Multiplayer-Only Games Shouldn't Cost $60

Kotaku:
Lately I’ve been playing a lot of Rainbow Six Siege. It’s really good, but I’m not feeling very optimistic about its long-term prospects.

Siege, like any multiplayer game, will only thrive if it can form a lasting community of players. My pessimism regarding its chances to do so is the same pessimism that was eventually borne out by similar games like Titanfall and Evolve. It’s also the same pessimism I feel about Star Wars: Battlefront, to an extent.

[DarkOcelet]

Agreed on that one. There is yet a multiplayer game on current gen that justify the 60$ price tag. Add insult to injury, most of those MP game have overpriced dlc or Season Pass and stupid microtransactions.

[TLG1991]

And to make it even worse, idiots keep buying them and making them the best sellers this gen. which in turn churns out more MP only over priced slop.

[thekhurg]

People pay $60 for games with 8 hour single player experiences. There is nothing wrong with paying $60 for a game with hundreds of hours of multiplayer content in it.

[Highlife]

I wouldn't mind paying 60 for an online only game so long as it had tons of maps to start, free map packs, and tons of game modes. The problem is right now these online only games seem to be pretty bare bones and then expect you to buy maps that should have been there to begin with.

Just make it feel like it's a complete game and don't sell me the rest later.

[kitsune451]

Games lacking content, regardless if they're single or multiplayer only, aren't worth $60.

[kevinsheeks]

looks at my titanfall disc and looks back at you. . . . :(

[ginsunuva]

@thekhurg

There's only hundreds of hours if it doesn't bore you by then.

[Mikeyy]

I have this game sitting on my shelf called MAG. Yeah I can't play it as the servers where shut down a while ago.

[Highlife]

@mickey

You knew what you were buying. Don't buy online games then.

The game was great while it lasted.

[XisThatKid]

I feel that if a game is made a certain way for a reason as long as the content matches the price it shouldn't matter. I do understand everyone wants more for less I get that and I also understand a business is a business.
I love Multiplayer games but I like a good single player too. But if one of them is going to compromise the other I'll take them separate and pay 60 for both if the games are fleshed out if I have the money at the time(s) depending on when they release.
I mean Some single player games are pretty good but I wouldn't say are worth 60$ considering either how short they are or lack of content.

[UltraNova]

@thekhurg

Its weird cause I have a 2 year old 8hr SP game sitting on my shelf that I'm sure I will be able to play and enjoy to its fullest when I'm ready.

Are you sure you can do that with a MP game 2 years down the line?

30 bucks for a game you can play for a limited amount of time, is more more than enough.

[WowSoChill]

I get more hours worth of gameplay in multiplayer than i do in singleplayer, fallout red dead being exceptions, i am not paying $60 for a 8-12 hour single player story that offers little to no replay value like some games are, that is unthinkable

if you dont like multiplayer or your not a very good player then dont buy multiplayer games, simple

[spicelicka]

wtf lol how does not wanting to pay $60 for multiplayer-only mean you don't like multiplayer??

I love multiplayer, but for $60 I want at least 25 maps, sounds ridiculous but it's not, because many games have had more than 25 maps. I want large scale combat, make it a 64 player game with a ton of vehicles, customization, and enough game modes to it interesting WITHOUT charging $50 for freakin DLC.

It's not about how many hours you log in. Of course you'll log in more in multiplayer games. It's also not about what you're personally willing to pay, some people have paid $110 for Battlefront, doesn't mean it justifies the price.

Problem is we've been given lower and lower content and we've learned to bend over and take it.

Look at Unreal Tournament 2004:
http://liandri.beyondunreal...

There are 11 game modes, 19 weapons, 12 vehicles, 50 fuckin maps, with another 50 added for free, and they're HUGE.

I'd gladly pay $60 for something like this if it came out today. It makes any multiplayer game today look like a joke content-wise.

And for the record, same logic applies to short 6-10 hour single-player only games. Not worth $60.

