coincidentally i thought of warhawk's price too, and started typing this b4 i saw your comment. im in a different time-zone than you (the vitas touch screen chat pad time) hehe.
@PoSTedUP Dude, no, development costs have gone waaaaaay down this gen. Last gen was pretty ridiculous because everyone had to design tools from the ground up. It was pretty expensive. This gen, tools are super cheap and porting can be done within days instead of months (depending on the project). That's why so many smaller devs are making games for the Wii U and PS4, because it's so much cheaper now than compared to the PS3/Xbox 360 era.
Wrong mewhy32, personal emotions aside for SP, here are the facts: "And it's not just dull games that go unfinished. Critically acclaimed ones do, too. Take last year's "Red Dead Redemption." You might think Rockstar's gritty Western would be played more than others, given the praise it enjoyed, but you'd be wrong. Only 10% of avid gamers completed the final mission, according to Raptr, which tracks more than 23 million gaming sessions." "Which brings us to perhaps the biggest contributing factor in the decrease of lengthy campaign modes. It is this: Gamers may say they like playing epic single-player games. But when push comes to shove, what they really want is online multiplayer." http://www.cnn.com/2011/TEC... 》If you read the above article its very good study from 23 million gaming sessions so its not some vague research, it actually goes into very logical detail about why 20-30hr singleplayer games are becoming less desirable by many gamers, I'm not saying I want them to be just acknowledging that things like skyrocketing dev costs and older gamers with less time to finish games makes sense= I'm a older guy with a family but I still love big games and find the time to finish them.《 "In a singleplayer game, the cost of the game and the average time it takes to complete it yields an hourly revenue per user of about two US dollars. In a multiplayer title, because the gamer plays so much longer, that slumps to around 12 cents." http://www.wired.co.uk/news... 》lol, here Pachter actually tried to argue that MULTIPLAYER GAMES SHOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE since SP games cost the avg person $2.00 per gameplay hrs while the same avg person pays $0.12 per gameplay hr for MP. Again I definitely don't agree multi games should cost more but I have a valid question, Again not talking personal opinion about which is better but since it's a fact for the avg user multi games last longer= meaning they are played more then how can they be less valuable????《 I love SP games, but I have to ask the obvious based on the FACT that they are generally played alot less than multi games why aren't they cheaper? nah, but I support devs either way and I really think we should just leave it alone and pay $60 for SP only or MR only games as long as WE think the game itself is worth it, artificial rules only hurt gaming.
dude, man, bro, big developers are saying the complete opposite and release their budgets for their games so the facts are in front of you.
@4ShoW: to answer your question. this is probably subjective which is more valuable, but the fact remains the same that more work and money is put ito SP games. its not just servers where you can shoot people. SP is Story, lots of Writers, Many Voice Actors, way more Animations and Motion Captures, the work and detail in the many cutscenes, the programming it takes for the AI, and it playes with your Emotions in many more different ways than a MP shooters etc. SP is more valuable to me and i love playing online, plus i can honestly say that im sure it costs more to develope. online has been on the increase the last 12 years and is very popular, but SP only games do sell well and hundreds of hours are sunk into RPGs JRPGs by many gamers regardless if they see the end of the game or not. i didnt beat cod4 and i bought BO1 just for the online etc. but i Do kinda agree with what youre saying and i agree with your last statement. its gonna be up to the individual on what they support, and im sure they will get s*** from ppl for it. if it does get to you, you just gotta hit them with logic.
It just depends on the content and how large the game is. If it is a smaller multiplayer game with low content then I would not want to pay full price. I don't think something being multiplayer only automatically means it shouldn't be full price.
Argument from the Xbox side: If you don't already know what XB Live is by now then you have been living under a rock. Everyone already knows they need XBL to play online. And everyone plays online anyway. PlayStation Argument: Get a PS4 with PS + and you will get free games :P Game over win win Yay thumbs up N4G praise!
blame the xbots
here come those that try their best to justify Titanfall costing $60 and then comparing it with SP only games while forgetting games started as SP only and MP started as extra features. instead of asking why TF isn't $40, let's agree with $60 and bashed all those SP only games! /s and here we are still wondering why publishers are such money sucking scum! people put up for it, THAT'S WHY!
Many Bluray disks cost 30+bucks when they come out. Nowadays production costs for most games rival or are higher than most movies only there is no box office for games. That alone makes it difficult. Tack in the used game market. Then there are unrealistic gamer demands. .. we all want 1080p, 60 fps, amazing AI, amazing physics, full blown open world, 40+hour games, with mind blowing plots, excellent voice acting, and top notch sound tracks, and don't forget it has to have an awesome well balanced and creative and extensive multiplayer. we also want devs to pump these games out like it is nobodies business. If any of the above are skimped on we should pay a reduced price... I think if we are truly being honest 60 bucks is a steal for the quality of games we are getting in most cases. I think we need to cut the devs some slack here. Note that we are seeing fewer and fewer AAA games part in fact because the market is too high risk. This is why indie is a big console market right now... Perfection at 60 bucks is hard to deliver when you are likely going to have difficulty clearing 500k sales if your meta critic score falls below 80 too soon..
