Why Paying Full Price for Online Only Games Is Okay

ThisGenGaming says "There has been a growing trend in video games of late and that is the emergence of online only games. Titanfall, League of Legends, Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare and many others are prime examples of this trend. While video game companies should not skip single player campaigns altogether, ThisGenGaming believes if they add enough content it is still worthy of the 60 dollar price tag for a Triple A game and this is why.

[gangsta_red]

It's the same as paying full price for single player only games.

[SpaceRanger]

It's actually nothing at all like paying full price for single player only games. If the internet goes out, you can still play them. That's how I still play games from the PS1/N64 days when I feel nostalgic.
While with online only, you get to sit there and wait till it works again if it goes out or the servers are down. Obviously you can get a lot out of online only games, but most (not all) really should not have that $60 price tag.

[Pandamobile]

"but most (not all) really should not have that $60 price tag."

You could argue that for pretty much any $60 game. Value is perceived. 90% of the time when I buy a $60 single player game I don't even feel like I get my money's worth.

Subsequently I don't buy very many $60 games anymore.

[gangsta_red]

Internet has gone out twice on me since this year has started and it only lasted 20 minutes or less. And honestly I'm just throwing that number out there because it's very rare my internet goes out.

Just as much resources, time and effort goes into development and production of multiplayer games, maybe even more since there are more factors to consider.

If a multiplayer game can be sold for less then I have to wonder why a single player game couldn't either.

[Kleptic]

^I agree with both of you.

gansta: yeah, clearly a multiplayer game has a far higher degree of 'service after the sale' in place on it...or at least it should...maintaining and updating a multiplayer game is a considerable undertaking...while a big single player game will get some last minute bug fixes, and eventually get premium DLC...a multiplayer only game won't survive without that...

but overall...i think the currently archaic model of selling a multiplayer 'service' (as in a multiplayer only game) as a stand alone product...is on its last legs...its the 'all you can eat buffet' of entertainment...and you can quickly see how little incentive there is in regards to the consumer...

the only thing a publisher cares about with something multiplayer focused is that A) you bought the full product and as much DLC as available and B) you enjoyed the game enough to warrant purchasing the next one in a year or 2...

A person that buys BF4 and plays 20 hours online...and loved it, but moved on to something else...is exactly what they're looking for...the guy that spends 1000's of hours playing...no good...they're not profiting from that as people like him are why everything has to be maintained...the first guy got half a plate of food from the buffet, the second guy got 10...and both spent the same amount of money to sit down...

I'll be very surprised if multiplayer focused titles don't morph into a subscription based service by the end of this generation...but, i also don't think that'll be nearly as bad as it sounds...a lot of these games are already MMO's in terms of active player counts, its just you get divided into far smaller lobbies...

[BattleAxe]

These days a game needs to be extremely high on my anticipation list for me to shell out $60.00...or actually $70.00 here in Canada.

I just don't see the value in most games today especially in the game genres that I prefer. Titanfall Digital Deluxe Edition is probably the best online only game I've ever bought, and all it cost me was $20.00, but I did buy it a year after release.

I really don't mind waiting a year or two for a game to go down in price. I'm a GTA fan, and still haven't bought GTA5 yet. The fact that I played and beat GTA Vice City again just this last summer, is a testament to how timeless some games are, which is why I don't care if I play the game right when it comes out anymore.

[marlinfan10]

So because your Internet might go out the game shouldn't be worth $60? I don't really agree with that at all. Maybe they aren't personally for you, but someone's Internet connection shouldn't decide the value of a game. Servers are very stable this day in age too, outside of maybe launch night.

I judge a games value based off what I'll get out of it. A SP only game with multiple side quest, story lines, etc I have no problem paying full price for while a game like the order for instance with one path and not much else to do besides a 8 or so hr campaign isn't worth the full price imo.

If a MP only game keeps bringing me back for hundreds of hrs (which plenty have) then I think that's easily worth the $60 price tag since most SP games have never offered me that kind of play time.

It really comes down to a game to game basis which is why I never understand why people use blanket statements to decide whether they're worth it or not.

[DragonKnight]

@Gangsta_red: It's not even remotely the same. Single player games have to make up for the limited lifespan of their campaigns. They do this either with compelling stories and characters, minigames, replayability, etc... They have to be more than just gameplay.

