Why Am I Paying Full Price For Half A Game?

Velocity Gamer: As we launch our new sister site it brings to mind questions that Single Player game lovers should be asking themselves; mainly Why Am I Paying Full Price For Half A Game?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
360ICE2035d ago (Edited 2035d ago )

Actually a good article, which is anything but common in this industry. I thought the article was going to be a bit silly after reading the title, but no, this was rather good. I mean it's got a good point, the author's well informed, it's very relevant, it's an intelligent topic.
More of this please.

smoothdude2035d ago

Agree, this was a shockingly good article. Much better than what you would expect from N4G.

Brownghost2034d ago (Edited 2034d ago )

Much better than the usual "the top 5 this" or "vita is doomed" articles

admiralvic2035d ago

I disagree. EA implemented just this with Fight Night. You could buy the story (That was champion mode right?) for 4.99. Other modes were also for sale for other prices. This is what I believe the author is looking for, though makes no reference to.

360ICE2035d ago

I think you're missing the point. The author shouldn't have to point out every example of games that have content being split up and sold separetely. He points at KZ3 among others, refering to an existing trend, which Fight Night would also be a part of.

ATi_Elite2035d ago

Why am i paying full price for a CRAPPY game!

Not every game is Uncharted, Halo, or Starcraft as there are many Haze, Crackdown2, and Fable PC out there that just have poor quality yet a $60 price tag.

Most SP games you buy for the SP and most MP you buy for the MP. Now there are a FEW gems out there that do MP and SP very well.

I would of still paid $XXX whatever for BF3 PC if it had NO SP cause BF is all about the MP and i don't expect HL3 to have a MP when i shell out $60 for it.

I only want AAA and AAA+ quality from Devs whether it's SP CO-OP MP or MMO!

kaveti66162035d ago

The publisher isn't going to deliberately undervalue its game.

I wouldn't pay 30 bucks for a mediocre game, or 10 for a bad game. I'd rather pay 50 bucks for a great game than say, "Oh, this game's kind of crap, but they've priced it competitively so I'll pretend to have a good time while I suffer through this."

The publisher doesn't want the audience to second guess why they're selling the game at a discount price from the get-go.

As to your post about Haze and Crackdown 2, those games get price drops fairly quickly. The publisher tracks sales data through the retailer and determines if a price drop is necessary.

joab7772035d ago (Edited 2035d ago )

Maybe I'm wierd but at this point, i have no problem paying full price for a new game i want. First, it's always a game i want, so i am happy.I want to support the publishers for making it. Also, how often do u pay $60, unless ur the guy that preorders everything and then sticks it on the shelf til u got time. U can generally buy a new game, even upon release, for $10-$20 off from amazon, new egg etc. And u still get the online pass. Wait a month or two and u will know if a game is worth the $ because it will b $30 if it isn't. If u r a blogger, i know u know all this, so what's the problem. If u just want cod single player, rent it. It's 8 hours on hard. And those who love multi may end up spending $100 w dlc... for like 500 hr's of gameplay.

Games are getting more and more expensive to make and we want the best engine, the best everything, but we want to pay $40. It can't b both. I know u r smart so use the system to ur advantage and u will save money. For those games with great pre order bonuses, pay full price. For others, look for a deal or wait. U will get one.

bozebo2035d ago

"The publisher isn't going to deliberately undervalue its game. "

"I want to support the publishers for making it."

People really have no idea what publishers do (or... don't do) do they?

Drabent2035d ago

Yep I agree, for years now instead of having bugs and freezes in 1 game its starting to be all of them><

BlackKnight2034d ago


There are price restrictions on PS3/360 (not sure for nintendo but I would think so as well) that Sony/MS impose on retail/"full" games. Sony/MS have PSN/XBLA as an alternative for a smaller game/lower price point but there really is no middle ground. MS/Sony want games to be sold at 60 and up since the get % from that sale. They don't want to start a trend where a developer can sell his game for $50 or $45. Only exception I have seen for this is remakes.

MaxXAttaxX2034d ago

Retail games are priced between $30 and $40.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2034d ago
fr0sty2035d ago

I know one company that has been preventing users from accessing the multiplayer side of their games unless their users pay a fee for a long time now. To many, that is definitely having to pay extra to play half of the game. So, if that is acceptable, I don't see why this is not.

Gamer19822035d ago

I disagree on the points though. But it makes you think like Bioshock and Final fantasy 13-2 is worth the money as you get plenty of hours for your money. Even if they are only single player. Some games however only last a few hours and then rely solely on multiplayer for longevity. They are what i consider half a game.