I don't really understand the logic of saying Titanfall costs 120 bucks. How about if you already were an xbox live subscriber would you still pay 120 bucks? How about if you already bought an Xbox 1 game and paid for online then do you still pay 120 bucks? Its not like you have to subscribe to live again whenever you buy a new game smh at dumb logic
I have no problem with the price of games today...As a matter of fact...Back in the day I was paying $50.00-$70.00 for Atari,Intellivison,ect,ect...Y es I think the price of games have held a steady line.....
Warhawk was $40 and you also got a free bluetooth headset in the box. MP only games should be $40 at most, and it's insane to think so many are buying TF for $60 when it has no true SP campaign. I think people are not even giving the price a second thought due to the overpowering hype this game got. I mean heck, until I read this article it hadn't dawned on me that this MP only game is being sold for $60!
Why should they charge less because it's online only? When games are single player only I don't hear people complaining it should be cheaper. I'd say a good 90% of the time, aside from some RPG games, the replayability comes from the multiplayer. So the whole "it's online only, it should be cheaper" argument is stupid and only used trying to downplay Titanfall.
Read my reply to a person below. Servers can have issues, and they inevitably get shutdown a few years after the game's release. In a couple of years, your multiplayer only game will be nothing but a pretty box. I can play a single player game anytime and anywhere. 15 years from now, I can pop that game in and reminisce. You won't be able to say the same about TitanFall.
@Konsoru That makes no sense considering people are still playing Gears of War 3 and the game is couple years old. Once you beat a single player game, besides hunting for hidden stuff, the replay ability is basically gone.
not a few years in most cases, but her point is very valid. i cant play MAG anymore, where did my money go? do i get it back? thats the downside of MP-only BC i can still play socom2 singleplayer, resitance1 singleplayer etc. if that is the case, id rather not have to pay full price, imo. i use to buy COD for just the MP so in that sense it doesnt matter to me, but Killzone i buy for the SP and MP. if KZ went MP only for full price, money would most deff stop comming out of my wallet.
I agree & I got Titanfall for £41 wasn't paying anymore for it, also got MGS for £19.75 was defo not paying £30 for that. At least there is limitless playability with titanfall, or until you get board, 15 maps, 5 game modes? & DLC with more maps. Vs MGS, 5 side missions or something like that & a 30 min singleplayer campaign. (If you rush through it) & they wanted to charge basically full price for that lmao, chancer if I ever seen one.
You didn't factor in replayability for MGS.
I did, there is only so much replay ability. I still bought both, but an online game will last longer, if its good. Than a SP only game.
I don't remember, but how much were games like MAG and Warhawk? I am reading Warhawk was full price, but had a digital option that was much cheaper. How much was MAG again?
Warhawk was 40 bucks when it came out. The retail version was 60 bucks, but it was packaged with a blutooth headset.
Mag and star hawk were both 60, online only, and fun as hell just like titanfall Can you spot the glaring difference
@BabyTownFrolics: Starhawk had a single player campaign.
So should a Single Player only game be charging full price? Seriously whats the difference.
Like ppl have said , you can keep playing a single player game for as long as the game still works, the MP only games can only be played when servers allow so , give it a few years and there wont be a server for titanfall. I cant imagine you will understand or will even try to being an avid defender of taking it up the arse from MS.
@ MRMagoo123 The single player has less value. Are you really going to play The Order more than 3 times? Microsoft servers are still active for some of the first Xbox 360 games (example: Gears of War - released in 2006). I think you got more than enough vlue if you are still playing the MP portion 8 years later.
What I find crazy is how my parents got me Super C and Turtles 2 for the NES at $80 each in 1989. 25 years later and games are actually cheaper. Economies of scale?
Those were the days when stores had the ability to charge what ever they wanted as long as it was above msrp. And boy did they, they used to price gauge the crap out of people.
You're right Rex! A store I used to rent games from used to charge over $100CAD for N64 games! I would say at that point though was when PS1 and Saturn were coming out on the cheaper CD platform. Maybe the demand for 64bit cartridges dropped and shot the prices up. Plus manufacturing costs.
By that same argument, should a company not charge full price for single player only title?