Multiplayer games are games that publishers have made to be lazy. A multiplayer game doesn't have to be anything but gameplay and graphics. Multiplayer games, for that reason and only in my opinion, aren't worth full price. They are half a game. They took an aspect of single player co-op and just added more people to a game that doesn't need to have a story (which means it won't have compelling writing), doesn't need to have great characters, and really doesn't have anything worth remembering.

A multiplayer only game won't typically have a scene that defines your experience because that's not why you're playing it. You're just playing it to pit your skills against other people. Joy. The experience becomes you recalling instances of other experiences. "Oh man, this one guy rage quit so hard after I sniped his a$$ from so far away" as opposed to "I'll never forget that moment when *insert character here* sacrificed themselves for *insert cause here* and how that scene was so bitter sweet."

I personally have no interest in multiplayer only games. They are shallow experiences in my opinion.

**EDIT** @marlinfan10: And what do you get out of a game you can't play?

[Testfire]

I'd be more worried about servers getting shut down than my internet going down. If a publisher decides to shut down the servers then an online only game instantly becomes a paper weight.

[donthate]

dragun:

I completely disagree with you and quite frankly, you sound quite ignorant.

Why would a multiplayer game be "lazy"?

It requires a lot of R&D to get the right balance, right game play mechanic and fun game modes. The upkeep is also quite significant after the game is released.

"You're just playing it to pit your skills against other people."

No, I am playing a multiplayer game to be entertained just like you.

"A multiplayer only game won't typically have a scene that defines your experience because that's not why you're playing it."

The vast majority don't play single player games for the "scene" either.

"I'll never forget that moment when *insert character here* sacrificed themselves for *insert cause here* and how that scene was so bitter sweet."

Those games are few and far between, so I would hardly call it the norm. Read a book or maybe watch a movie, but gaming medium has barely evolved to that.

Get off your high horse, and admit it single player gaming isn't that much different that multiplayer. We all play it to be entertained.

Don't be ignorant and somehow elevate campaigns to something it is not currently!

[WilDRangeRfc]

I got hundreds of hours out of Titanfall
I got 12 hours out of The Order played through twice,even if the internet was down 50% of the time that I owned Titanfall I still would of got more bang for my buck.Anyone who wants to downvote this point please inform me how I am wrong.Case closed

[freshslicepizza]

it boils down to value experience to the consumer. a 90 minute movie could have the same value compared to a 2.5 hour movie. there are no rules to length of a game therefore there should also not be any rules to multiplayer only games. it is a fabrication due to how we have all been brought up playing games and don't like change. the same logic applies to why people have it in their minds $400 should be the most they charge for a console and why $60 is the same cap for aaa games. it is habitual.

world of warcraft is an online only game and mmo games are very very popular and some of them come out at full price plus a monthly fee. so again it is all about perceived value to each individual, there are no rules so we should stop trying to create them. destiny is also online only, one of the bigger sellers that year. titanfall did not have enough maps and content to justify its value but if there is in an online only game people will buy it for full price.

there is a transition going to online games and some people are very reluctant to go there for obvious reasons but those reasons have little to do with how much value you get from the experience and more about control of what you own.

[marlinfan10]

@dragon

"What do you get out of a game that you can't play?"

If your connection can't handle a online game or frequently goes out, then MP only games may not be for you. That doesn't mean the launch price should be any less than other games.

Your whole comments basically saying you don't like MP games so you think they should cost less lol

[gangsta_red]

@Dragon

"They have to be more than just gameplay."

And this sin't the case for a multiplayer game? Especially with hundreds of other multiplayer games to compete with? A multiplayer game has to have something of it's own to stand out and not just a clone of CoD, Halo or any other established multiplayer focused heavy game.

Multiplayer games have to account for servers, maps, balance, stress testing, player count and not to mention designers providing anything different of an experience to separate themselves from rest of the competing multiplayer games. Single player only games do not have to worry about most of this.

"A multiplayer game doesn't have to be anything but gameplay and graphics.

That is completely false. You could apply that to a single player game and I can guarantee that game won't be as successful because of how shallow that game is. You can apply that to ANY game actually and it would not be a success. Games have to have a compelling formula, excellent gameplay and pleasing graphics, this is applied to any game regardless of single or multiplayer.