[Liqu1d]

If someone doesn't like MP games then why would they complain about the price of MP only games?

And skill level doesn't matter, plenty of bad players enjoy MP only games.

[Z501]

WowSoChill - "i am not paying $60 for a 8-12 hour single player story that offers little to no replay value"

Yesterday i had the OPTION and played Heavenly Sword & MGS4. (7/8 year old $60 single player games)

Will i even have the OPTION to play Evolve 8 years from now?

[TwoForce]

Ok, what about Wolfestein New Order ? It was costs 60 $ and got a lot of positive reviews. Why it got more positive reviews ? Because it had great characters development, great gameplay, great AI. Even that, the expansion pack gave the game more great reviews.

[user9950279]

I'm going to go ahead and disagree, as I do with literally everything you hammer out on your keyboard. Dont like MP-only? cool brah. I'm not particularly keen on single player only 90% of the time. Dont get my value there. I'll be playing siege for years. THATS value. =D

now my lovely single players.... you know the drill.

[EverydayJoe]

Games cost $59.99 in the US. Regardless if it is SP,MP or mixed (with exception of a few). How about everybody buy what they want and people stop telling everyone what they should or shouldn't buy because of ethics of the company, replay ability, or how many maps it has.

Some people like Vanilla, some like Chocolate, and some people like neopolitan.

Different strokes for different folks, but some people need to stop acting like a saviour of the industry with a half witted moral code, boycotts, and keyboard warrior-ism.

this wasn't direct reply to @DarkOcelet but I don't like people being called idiots for purchasing a piece of entertainment they want. It's a video game not crack

[solar]

i buy very few AAA titles, the only ones purchased this year personally was GTA/MGS V at full price, and RB6: Siege.

Siege i played the beta, loved the game. but not for a $60 price tag. Browsed the internet, found a CD key for $33 dollars. Game is worth that to me. after playing for a week, i had enough fun to justify purchasing the season pass. Browse the internet, found a season pass for $23.

Grand Total for Siege with Season Pass: $56.

instead of paying the full retail price of $90 for both

[DarkOcelet]

Unfortunately those amazing deals dont happen on Consoles, only on PC.

[_-EDMIX-_]

"Single player only games shouldn't cost $60"

....just saying, we can't just assume a certain game type should be more or less due to personal feelings. It seems many who like single player only games feel they are worth $60....

Yet some how someone who likes multiplayer games should pay less for the concept they like? What?

No...

GAMES can be $60 regardless of single player or multiplayer.

Should a puzzle game cost less because it has no story but also no multiplayer? lol

Its a value to the end user that feels its worth that price, we've had multiplayer games that are full price since the dawn of gaming, that is like saying should RPGS COST MORE because they are longer...

[Fro_xoxo]

They shouldn't, because multi_player relies on too many factors in order to enjoy the experience. Your ISP, Servers and people to play with _______are just a few examples.

Once one of the three I mentioned above is affected negatively your experience is then diminished. Lag, low player count Host advantage....

---

*[NO ISP, Players or Servers renders your game unplayable]*

[princejb134]

Show your anger with your wallet
I still haven't bought a online only game

[WellyUK]

Agreed but then again neither should 6 hours long SP only games.

[TLG1991]

if you compare it to films, you pay £10-£15 to see a movie which is approx 90 minutes. times that by 4 and your actually getting what you pay for in relations to films.

BUT i agree.

[spicelicka]

Yes it should go both ways.

Multiplayer-only shouldn't be $60 unless it actually has enough content to justify it. So far I have yet to see a game this gen which does that. Evolve, Battlefront, and Rainbow six are all guilty of this bullshit.

Same goes for 6 hour single player only games. For it to be $60 there should be at least 13-20 hours of QUALITY gameplay.

[-Foxtrot]

Yup

Multiplayer only games fun lies mostly within the replay value YOU make for yourself. Depending on how long you can find enjoyment out of the same maps and modes over and over

While something like Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Bloodborne, Assassins Creed, Just Cause 3 etc the developer needs to craft a single player experience we are going find fun in, not create it ourselves.