Same as i said to ubertrollyexpress, singleplayer games can be played for as long as they arent broken, i can still pop in my copy of Dizzy down the rapids on my amstrad 464 which is on cassette tape and it will play, Multiplayer games only work as long as a server is up supporting it, on PC its not so bad because you can make private servers with MODS and stuff but on console, once its taken off the server its not playable any more. If you cant see why now with it being so plain and obvious i dont know what to say.
CoD and Battlefield are $60 and have crappy single players that people either speed through or don't even touch
Those game's been raping wallets for awhile now, they pray mostly on the foolish buyers, they take forever and a day to decrease in price.
Except MMOs of course. I believe that $40-$50 would have been a justifiable price. I'm still waiting for the explanation as to why digital games are the same price as their physical counterparts as well.
Not on steam. Generally it's $10 cheaper on steam.
People complaining and looking to keep hating on Titanfall for what? If gamers really had a problem with the price of Titanfall - they would have spoken up about it. Just like the original Xbox One plans, just like MGSV: Ground Zeros, etc etc. Move on.
You don't hear many 'XBots' complaining. They're too busy playing Titanfall.
IMO, online-only gaming as the majority rule at ANY point in the future is the wrong move for the future of gaming. But as for prices... Prices will rise and fall with each different economy, and eventually devs will see that things are getting too pricey and back off a bit with the ultra budget titles and stick to normal "big" budget titles.
They charge that much for single player only games...
i am not gonna defend this but this is what i will say. a lot of resources went into making TF, a lot of man hours to fine tune everything so i for one don't have a big issue with the price since quality is there if the argument is well TF is only only than it should be less, ok than what about games with MP and single player should those be $70 plus? did you know the price of all entertainment went up yet game prices have stayed pretty much the same for a long time? so if we want publishers to sell only online or single player only games for cheaper, than we have to be willing to pay more for the games offering single player and MP. also if that's how we want game prices to be than every publisher will throw in useless MP or useless single player just so that they can say we are offering everything games like Tom Raider which had excellent 8 hours story but than useless MP
I think people put the price on things. When you buy a game you do it or at least I do it because it will be good entertainment not exactly because is SP or MP or both. Example: I had the feeling that THE ORDER will be coop and MP but no.....is just single player campaign, should a only single player game cost 60? For me, if the price of an only MP game isn't right the market will let you know. Normally I play the campaign one time until finish and then just play the MP. The MP has for me more value than the campaign and I don't care about wich cost more. Is about preference......is about people.....market. If the price of a product is not right it won't sell, soon or later will fall like a Titan because the competition will do a similar product with the right price or because people won't buy it.
Do you feel like games with only single player should not be full priced too? I feel like this is the same kind of argument. Games should be priced on the value they give the player, not the options of play. If a multiplayer only game gives me 18 hours of fun, but a singleplayer only game gives me 8-10, id much rather get the multiplayer. Personally, I have been thinking they should just ditch the singleplayer modes in Battlefield and COD, nobody buys those games to enjoy the... "Story" they have. They want to shoot people online. I say none is better than some half assed mode that nobody will play
I disagree with you completely. There is nothing wrong with charging full price for a Multiplayer Only game. Multiplayer is usually where it is at as far as replayability. That being said, I don't buy multiplayer only games unless they are MMO's. I don't really care about multiplayer for the most part, but I don't have an issue buying a game like Battlefield where I will put a couple hundred hours into it as opposed to some single player game I will play for 8 hours then shelve.
A sp campaign gets gamers invested in the games universe and characters. Otherwise it makes for a shallow experience for many gamers like myself when we play online parts. I like to use Halo as an example , we wouldn't care nearly as much about the Halo game world if we hadn't met and followed Master Chief and Cortana and only played the multiplayer. Not having a sp experience in Titanfall is a missed opportunity, it could have made for a great universe to fight in and enriched the overall experience.
I can't stand the standard 60$ game myself, but demanding that a game must be cheaper when it doesn't tack on a singleplayer of some sorts is BS. If the game isn't worth the full retail price in your opinion, then you shouldn't buy it first hand day one. You'll get a better deal when there is a sale or by getting a second hand copy. But other people value it differently and are willing to pay the full retail price.
I see your point but I feel that way about single player only games. I cant justify £40'on a 10 hour campaign. But £40 on a multiplayer I could be potentially playing for months, racking up 100s of hours then £40 is well worth it.
So because its MP only, it shouldn't be $60? Plants vs Zombies is a basic FPS, with a couple maps, I think like 3 game modes, and graphically it's more like a cartoon. That game is $40 which is about right. So you don't think that Titanfall is deserving of a $60 price tag? More maps, more in depth game play and customization, more game game modes, graphically more demanding, etc etc. Since when did everyone become so in love with single player? All I read about MGS was everyone complaining about how the campaign is so short, like 4 hours. To me that doesn't even justify a $30 price tag. People complain how BF and COD have terrible single player. Seems like the people complaining the most are PS users who's majority of exclusives are single player dominated. MP only is a GREAT move. Enough of this BS single player that lasts a couple hours then your done with it and end up playing MP for the next 6-12 months.