A multiplayer game doesn't need a scene to define an experience because the experience comes from playing in a group and competing against other players. The experience is in the strategy you and you team develop, the fun had during a match. That is the experience of a multiplayer game.

You are trying to equate single player games to multiplayer only games and that is not what you should be doing.

And the point of this, regardless is that a multiplayer game cost just as much to produce and develop as a single player game. Perhapse even more since a multiplayer games has to be maintained over a number of years.

So if the argument is charging less for a multiplayer game because it has less features then there should be no reason why a single player only game should cost just as less.

[Kleptic]

@dragon

If you don't like multiplayer only games, that is fine, but that has nothing to do with what other people get out of them...nor how much they should charge for them...

some of the best single player focused games i've ever played are probably MGS4 and Uncharted 2 (at least fairly recently)...I've beat MGS4 3 times since i bought it at release, Uncharted 2 twice...I probably have about 60 hours total wrapped up between the two...

BF3? By no means my favorite game of all time...had 700 hours on the PS3 version...BF4?...I think overall i like it even less than 3, but still have over 500 hours on the PC version...Retrun to Castle Wolfenstein, bought it just after release in late 2001...put the 10 hours through the campaign...then stuck with multiplayer, which i'm currently over 3000 hours iirc (it doesn't have global stats, but thats a decent rough estimate)...Quake III, multiplayer only (or with bots for practice)...1.5k hours or so...and there are a lot more...

so why would I play a multiplayer game so much more, even though i don't necessarily find it 'better'?...because even average multiplayer has replayability value for me personally that NO single player game could ever come close to...and i'm not alone in that mindset...

I'm also not saying the hours you get out of a multiplayer game equals its total value...its just as gansta said above; the value comes from how different it can be every time you play it...

you don't like multiplayer, and that is fine...but there is a clear argument as to why multiplayer games hold a huge amount of value to the people that enjoy them...I've been playing video games since the NES...and if it wasn't for Doom and Doom II on PC in the early/mid 90's, and the fun i had with friends when i was like...11...I probably wouldn't be gaming any more entirely...I could probably add up all the hours i've played 'offline' and it would be less than any single multiplayer game i've been involved in...accept Twisted metal for the PS3, which i bought for the multiplayer...and it...kind of sucked...

[2pacalypsenow]

If no one is playing that game or server issues online its useless , single player games will always be there

[Anorexorcist]

Great point and That point immediately came to me too when I read SpaceRanger's reply above. At least with SP games, you NEVER have to worry about losing access to your game when a company decides to realign their priorities and assets to other products and they shut down the servers, like you would with an online-only game.

Just imagine for a second if some of the NES classics from the 80's were online-only. Do you think today, their servers would still be active and people would still have access to such classics like Super Mario Bros. or Legend of Zelda or Contra? No, NES consoles and NES game cartridges would be nothing but door-stoppers today.

[gangsta_red]

If a single player game is horrible then no one will play that more than once either, and yet it's still charged full price.

You can apply a lot of the same worries to a single player only game.

[showtimefolks]

It just depends on the content. Titan fall didn't have enough content day one to warrant a 60 dollars price point. Neither did the order 1886

If I am paying $60 for single player than it has to deliver. OK it can 8 hours long but than the story and game play has to be amazing. That's where my biggest issue was with the order 1886, it looked amazing, game play was dull, story was ok at best and the world was great. So you have to deliver. I hope the sequel is bigger and better like the jump from uncharted 1 to uncharted 2

Titan fall: it sold based on hype alone and this is why the 2nd will be the true titan fall game, became respawn will take all the feedback and eveuthk h g they leaned to make improvements

Than you have games that sell well buy don't deserve the sakes like destiny. A lot of its content was cut to later sell as a dlc. So I will pick up destiny on 2016 when bungie releases a goty edition with all the content that was suppose to be on the dusk from day on nd

[admiralvic]

Maybe literally, since the action of buying an online only game is the same, but it has lower perceived value.

The issue with online only games is that there are a lot of external factors that can impact the games value. Less people are playing, internet goes out, internet is slow, eventually the servers will be turned off and your game is now worthless, etc.