I just think with single player games developers have to try harder as they know they have to keep us going for longer, especially since they can't fall back on us just replaying the same map over and over. I could explore a fragment of Fallout 4 or the Witcher 3s map by the time I've played all the maps on a multiplayer only game

[ninsigma]

I agree that multiplayer only shouldn't full priced but neither should sp only.

Your argument about the replay value you make works both ways imo. There's only so long I can play the same modes and maps in mp (as you said) but there's only so long I can spend exploring open world games outside of main story and only a certain amount of times I can play a linear story game in succession (2 at max but even that's rare). Both have their place and their fanbases but both need to price accordingly with what they're offering, not just mp.

[TLG1991]

I think we need to explain it in a different way, as both points are valid as multiplayer is fine being full price if you get your use of of it and same with single player.

i think it should be more down to how much work has actually gone into it. because lets be honest rainbow 6 seige should not be full price with the shoddy amount of content. the gamers are paying for their decision to scrap and start again with that one. R6S is £45 cheapest i have found.

and then you look at just cause 3 and i can buy that for £33. i know whats got more content i know whats taken longer i know where more work has gone, yet that one is cheaper and doesn't have a entire game mode dedicated to micro transactions.

[-Foxtrot]

Not really.

If you play a single player games you still usually have unlocks to find, Easter eggs, going on hard difficulty settings and even getting the trophies like for Uncharted "Hangman" or "50 kills with a G-Mal" etc

You could do all that, even with a short campaign sometimes, while the other person plays on Battlefronts Hoth map for like the 100th time.

[Sm00thop]

@TLG, I guess you know nothing about balancing a game and how long that takes in a game like Rainbow 6, there's a lot of work gone into Rainbow 6 and your know that if you understood that balancing a multiplayer game is very time consuming. Just Cause 3 looks like utter garbage to me and I've seen nothing but bad articles saying how bad the performance is, that's hardly value in my eyes.

Its like 2d fighters, they might look simple to some people and not have much value, but to someone that's into them they understand everything that's going on under the hood and appreciate the details that a lot of people overlook.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed. Its subjective. No one damn genre some how should be worth more or less etc.

The end user makes that choice.

IF you like MOBAs go spend full price on that...

Like fighting games ,well then they will spend full price on that.

Its subjective and quite stupid to really hear gamers trying to bad mouth other genres and gamers just because they don't play it.

As if MMOs just get no play time and everyone JUST plays SP.

Its just ignorant and stupid. Other genres exist folks, deal with it.

[Sharingan_no_Kakashi]

I agree....

You still suck though Kotaku.

[TLG1991]

There seems to be a shift in there articles at the minute, its like they are trying to crawl out of that hole they dug for themselves.

[monkey48]

Games are cheaper than they ever been, counting inflation and after seeing advertisements from the 90s on video games, don't complain about 60 bucks for a game. If you vote with your wallet and not buy it, eventually they put it on sale for like 40 bucks.

[JJShredder]

I've said before that I would be all for paying $80 for new games if season passes went away and all future content was included. Seems fair enough to me.

[daynnight365]

Here here. I'm in the same line of thought

[JJShredder]

I think multiplayer only games are fine. However, if you are going to go this route, you better make sure the content that is available on launch is substantial and don't insult us by locking away content behind a season pass from the get-go. (Ttanfall, Battlefront, Evolve, Rainbow 6 Siege)

Same thing with single-player only games. Fine, I am all for them, but the content better be there. Could you imagine Halo 5 with just the single player?? *shudders* Another example is The Order 1886. It was actually enjoyable to me but I only payed $20 for it which is about all it shoulda cost.

Love it or hate it, Black Ops 3 is one of the most content-packed games for both Single and Multiplayer and should set an example of what to expect from a full-priced game.