Anon19742035d ago

Something that still makes me shake my head even though it's been going on for so long is, Why are games paying extra to play the full game as developers intended? I can't believe that something as standard as online play is locked out on the Xbox unless you pay their ridiculous subscription fees. You buy a game from a developer and then you're stuck paying MS extra fees to actually play 100% of the game you just paid for. And they're the only ones doing it.

I'll never understand how this became acceptable, even having spent money on XBL fees myself once upon a time. I have nothing against charging for a extra features, content or service - but the basic ability to play the games that you paid for, 100% as the developers intended should not be something that you're charged extra for.

2034d ago
MsclMexican2034d ago

It really depends on what you the player validate as 60 dollars. Sure, all this first day of DLC is very frustrating, but when you look at what you payed 60 bucks for, you yourself must justify if it was worth it.

In 2 weeks, I will be picking up my ME3 CE, which I spent a good 80 bucks (well 90 here in canada because of taxes)

But I view it as a valid purchase as the game itself seems worth 60, and the extra content (mostly the artbook, lithograph and soundtrack) make up the rest.

Batman AC was also worth the 100 bucks (I LOVE MY COLLECTORS EDITIONS) As the game was well worth the 60 without catwoman (they were not even that good) and the statue, artbook and soundtrack make up the other 40.

Where as a game like Star Wars the force unleashed 2 was not worth the 60 bucks. Even though they released post dlc for a dollar, it still was not enough

The problem is DLC is getting a bad rep, the stuff EA and Activision are doing is ruining a great concept.

What should be cool expansions is now viewed as content that was taken from the game and is now being sold as a quick extra buck.

We were supposed to love DLC, but now it has become something evil, and something I do not want to support.

I have not bought DLC in a long time, only validate what I get through CE's or pre orders, but that is it.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2034d ago
smoothdude2035d ago

It is nice to hear that people are still interesting in Single Player games. Uncharted is a series that I could care less about the multiplayer, however, KZ3 is all about the multiplayer.

Gamer19822035d ago

Thats the thing. I think COD, killzone etc should just release there multiplayer onto psn/xbl for a cut price without the single player and it would cut development time/costs and would be better for consumer but come on it wont happen as we all know they only include single player so they can charge full price for a multiplayer only game. Theres people interested in the single player aspect dont get me wrong but I own a few FPS games and a lot of my friends do and not one of us have played single player on them. Soon as we get them we instantly jump into multiplayer as do 95% of COD players. In fact most them 5% only play it for trophys/achievements.

monkey nuts2034d ago

Er sony's doing exactly that for next weeks store update; free killzone 3 multiplayer trial with an offer of buying just the multiplayer so as to unlock the level cap.

Tommykrem2035d ago

This isn't just good in comparison to otherwise lazy gaming journalism. Two thumbs up!

tweet752035d ago

your paying full price for half a game because publishers would like to make $100 + for each game sold.

MrBeatdown2035d ago

Splitting games up is a double edged sword.

Imagine if they split up Call of Duty into single player and multiplayer. Which mode will sell the best? Then which mode gets Activision's attention? Which mode is now seen as even less important than it already was? Which mode then becomes the overwhelming focus, and creeps up in price while the less popular mode suffers?

I'll take my single player and multiplayer together if it means both remain an important part of the package. I'd rather not see them broken up, only to have the less popular mode fizzle out because it's not as popular and worthwhile for developers to invest in.

coryok2035d ago

less than 20% of people finished the black ops campaign, activision already knows where to focus their attention.

games like call of duty would stay full price for the multiplayer, and the single player would probably stay pretty expensive as well.

MsclMexican2034d ago

Black ops actually had a good campaign... I actually enjoy the treyarch stories. Which is why I never buy IW games, because I hate COD mp.

Zombies is probably the only MP I enjoy in COD. I like working together to complete an objective, where as COD mp is the split opposite, as everyone lone wolfs for killstreaks.

Seriously, I realized how stupid MW2 was when I am running flags by myself and before I can get to my base with the last flag, the enemy calls in a tactical nuke because someone was camping in a corner -_-

Which is why I am thankful I rented MW2.

vickers5002035d ago

"Which mode then becomes the overwhelming focus, and creeps up in price while the less popular mode suffers?"

When it comes to call of duty, they should just take out the single player all together. Honestly it's always terrible and no one gives a flying Fck about it. I'd rather not have them waste their time on single player at all, and just put all the resources that would have gone into sp, go into improving mp connectivity issues.

Call of Duty single player has become irrelevant. Even the best cod (4) had mediocre sp, so even if they did put their focus on single player, it would still be pretty terrible or mediocre, because lets face it, they don't have what it takes to craft a good single player experience. In fact it's getting to the point where they don't even have what it takes to craft a PASSABLE multiplayer experience, which is their main focus.