You don't seem to know much about PvZ GW. It's 3rd person and kind of similar, but not as extensive, as TF2. Being more like a cartoon is also irrelevant for the pricetag. It's just not an "AAA" game. Release timing is questionable though, considering they didn't spent much money for ads it goes down unnoticed. That fanboy quirk about PS Users was uncalled for btw...
You are correct, PvZ is a third person shooter, typo on my part. And being more cartoon like is relevant to the price tag. Why do you think Lego games are less expensive? Single player only, not graphically demanding, few features yet I believe it retails for $50-$60 when it's released. Is that ok in your eyes? And how was that a fanboy remark? Do you know what the term fanboy is? Please explain how the top tier PS exclusives are NOT single player driven. Infamous, Last of Us, Uncharted, etc
The thing is, it doesn't depend on the graphics style if a game has enough value to be worth 60$, it totally depends on the game if it's worth it. Take a look at Borderlands, which is also a cartoon like game and even largely depends on coop, which means that you won't find many players after a short amount of time has passed. Imo it was totally worth the 60$ I spent for it, since it was fun from start to finish and the game kept me playing for a decent amount of time. And to your last question, just reread the 2nd paragraph of your comment. It's like the epitome of silliness. Not only are you baselessly accusing PS Users of having the most whiners, you're also linking THAT to the fact that PS exclusives pride themselves with their often strong singleplayer portions. And THAT just doesn't make any sense. So in hope of you being even remotely reasonable I called it fanboy quirk.
There's a reason why EA is the worst company in America.
If people think EA is the worse company in America that is frightening.
I don't necessarily think they are, but they were voted that way 2 years in a row.
Yup. Agribusiness, big oil and pharma have EA beat in every conceivable way.
Probably all the companies that EA bought and destroyed over the years. Here's the EA Graveyard Original HQ Origin Systems Bullfrog Productions EA Baltimore EA Seattle Maxis Westwood Studios EA Pacific Kesmai DICE Canada EA Japan EA UK EA Chicago Pandemic Studios Bright Light EA Mobile EA Phenomic Playfish EA Los Angeles EA North Carolina Victory Games http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
12 Humans. 60$ a year online. 15 maps.60$ game. I mean to each their own,but raises some questions about the future of game pricing especially with a season pass added to that already. Will truly come down to how many hours and how long Titanfall last
Quit with the Player Count already! Jeez what is with you people? Xbots didn't go bashing The Last of Us for only being 4v4 did they? NO! The game is well balanced with 6v6 I think, Go play it and you will understand.
I played the game and play on PC. My issue is with the stupidity of the AI. I have no problem with player count and nor do "xbots" refer to Gears of War 1 which in my opinion was the most balanced and fun. The game is well balanced yes,but playing with 11 peers for the cost of xbox live then the full price of the game is what I am bringing up. I am not demanding a higher player count,but am talking about overall value to the player. Don't take offense to a critical analysis of a videogame
6v6 BUT always with the potential to be 12v12 if everyone has their titan. Its perfect
So because a games main feature goes through a paid service alien to the devs... they should work for less? Yeah ummmm, no.
I wish I got a deal on the digital verson... Has anybody ever asked any console maker why digital games are not cheaper? I would like to hear the answer.. Edit: how is pc steam able to discount games for cheap?
Apparently its so they don't compete with retail stores :-/ yeah I know.
Its pretty simple.. the console makers need to keep retail happy. Retail makes most of their money not on selling the console but on selling the software(disc games). If the console maker is under cutting retail for the digital version retail gets angry since that potentially pulls sales away from them. If they get angry they may not push the hardware as much and opt to not sell the hardware. Console makers need the hardware to be sold at retail (this includes online retailers like Amazon). This also is why Steam has such an advantage on pricing. Valve does not make the PC's you play PC games on. Therefore they don't worry about pissing off Retail stores that are selling PC's by offering up big discounts on their digital Steam Storefront. PC makers like a Dell, HP, Toshiba or Alienware are the ones who worry about retail store sales.
Yea I think its bs how digital games cost the same as disc... even if ita just 5 bucks I qould be happy but no they are afraid of competeing against the stores as if gamestop amd othera are afraid of buying a used games for 10 $ and selling it for 55 $..
Every call of duty i have bought...and i mean every single one since MW1 i have not gotten more then 2 hours of gameplay from the campaign and never finished it. Multiplayer i prob have about 40+ hours on each. 60 dollars for 40+ hours of entertainment? You get about 1.5 hours of entertainment at the movies for 20 bucks....article is a fail