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?
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.
Agree, this was a shockingly good article. Much better than what you would expect from N4G.
Much better than the usual "the top 5 this" or "vita is doomed" articles
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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?
Yep I agree, for years now instead of having bugs and freezes in 1 game its starting to be all of them><
@kaveti6616 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.
Retail games are priced between $30 and $40.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This isn't just good in comparison to otherwise lazy gaming journalism. Two thumbs up!
your paying full price for half a game because publishers would like to make $100 + for each game sold.
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.
less than 20% of people finished the black ops campaign, activision already knows where to focus their attention. http://www.gamezone.com/pro... games like call of duty would stay full price for the multiplayer, and the single player would probably stay pretty expensive as well.
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.
"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.
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+
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.
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
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.
@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. @mrbeatdown 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.
@MrBeatdown *** 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.
@gamingdroid 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. @vickers 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.
@MrBeatdown ***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....
@gamingdroid 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.
It is a good article. I too haven't taken to online gaming, mainly cause I think its better to be in the same room, games like fight night or street fighter. But these DLC articles are becoming the new Tebow and Lin of game sites.
Very interesting. I have an issue with the DLC for Mass Effect 3. I was going to be buying their game brand new. They are getting money from me yet they still demand more on day one. In my opinion this is content that is stripped from the game just to get even more money. I will not be buying the game due to this poor business morals. They are treating their customer by selling them only part of the product. It upsets me. Also, talked about in the article is the fact that multiplayer takes away from single player.I think this is definitely true. I played Uncharted 2 and 3's onlines quite a little bit. I feel that the games could have been so much better had they not decided to add online. I love RPG's because they spend all of their development time on the single player due to the lack of multiplayer. I am primarily a single player gamer and so multiplayer is not a consideration in my purchases. If I read a review and the reviewer says that the game has an okay campaign but an amazing multiplayer. I will not buy it. I do feel that multiplayer is taking a lot away from games though since the developers can make less of a campaign and add a multiplayer and sell it as a full game. I just bought the Jak and Daxter Collection yesterday. My 2nd favorite series next to Zelda. And guess what? They didn't have multiplayer. I prefer games without multiplayer.
Because you'd pay half price for a full game.
i'm not buy street fighter vs tekken for $60, i'll only consider a full version including all 12 dlc characters (which will go for $5 a pop) for 40 down the road.
I feel the same way about SCV. I just have an itchy feeling that Namco scrapped half the cast just so they could add them again as DLC. That may not be the case, considering is not Capcom, but SCV has much less content than its predecessor.
Thanks for the complements everyone, whether you agree or not I appreciate your time.
I understand your ideas, but you lost me on mass effect. The one thing that bioware has done is provide A LOT of content right on the disk. Your other examples are good.
He's talking about the paid DLC on day 1. DLC is supposed to be something that comes up months down the road when the community is either asking for more content, or the developers wish to release stuff that they WEREN'T able to release previously. The way DLC works now is, that idiot consumers think it's some sort of thing that should be worked on by developers before the game is released. By previous standards, DLC is a complete rip off, and everyone is getting ripped a new butthole for buying it (this doesn't apply to a FEW devs however)
@ZombieNinjaPanda Your concept of DLC is completely wrong. A lot of DLC is planned and developed before the release date and that fact has nothing to do with ripping people off. In most cases, the content isn't something that could have shipped with the game. At the end of a project cycle, the majority of work done is by programmers. They're solving bugs so the game can be certified by MS and Sony. That means there's a big chunk of people doing very little, maybe solving the occasional bug, but essentially sitting on their hands to avoid creating more bugs. So guess what they work on in the meantime? DLC. DLC is a much smaller chunk of content than the full game, so it takes less time to produce, test and certify. It relies on mechanics that already exist in the retail game, so designers already have a good idea of how to develop the content around those mechanics, fewer bugs will be produced because its based on code that already works. Features that get added during this phase are intentionally few to avoid producing bugs. Some of the content could have been ideas that came up during the production of the retail game, but were cut due to time constraints. DLC isn't some evil money grubbing scheme that people make it out to be.