Now you can argue that you never lose internet or that your internet is always fast enough to maintain a solid connection, but you can't say the same is true for everyone else. Like I experienced some connection issues when I uploaded gameplay of Destiny while playing Destiny.

However, none of these factors come into play while playing a single player game. If I were to play BioShock on release, today or even 10 years from now, I would have relatively the same experience. It's static, it doesn't change and it will always hold some sort of value/use as long as the disc/hardware is functional. For this reason they hold a higher perceived value, even if some people might play an online only game far more than an offline only game.

TL;DR People think owning something that will work for the life of the disc/hardware has more value than something that will only last as long as a company choose to support it.

[WilDRangeRfc]

Paying £40 for a game like Titanfall is more than worth it,I got hundreds of hours of entertainment and counting.Even if internet goes out(never happens to me) you would still get your moneys worth 10x over.
I played through The Order twice say max 15 hours and it is now useless to me,I payed full price for a game that has given me way less gaming time than Titanfall,honestly I ask you whats the better value?? If you cant see the truth in what I am saying then I give up,enjoy your singleplayer games with no replayability thats up to you

[admiralvic]

@ WilDRangerRfc

"you would still get your moneys worth 10x over... If you cant see the truth in what I am saying"

But there is NO TRUTH in what you're saying. You're just giving your perspective and throwing out conjecture. Like you might get "your moneys worth 10x over," but that doesn't mean everyone else does or every game is the same. I am not going to ramble on about the semantics of this, but the gist is that there ARE people who play a single player game for countless hours (my friend probably puts in 1,000+ hours into each Pokemon game, many play Monster Hunter for 500+ hours, it's easy to put in 300+ hours for something like Disgaea) and those who play MMOs and so forth just as much, if not more.

Though in the end the basic concept I am trying to get across is the only real fact in this argument. Agree or disagree, with online only games you're NOT in control and external factors come into play. The game will only exist online for a finite period of time, the amount of people playing will impact your overall enjoyment, and eventually you'll have a game that is worthless. However, Super Mario Bros. plays exactly the same as it did in the '80s as '90s as '00s as '10s and will continue to play exactly the same until the cartridge/system break. Thats where the difference in perceived value is.

[bacboi]

Not really the same imo. Single player games just generally have more importance to a person, like the nostalgia people feel for classic mario, final fantasy etc games.

However, I feel that it is just fine to be online only for a game. Counter strike was a great game and I actually loved MAG. I love games like that, I think Titanfall is just fine being multiplayer only.

[Father__Merrin]

I recently bought titanfall on Origin, it was on sale £7.49 I kid you not hardly anyonebplays it possibly 1200 players WW max. so online games like this would not have been worth it when buying fullbprice

[Captain_TomAN94]

Haha I love the disagrees. It is the same.

The problem is some games like MAG did things that justified the full $60. It had 256 players and near endless content.

People get mad when things like TitanFall have no more depth than a standard shooter's MP. Hell it would be easy to argue that Cod and BF would be FAR more justifiable to be a $60 MP only game than TF is.

But they did charge $60 for The Order in a world where 200 hour games like Skyrim exist... TitanFall is no different.

[crazychris4124]

I rarely even pay full price for any game, let alone online only. Usually get a game for cheap when its in early access or wait for sales on the regular game or complete edition.

[Rimeskeem]

Do not buy early access games if you don't know the developer or it's their first game or else they may never finish the game and take your money.

[annoyedgamer]

Oh so let me get this straight, a multi million dollar company touts digital releases as their saving grace where they save money and put the extra savings towards gamers with lower priced digital releases. Now fast forward to 2015, the games are steaming piles of crap and still selling for $60 online only and in the case of EA $69.99 Deluxe Editions.

Oh yea "bu but costs have gone up!!!111! Premium editions are for teh gamerz!!1".

Why do delusional gamers continue to think that these companies give a damn about them? They literally lie to your faces and you come back ready to lick their filthy boots. I cannot imagine the amount of pre orderes are in for BLOPS 3 and DLCFront 3

[Big_Game_Hunters]

Why wouldn't it be? people pay 60$ for 10 hour single players games all the time.

[BitbyDeath]

SP games can be replayed though, they have depth, story, character progression.

MP games can go on for much longer hours but generally after 1-2 hours you have experienced all there is to experience with them, then it is just honing your skills.