DlCK_DANGEROUSLY2035d ago (Edited 2035d ago )

Well. As a matter of fact I enjoyed the blops campaign.

So your "I speak for everybody" theory is quite flawed. Sorry brother.

Long Live Love+

vickers5002035d ago

Obviously I don't LITERALLY mean everybody. But MOST people play the game for the multiplayer.

Call of Duty needs its single player mode just as much as Dead Space 2 needs its multiplayer mode.

Sure, there are those rare few who play cod for the sp mode or ds2 for the mp mode, but the majority of the people don't play them for those modes.

And if you honestly enjoyed black ops campaign, then you need to play more games then, as there are FAAAAAARRRRRRR better and WAY more single player games to play.

I don't speak for everybody, but I do know I speak for at least 80% of the people that play CoD. The other 20% of people that actually do play cod for the sp, are the people that don't really know what a good single player campaign is.

DlCK_DANGEROUSLY2035d ago (Edited 2035d ago )

Riiiight... but you DO obviously mean that simply playing a game that I bought and enjoying it means that I don't know what a good single player game is.

I'm sorry that I'm not a tool and am not afraid to just let myself enjoy something as trivial as a toy.

Your judgmental attitude is flawed. Your argument is invalid.

*Long live... oh screw it

MrBeatdown2035d ago (Edited 2035d ago )

I like the Call of Duty campaigns too. Don't tell me I don't know what a good campaign is just because I enjoy CoD's campaign, and buy the game in part because of it. I like McDonalds cheeseburgers too, even though they are far from the best thing I could eat.

But the whole quality issue has been done to death, and it's all just opinion. No need to rehash it here because I was just using Call of Duty as an example. I could have named plenty of other games. There's tons of games out there where one mode is more popular than the other.

Less successful games die off, despite quality. I've played plenty great games (like Singularity) which won't get sequels because they didn't sell well enough, or weren't as popular as something else. I don't want the same thing to start happening to individual modes.

Mirror's Edge is a good example. There's no sequel yet (if ever), because the Battlefield series is more worthwhile for DICE to spend their time on. I don't want BF's single player campaign to go down the same road because they decided to split SP and MP. Sure, BF3's campaign wasn't so hot, but they're not even going to try to make a better campaign if it's not worthwhile, and you lose the chance of ending up with a quality campaign like Bad Company 2's.

vickers5002035d ago (Edited 2035d ago )

@dick dangerously

Perhaps I went a bit overboard in assuming people who think CoDs campaigns are good don't know what good games are (even if it is usually the case). For that I aplogize.

I was trying to tip toe around my real point. The point is, your opinion does not matter. You are in the vast minority. Sorry brother. I don't apply this logic to everything, but I do with call of duty. With not very popular games such as twisted metal or warhawk, there are at least a fair or decent amount of people who like those games, despite the fact that very few people will actually buy or play those games (very good games btw), but at least those games have their place and have a fair amount of people that want more of those games.

But Call of Duty single player? Well as I said before, it's about as relevant as Dead Space 2's multiplayer mode. It's a joke of a single player mode, that can pretty much be found in any other single player fps, and far better too.

You know whenever you read someone in the comments section say "this game NEEDS multiplayer" even though the franchise has always been a single player game and mp wouldn't make any sense? You (or at least most gamers who have at least some experience and knowledge of gaming) read that comment and think, "umm, no. please stfu"? That's how I see comments about people who actually want more sp from cod.

CoD is not a single player experience. Even if it once was with the old ones, it has moved on, and is now primarily a multiplayer game. It has its role in gaming now (this generation anyways) as the multiplayer fps. Just as games like elder scrolls have their place as single player rpgs.


I'm talking about a single franchise here, not anything else. I want to see Mirror's Edge come back too. I'm just talking within the context of Call of Duty, which SHOULD go multiplayer only, because that's what the majority of people want. And it's not even like it's close either, most people really don't care that much about the campaign in call of duty.

"Sure, BF3's campaign wasn't so hot, but they're not even going to try to make a better campaign if it's not worthwhile, and you lose the chance of ending up with a quality campaign like Bad Company 2's"

I have to heavily disagree with you on Bad Company 2's campaign being called "quality", but moving on. Franchises that have tried something several times and failed in one aspect (single player) should not keep trying the same thing. They should just stop trying at what they are terrible at and just focus on what they are great at. Why make a mode that only a small percentage of the gamers who play your game actually want?

Most people don't want single player from CoD, so it would just be a lot better if they started focusing on what people DO want and try to improve upon that.