Also, the DLC is started before launch due to time cycles. Yeah, you support your game after launch, but almost immediately after a game launches, the next installment begins. I think DLC is great. If it's a series I want to continue the saga, I will get it. Usually, DLC is never campaign mode changing or anything like that, it's just side quests or missions. MY main point was that Mass Effect delivers a full game, with plenty of exploration and side-quests. Therefore, I am content purchasing more DLC to have more Mass Effect. If the single player was lacking or short, then I could agree it's a money making scheme, but that's not the case. DLC is optional and does not need to be purchased to complete the single player campaign. It's OPTIONAL content for gamers to enjoy. It blows my mind some people think all DLC should be free. These people are working on more content, you expect them to work for free?
I have been saying that for years. I disagree on games like UC2 and 3 because I found the campaign very good and the MP was good too but certain games practically toss you a crappy MP and claim that it is 'practice' for MP or even worse pretend that the SP is something special and hand you an overblown, short as hell SP with some idiotic story. If you are so hellbent on MP then do MP only.Stop making crappy SP just to justify selling the game for the full price. Left 4 Dead is a perfect example. Why even bother to put in a SP if you don't even put any effort into it? This goes especially for FPSs. If you don't want to put any effort into SP like Resistance did then why should I play it at all?
I also hate the fact that games nowadays are ripping us all off....and please dont even say that stupid comment that it costs developers more to make games bla bla bla = crap!!! I for one HATE paying for DLC, but because of idiots in this world that pay for it on a regular basis are the ones to blame here!!!!
It's a fair question, but I think the author needs to step out of his shoes as a sp-focused end-user for a minute and place himself in the mindset of a developer, or even better yet a publisher. Publishers, I think (what do I know, right? All I can do is speculate!) are feeling pressure from consumers who want replay value from their games. Most people find it hard to justify paying 60$ for a game that they'll be done with after a couple playthroughs and never touch again. So they hesitate to buy, or they hesitate to buy it new. But these same consumers are under the impression that multiplayer will instantly give the same game increased replayability. So what is a publisher to do? Give them multiplayer. So the publisher puts pressure on the developers. But from a developer's point of view, developing sp and mp isn't equal parts. The majority of what makes up one can be recycled to make up the other. So, seen this way, sp and mp aren't each half of a whole. They're probably more like 80% one, so an additional 25% work to get the secondary game mode done. The final product? From an end-user's point of view: half parts sp and mp. But from a publisher's point of view you have a game that will appeal to more people, and from a developer's point of view you have double the game that only took 25% more work. So selling half the game for half the cost wouldn't make sense. For the publisher, half a game wouldn't appeal to as many people (and at half cost, that's a lot less money per customer too), and for the developer half the game isn't half the work, it's 80%. Note: my numbers are made up. It could actually be 80%, it could actually be more. I was just making a point. Would you want half the game at 80% of the price? What if it was actually 90% of the price? For 10% more, I'd probably say yes to a tacked-on secondary mode. And that's not factoring a premium the publisher would want to charge for potentially losing sales on already developed parts of a game because they sold them separately... Edit: forgive me I don't have all my mental faculties at the moment, and just realized the article never says "half game for half price". But my point is: how much reduction would be enough for you, as an end user, to be content with getting half the game for vs how much reduction the publisher can actually afford to give. (Also, sorry for the wall of text.)
I spent more time playing Batman: Arkham Asylum than I did COD:BO. If companies get a single player game right, and provide many things for re playability, then it can pay off. Mastering the challenge rooms and getting all the medals in B:AA took a long time, and was well worth my £40. I can't say the same for COD:BO.
I know, I appreciate a great sp game too. But I said "most people". From a publisher's perspective, they want to appeal to as broad a market as possible. Few gamers are still capable of justifying buying a sp-only game, let alone understand that you can play them for hundreds of hours. So if tacking on a mp for 25% more developer work will get a publisher a greater than corresponding increase in sales, then they'll do that. And once they've done that, selling them separately would jeopardize the reason they developed both modes in the first place.