[BitbyDeath]

I had meant character progression as in the state of the character not arbitrary level-ups.

[Big_Game_Hunters]

SP games do not have more depth than competitive multiplayer games. We aren't talking about stories we are talking about games. So you can do every WOW raid in 1-2 hours? So you can play a match with every DOTA character in 1-2 hours? LOL get out..

[BitbyDeath]

Having to travel long distances doesn't = depth though.
Exclude the travel time and the repetitive shooting and what are you left with?

[2pacalypsenow]

people also pay $12-18 for a 1.3 hour movie at a theater

[StrayaKNT]

If it as good as Titanfall then yeah it is ok. Titanfall redefined the fps genre.

[porkChop]

Titanfall didn't redefine anything. Redefine would mean it actually had some sort of influence on the genre as a whole. Titanfall has done no such thing.

[StrayaKNT]

You need to play it to know. Titanfall is still the best fps out right now. Oh so all the wall running and boosting in cod is no influence lol?

[BitbyDeath]

Influence as in other devs taking note and copying aspects from it for their own games.

That is not happening with Titanfall no matter how much you enjoy it.

[WilDRangeRfc]

It did,if you had played it you would know how great and unique it is

[porkChop]

I hope you realize that wall running, double jump/boosting, etc. were in games way before Titanfall came out. There was a decently popular online shooter on PC that had both years ago, for example.

[Moldiver]

"There was a decently popular online shooter on PC that had both years ago, for example."

So popular that you cant even remember its name....

Anyways, I agree that its ok. I play online shooters a lot (Halo, titanfall and BF4/BF:hardline on X1 and on PC, firefall, teamfortress a and counterstrike:GO) of the games I mentioned, only halo has a good SP mode, but to be honest I bought MCC for the MP modes, just like the others. The cost is always justified if the MP is good. A good MP game can remain relevant for years. A single player game is good for one playthrough. Which is why I dont by single player games on the day of release to often. I prefer to pay less for a game that is only good for one play through. I know some people can replay single player games and not be bored but I aint one of em. Once I have seen and done it all...thats it. seen it all. The battle sequences play out the same (except in halo) That boss still uses the same attack pattern..that building will explode at the same time it always does. Its not the same as watching a good film for a second or third time. the film only lasts an hour and a half. If you just completed a 60 hour playthrough of bloodborne or skyrim/fallout are you willing to commit another 60 hours, just for the sake of playing as another class? And on the other end of that scale is the order too short and too shallow to justify a full price tag. Nothing to do after you have beaten it except play it again. To me thats a waste of time. Especially as I have a career, a GF, friends and family to spend time on too.

And then there is the social aspects of multiplayer gaming. I like that part especially.

[bacboi]

Yeah, it's funny how people considered Titanfall such a breakthrough. In the end it is simply a solid game that doesn't really do anything new, it just does it all really well. Good for it. I think people over did it will the hype though, it really didn't do anything revolutionary as many claimed. It will be fun to see what they do with Titanfall 2 on PS4.

Personally I like a good single player/multiplayer game. Uncharted and TLOU had the best Multiplayer experiences for me hands down. Others prefer COD type games. To each their own.

[Adrian_v01]

@Moldiver

You don't like SP games cause its the same and repetitive after playing once but you like MP games because...it's the same and repetitive after playing once?

[Moldiver]

"You don't like SP games"

I never said that. Dont put words into my mouth.Read my comment properly before replying...This is how petty arguments get started and people lose bubbles, you know? by failing at comprehending what they read.

"but you like MP games because...it's the same and repetitive after playing once?"

everybody plays differently online. So no, its never repetitive. No two matches are ever the same. Its laughable that you even suggest that, in this day and age. People dont run down the same corridors getting into the exact same cover positions, doing the exact same thing next to that pre canned car that blows up every time at that exact same moment.That happens in SP games. You never know what is going to happen next in an online match.Even after playing on that map previously.

Is that really so hard for you to understand?

EDIT: seriously..are people on N4G completely incapable of reading comments properly before responding?

[bacboi]

It is likely the makers of Titanfall borrowed ideas from other games though... Including Starhawk. www. youtube.com/watch?v=E0LvIb64bp k

*move the k in the link next to the p and the www. closer to youtube..