As for cod campaigns, you may have liked them like you like a mcdonalds cheeseburger, but do you really need them? Would you honestly miss them THAT MUCH if they were gone? I enjoy some crappy games and crappy food (like mcdonalds) as well, but I can honestly say I wouldn't miss them that much if they were gone in order to make a better product for the masses.

gamingdroid2035d ago


*** Sure, BF3's campaign wasn't so hot, but they're not even going to try to make a better campaign if it's not worthwhile, and you lose the chance of ending up with a quality campaign like Bad Company 2's.***

You are joking right? There is nothing quality about BC2's campaign. It was outright horrid, and Dice managed to make it even worse with BF3.

***There's no sequel yet (if ever), because the Battlefield series is more worthwhile for DICE to spend their time on.***

Perhaps, but I think the poor sales of Mirror's Edge is more likely the reason than BF is more worthwhile. If something is profitable, it is possible to expand the studio to accomodate the game.

MrBeatdown2035d ago (Edited 2035d ago )


Sorry you didn't like it. I did. Skimming through Metacritic review quotes, it seems I'm not alone in that. I don't know why you would call it "horrid". Duke Nukem was horrid by my standard. BC2 doesn't even come close. But I'm not going to argue opinion with you.

As for Mirror's Edge, EA said it sold 2 million. That's far from "poor". But it got put aside for something more popular. Even if DICE did expand, it would probably be to churn out even more Battlefield, instead of EA falling back on Medal of Honor every other year.


I know you are just talking about a single game, but you're responding to me and I'm just using CoD as one example. I didn't want to turn this into yet another CoD quality argument.

But since we are on it, you say most people think Call of Duty should be multiplayer only. That may be, but Call of Duty has better sales than any other game. But does mean anything that isn't a multiplayer military shooter should be scrapped in favor of one? My point is, you can't always listen to the biggest group.

Plus, if 20% of Black Ops players played the campaign, that's still around 4 million players. Even if it is the least popular portion of the game, it's still more popular than most other games.

And that's kind of the point I was making with Mirror's Edge. I'm sure DICE would love to make Mirror's Edge 2, and there is a fanbase to make it financially viable. But DICE can't because EA wants more and more Battlefield. Just like they put Criterion on NFS instead of Burnout, basically because NFS is more popular, even though it's not better.

As long as the product isn't split up, it gives the developers more opportunity to deliver something that isn't guaranteed to be popular, which is something developers don't have as much freedom to do with stand-alone products. A popular portion of a game can be a trojan horse of sorts for something new. Maybe CoD's campaign probably wasn't the best example. Spec Ops (my favorite part of the series) or Zombies is a better one.

Splitting games up is just going to give publishers even more reason to focus on one thing over the other. We've seen it with shooters. Everyone wants to make a shooter instead of something else, because shooters are popular. I don't want that same way of thinking extended to individual modes of a game. I want devs to have a little more freedom to put what they want in the game, without being compelled to focus exclusively on what portion of the game is the biggest money maker. It's bad enough military shooters get as much focus as they do. The last thing I want is to go from that, to multiplayer military shooters. Being able to bundle modes is one of the last methods developers have to try something innovative. Would I miss CoD single player if it was dropped in favor of more MP? Probably not, because there are alternatives right now. But if it starts becoming a trend, and my gaming selection is whittled down more and more based on what modes are the biggest moneymakers, I would start missing something eventually. I'm sure you would too.

Maybe the current system sucks for the person not interested in a particular mode, but that person can always just wait until the price of the whole package is cheaper.

gamingdroid2035d ago


***Skimming through Metacritic review quotes, it seems I'm not alone in that.***

... and neither am I! :D

***But I'm not going to argue opinion with you.***

I can agree with it being an opinion, and you can't argue subjective opinions.

I just haven't met anyone that thought BC2 campaign was good, but if you like it, more power to you.

***As for Mirror's Edge, EA said it sold 2 million. That's far from "poor".***

Two million isn't poor, but the manner in which it reached 2 million was. The game was heavily discounted shortly after release, and when your game sells for $20 and others sell for $40-60, suddenly that sales figure isn't as strong as it appears.

I don't think Mirror's Edge is a strong franchise or have a high demand. Then again a lot less desireable IPs have gotten sequels....

MrBeatdown2034d ago (Edited 2034d ago )


For a new, and rather unique IP, I don't think it matters so much how it got to two million. ME started from scratch. A sequel could potentially do better, seeing as how the franchise is better established and two million people now know exactly what the game has to offer. I bought Mirror's Edge at around $20, but having played it, I'd be more than willing to pay more for a sequel. If I recall correctly, Dead Space did about as well as ME, but Dead Space 2 did significantly better in terms of sales.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2034d ago
Show all comments (70)
The story is too old to be commented.