[EverydayJoe]

a game like Black Ops 3 can have all that content and sadly only a small percentage will experience anything out of the MP&Zombie modes. Which for a developer must be a bit heartbreaking knowing that (being generous) 40% of the players never experienced anymore than the 1st lvl of the campaign. I hope they don't take that too much to heart. But I am sure some would.

[maybelovehate]

Network coding is among the hardest parts of making a game. Server costs are in most cases the most expensive part of maintaining a game over time. So why should a game focused on this aspect of gaming cost less?

[Fro_xoxo]

whoops, you have a valid point.. I must admit.

I feel like there should be a balance in pricing. If you're going to include micro_transactions/Season pass then the price of admission when buying the game should be no more than $30.

[Liqu1d]

I think they should charge what they want, then I'll decide whether I think it's worth the asking price.

[rextraordinaire]

You're way too wise to be here, brah! ;)

[MilkMan]

100% agree.
Multiplayer online should be half price.

[Sm00thop]

So should all the single player games that are no more than 10-20 hours long be half price as well?. I remember all the single player only crowd jumping to buy The Order even after they'd been told it was like 4 hours long, I guess everybody has a different perception of value.

[Relientk77]

I agree and I won't buy them at $60

[_-EDMIX-_]

"I won't buy them at $60"

...."I won't"

..."I"

...you merely don't like the concept as much bud....thats it.

That is like someone who doesn't play RPGs, stating for them to not be full price because they don't care for them.

ie "I won't buy an RPG at $60" lol

So?

I won't buy a mobile game at $60
I won't buy a MMO at any price
I won't buy a fighter at any price...

....have you not factored that maybe that is just me and I don't speak for the whole industry?

Are some of you guys not getting other genres exist and gamers since the dawn of gaming have been playing other types of games?

[Sm00thop]

I've already got a lot more value out of Rainbow 6 than most other single player games, its worth every penny if that's the sort of game you're into. If the quality is there I don't see the problem and its down to the individual on what they regard as value for money. Some people need to really give it a rest on this whole subject, multiplayer is a lot different to single player and people know what they want. Rainbow 6 is the best game I've purchased this year by far, more than happy to support a developer that puts out something fresh and IMO something that's great value for money.

[spicelicka]

That's no way to justify the price, people need to stop putting their personal preferences into industry standards for gamers.

You got a lot of value out of it and that's great but do you honestly think for $60 you shouldn't have gotten MORE content compared to the value other games provide their audiences? Would you not be happier if you got more game modes, more maps, and a bigger game that is already your favourite game this year?

There is a difference between what value you got and what value is expected for $60. If they matched that expectation your satisfaction would go up exponentially, why would you not want that?

This mentality is what allows them to keep pushing the envelope to squeeze every last penny out of you. Next time they'll make a smaller game and charge the same, this has already happened over the course of years. Last gen games these size were either released on PSN/XBL arcade or retail for $40. Now they've moved on to full price and already fragmenting them with season passes.

You can justify it how you like by saying it's a "fresh experience" but the truth is that they also had less work to do because the game is smaller, yet they charge as much as a full AAA game.

It's an argument strictly on content and value, not quality. I could make the greatest game in the world, but say if it's just one map and one mode, I can't be charging full price for it.

Instead of arguing it's "OK" because it's "OK" for single-player games, people should be saying neither are OK!

[Sm00thop]

You're completely wrong, it has everything to do with quality. What good is a load of content if its not at at high standard. I'm not saying everyone will see the value in Rainbow 6, but plenty of people will, if I get say a 1000 hours out of a game and I've enjoyed it a lot is that not fantastic value?. I've played Street Fighter IV for thousands of hours and still love it, that's a bargain IMO.

Remember Rainbow 6 has 10 maps and all future dlc is free, the game is expertly balanced and that's what takes time with a game like this. How do you know how much work went into Rainbow 6, you go on like a someone that knows it all, but in actual fact you haven't got a clue, you're discrediting peoples hard work and not taking into account that the game has had a lot of effort and time poured into it and it shows.