[Captain_TomAN94]

Haha Titanfall was typical generic shooter junk. Little to no depth or customization.

[DigitalRaptor]

No it didn't redefine anything. It's a solid game that has you doing the same thing with a limited amount of content over again, like every other generic multiplayer shooter.

We heard this nonsense from the Xbox fans pre-release and even post-release, despite the fact that almost everything it did had been done in other games before. Even reviewers had the gall to call it "innovative" without substantiation or validity.

It didn't redefine player counts, quality AI, or any feature you want to throw out there. Brink, Quake, Call of Duty, Hawken - you name it, none of those games came after Titanfall.

[gangsta_red]

This is how I felt about single player only games that also charge full price but don't live up to their potential or hype. An example would be The Order, I remember you saying it had all sorts of innovations and added elements like puzzle solving, choice driven scenes and hand to hand combat.

But it had none of those elements that you and other Sony fans kept claiming (just based off of youtube videos no doubt) before the release and even during. It was a very generic and extremely vanilla third person shooter. At least reviewers and gamers caught on and didn't let the hype sway them.

This is exactly why I don't understand people's hesitance to pay for a multiplayer only game when the same concerns can be found for a single player only game. Don't you agree digital?

[Sureshot]

It's not okay. But then again as an Australian resident I'm paying exorbitant rates for all my games. Example: Old Blood is priced at $40 AUD

[hiptanaka]

Yeah, no.

[ape007]

as amazing as titanfall was, it needs a SP

[DragoonsScaleLegends]

As long as there is not a single damn piece of paid dlc, it has local play against bots, no game breaking bugs, and it's overall not a piece of crap then sure that price would be fine.

[Haru]

Stupid article, the guy should go hung himself better than tell us what's okay and what's not

[Adrian_v01]

hang* rather* .*

[FunAndGun]

I would definitely pay full price for Warhawk 2...in fact I would pay more to make that dream happen.

[Tsubasa-Oozora]

I will never support a Online Only FPS game. I don't know about other genres, but for FPS it's a very bad choice, unless it's free!

First of all, the servers are bound to get shut down soon and there goes the multiplayer(unless you shell out some more $$ for private servers).

No Single-Player = No Fun.
No Bots. I play with bots ALL THE TIME! 50% bots 50% Online. I can play any map with any difficulty, full team. Literally forever, unless the console dies out on me. I dont have to worry about Serves or any of that.

[Captain_TomAN94]

LOL I rarely listen to someone who says "Never". Saying you will "Never" try something because of some arbitrary aspect just shows close-mindedness and a lack of intelligence.

[GrmpyolGamer]

I think that games that are online or singleplayer only should probably be abit cheaper

[contradictory]

i'll rather buy single player games anyway so i'm not the one to listen necessarily but if your internet goes offline you cannot use that software... or when the servers essentially closes down... nope, not feeling the money flying outta my pockets

[lastking95]

A game must have single player and online multiplayer for me to spend $60 on. If it only has 1 no way in hell am I dishing out that kind of money. The only games I'm paying $60 for this year are Mortal kombat x and halo 5, rest can wait till it's $40 or less.

[johny5]

There's a reason why Golden eye, a 18 year old game is more known till this day, then Destiny or Titan Fall ever will!

[mxguy93]

Online only games are about to be big this generation of gaming. I hate it. I want a game with a great story. Played plenty of single player games back in the ps2 days and nothing was wrong with it. long live single player

[Activemessiah]

this isn't thinking of the long term... MP games have expiry dates.

[s45gr32]

No sorry but $60.00 for a game that is only online should not be priced at 60.00. One if the servers go out temporarily due to maintenance, hack, bad, weather, etc. then yyou can't play the game anymore until the issue is solved. The other reason is you can only play online for a short period of time like 3 months to a hear. Now you're stuck with a coaster. Online Only games work best as free to play games for it allows more content to be added later, microtransanctions and DLC can keep the game alive

[cfc83]

Dont mind paying good money for a game as long as it doesnt have expensive dlc, much of which could have been in the game.

[MilkMan]

Negative. Pay $60 get FULL game. Meaning full on 10 hours SP campaign. FULL on MP game with all the bells and whistles and FULL on Coop Mode. In what dumb a@@ universe does one champion paying the same for less?!?