"I grow increasingly dismayed at the fact that I’m still paying the full price" "I propose that gamers make more of a ruckus" Yes. Don't buy their crappy product then.
Don't buy it for $60 then, wait untill the price goes down.
C'mon man, some games you just have to have right away!
As long as morons keep lapping up this shit, companies will keep doing it. Pretty simple....
EXACTLY. I accept the fact that most people are too lazy to research things, resulting to tv, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Well, companies and media will just go with that....pretty much calling you a moron, by toying with your Intel level. There's no need for XBL...f-ing period. Game Devs/Comp just following suit. Consumers are the real fault for the death of gaming and game innovation.
I've no interest in multiplayer either so I just don't buy games that are multiplayer focused. I was there for the rise of multiplayer this gen but it hasn't bothered me, there are still many great single player games being released that occupy my time. I also haven't felt that multiplayer being added to previously single player games has damaged them. Uncharted is still great, Assassin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid 4, Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto 4, were all still fantastic single player games dispite having a multiplayer component, I'm sure Mass Effect 3 will be too.
I personally love how Capcom puts the DL content on the retail disk and makes us pay to unlock parts of the game you already paid for.($4.99 chung lee yellow shirt) Street fighter and RE says hello.
I assusme Xbox live users don't understand the point of this question. Not trolling, just addressing the propaganda about pricing...mainly PS3 v 360 stuff. As a PS3 gamer, I can play all of my modern warfare games. XBL users pay $60 for the campaign, and XBL fees to play the rest.....so I shouldn't see and Xbox gamers crying foul on this subject. For some dumb reason, people really think PSN is slow, when the only difference is XBL looks pretty. I buy good games, not frames. (yea, most American cars LOOK better than the average Honda Accord.) All people got to do is not buy this stuff, and game companies will have no choice be to become reasonable with price/product output. 3ds was high...so prices came down, now they sell like hot cakes. UNDERSTAND ME DRONES?
I don't get what's negative about the Killzone 3 mp only release... It's free to play up to a certain rank and costs $15 if you wanna buy. It's a good deal for gamers and helps to boost the community of a dying game
We are paying for the technology & marketing. Plus technology is getting very expensive for software companies to make. I usually wait for the price to drop after 4 months to 49$ or 39$ unless it's a game I REALLY WANT TO BUY.
Now this is an article that all of us should discuss cause its becoming more n more off a ripoff to us gamers cause time are hard period
Because you go to retailers and pay them when the game is at full price instead of waiting for the price to drop over time or wait for a used copy. Consumers are to blame because they keep shelling out the cash.
I laughed at the title of this article, writing it off as more "made for hits" BS. I stand corrected, as there is some solid thought in this article. I would LOOOOOVE if they seperated the SP/MP modes of a game and allowed us to buy one or both ends (total being 60.00, as you would see in a full game). The MP in so many games feels cheap, generic, and rushed, so I would rather not bother with it (and usually don't). I would buy more games if I could save buy not buying the lame MP crap one too many titles put in.
The writer of that article is in the minority. Most people want the option to buy the multiplayer only. But it's not going to happen. There will be the occasional game that does it but don't expect it to become industry standard. People work really hard on both the single player and multiplayer part of these games. They want people to play them both. Stop whining or get a new hobby. It's like cable television. You can't just pick your favorite channels and pay a lower price.
Well its a money thing I would imagine, IF we had the option of paying less for a game without its multiplayer, I think that a lot more people would actually opt for it (assuming it would be considerably less, not just ya know a few £/$). I imagine that the only reason COD4 took off as much as it did online was because the M/P was added free on the disc and when people tried it they just got hooked on it and myah.
I don't anymore, I rent games now, I only seem to buy open world games these days
i just realized how much it would be for each part lmao companies are so greedy it be 59.99 for the sp and 59.99 for mp i could see it