You obviously feel differently about it and that's fine, just don't go on like you know how much time was spent making this or that, you obviously don't. Games have always been expensive and they cost a lot to make, theres plenty of options out there and it all boils down to what you personally like, if you don't like it don't buy it, don't expect everyone to see it the same way though.

[_-EDMIX-_]

"That's no way to justify the price, people need to stop putting their personal preferences into industry standards for gamers"

? What? Sorry bud, but your wrong on that.

Gaming is SUBJECTIVE! There is ZERO 100% "standard" in gaming. People buy what they like.

What deems the price of a game is REAL MARKET VALUE!

Simple supply and demand.

IF millions are buying MP only titles at full price, it is INDEED to them WORTH THE PRICE. They are willing to part ways with $60 to play a concept that is online only.

The value of the product is up to the end user bud, its not a matter of fact, its a matter of opinion and subjectivity.

If its worth that price, the real market value will show so.

The price is not deemed by what you "THINK" is a damn "standard" its deemed based on a matter OF FACT OF WHAT SOMEONE WILL 100% buy a game for FOR REAL for that price based on its concept.

Guess what? Millions and millions have bought games at full price that are online only.

Millions have played MMOs that are online only.

Millions have bought fighting games with no story.

Millions have bought MOBAs that are online only.

The reality is...if it wasn't deemed that price, the market would show so with real facts.

Star Wars Battlefront shouldn't be selling if thats the case. Someone wants it some where, just cause you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be a different price, you are not the entire world or entire industry bud.

[spicelicka]

^You're also missing the point. The value has always been subjective to gamers, no one can tell you what you should or should've pay for games. But we have the right to object to and criticize when we feel something isn't providing enough value for what it's price it's set as.

I find it surprising you say you're saying it doesn't matter, yet you're clearly having an argument with me on an article stating that it DOES matter. It matters enough to warrant low scores that both Battlefront and Rainbow six have gotten, they're both been slammed for this reason specifically, every other review says so.

I'm not sure why you don't understand what I'm saying, you're teaching me basic economics when my argument has nothing to do with sales. People buy all kinds of shit, I have no control over that lol it's not just "my world", nor am I trying to control that.

My argument is pretty freakin simple, tired of repeating it.

[spicelicka]

NO you're confusing YOUR perception of value with what's expected of a game at that price. No one is saying load of content has to hinder the high standard, part of the value is having load of content AND high quality. If you get a 1000 hours from a game you're getting value sure, but that's not what the argument is about, you can't measure that in your hours logged.

I could get 1000 hours, quality hours, out of Commandos on my computer, if they remade it I may even be willing to pay $60 for it personally, BUT i will know objectively that $60 is not the right price for it BASED on other games that offer considerable more at the same price. Hence I would never defend it regardless of what I get out of it or what I'm willing to pay.

For all you know, someone may be willing to pay $200 for the same rainbow six game and what if they price it at $200? Would that sound reasonable to you? Would you then consider the 1000 hours? No you wouldn't because you have a threshold. Only problem is you're mixing that with the standard threshold.

Best way to understand this is by look at other games. Halo 5 for example, has an 8 hour campaign, 4 player co-op, area mode (also expertly balanced it's a well known fact), warzone mode with 12v12 and AI, custom games, forge mode for you to create your own maps, AND 20 free maps as DLC on top 15 maps shipped with the game!

And you're talking about 10 maps and free DLC? Which btw is just 4 new maps. The whole point of my argument is we've lowered our expectations by accepting this so easily. I don't know how much time and effort went into Rainbow six, but I sure can see a considerable amount MORE went into Halo 5 for the value I'm getting. Technically I could get "1000 hours of fantastic value" from just the arena mode of Halo 5, and heck I might even pay $60 for that if I had to, but I'd never consider that as good value and would actively speak against it!

This is not a gameplay comparison against Halo 5. I'm not calling Rainbow six a bad game, I know it's good, I've been a long time fan. But this is stance on value, and it doesn't have $60 in my opinion.

[Skankinruby]

Definitely, it's pretty much a half a game it should be half the price.

[Sm00thop]

Have you even played it?

[pompombrum]

I don't see what's wrong with MP only games charging $60 providing the content and value is clear to see. I'd rather a developer focus it's resources on their vision for the game rather than having to waste them on shoehorning an unmemorable single player experience in. The two big offenders I've bought for this are Titanfall and Rainbow Six.. while in both cases it felt like a potentially missed opportunity to craft a good single player game, I've certainly got my value for money out of Titanfall and have already pumped countless hours into Rainbow Six.

[Jmanzare]

Honestly to me it all depends on how good the game is. I would have gotten bf4 if it didn't have single player. It wasn't that great and I only play the mp anyway. Titan fall was also great,it launched with so many maps and at the time there really wasn't much else to play. Saying that, I would have liked more game modes for Titan fall(which they added) more titans, more guns and a story mode would have been cool.

[ChronoJoe]

I think it depends what they're offering.

If they've cut down on SP content in order to offer a more robust, expansive multiplayer experience, then I don't think pricing them at full retail price is a problem.

But, so far we've seen games that have the same or less amount of content than we would expect, anyway. 10 maps doesn't really cut it if that' the only thing your game offers.

[DivineAssault]

Wow, i hate kotaku but agree with this

[Poroz]

100% Agree. I just cannot log enough hours to justify the price.

[JoeDaniel]

So then should a game like Skyrim or Fallout 4 be $100? you can't have it both ways... if a game short on content shouldn't be $60 then you're justifying a game with above average amount of content being more than $60

[RAM0N]

So only single player games can be 60? Ok got it

[YosefH64]

I agree that multiplayer only games seem steep for $60 but I know plenty of people that buy games like Call of Duty and never play the campaign but put 100s of hours into multiplayer.

In today's market, I think it's difficult to decide what to invest in - from a developer's point of view. Why make a 20 hour campaign if a large portion of your audience isn't playing it? At the same time, if you use less resources to make a multiplayer only game some consumers will complain that it doesn't look good enough or have enough features. It seems like a hard call to make for sure.

For now, Im happy playing Star Wars and didn't blink at spending $60 because the gameplay is there. $60 for good gameplay and a fun experience seems worth it.

[hiawa23]

I don't buy MP only games, but I do Gamefly them..

[ZaWarudo]

I would gladly pay $60 for a multiplayer game if it has a lot of content and free DLC support.

[Austin48]

I don't like multiplayer only games cause in the future when There servers are down there is no more playing then that's why all of them should at least have a decent campaign

[Jamaicangmr]

This is the reason i opt out of purchasing rainbow 6. I don't think asking $60 for a multiplayer game is fair. This is a practice i've been complaining about and one i try not to support. I took a chance with Destiny and felt i got shafted by all the expensive additional DLC.

If the games are released at a reasonable $40-$45 i would make the commitment but not full price as it isn't a full game. Many say single player only last X amount of hours and that is true but remember their are different kinds of gamers. For example i am the type who plays through the story first on normal before i even touch online multiplayer. Later on i'll go back over the story and on a higher difficulty. Then there are other who run right into Multiplayer and in the case of say Call of duty some never play the story and still feel satisfied with their purchase. This is fine it's your dollar but at least you were given the option.Now with games like Rainbow 6 i feel cheated as i love going through the story specially if it's a good story.

So i believe that if you are asking full price for your game ($60) it must offer what other full price games do.

Oh and don't get me started on this "Online required to play single player or against the A.I. bull but that's for another article.

[AstroCyborg]

the price of mp only games is fine the issue is these games are highly lacking content if they actually offer plenty of content it'd be fine

[assdan]

I agree unless it's massive in some way, but there are very few MP only games I'd pay full price for.

[Sniperwithacause]

One word.

Warhawk!!
Great game!

[pyroxxx]

I think that the problem is usually the lack of content,.. give me 25 maps or all the dlc free and maybe