Top
710°

There's No Reason To Buy A $60, Single-Player Only Game

Ryan Rigney of SlapStic.com shares his thoughts on what rental stores and services like GameFly are doing to developers who want to charge players full price for a game that doesn't provide much playtime. Why pay $60 for God of War 3 when you can rent it and beat it in a week for $5?

Read Full Story >>
slapstic.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Parapraxis4204d ago

Hmm, maybe they should vary prices of movie tickets at the theatre depending on length as well?

It's about the experience.

Many SP games I own are worth more as a gamer than ones that have extra bells and whistles.

I gladly payed full price of MGS4 (for example) even though I know there are games that give me many many hours more playtime such as CoD 4.
Both games were WELL worth the price of admission.

Ryan Rigney, can bite me.
I'd much rather have a fantastic and epic SP game than a mediocre one with MP or Co-op tagged on, just because people like him think that the only thing that matters is a games length.

sonarus4204d ago

This is stupid. Not everyone chooses to spend countless hours playing games online. There is still a solid market for solid single player games. Devs need to do more to increase the replay value for their games but to say single player games aren't worth 60 bucks is absolute garbage.

Then the same media goes on a whine fest when a multiplayer only game gets released

Parapraxis4204d ago

Exactly.
"Oh no, Warhawk has no campaign"
or
"B-b-but, Uncharted, as good a game it is, would be a better game with MP or co-op"

The gaming media really are a bunch of sniveling babies sometimes.
It's as though they don't think devs can make decisions for themselves.

Bnet3434204d ago

Well for me, I am a collector, so I like owning what I buy. I can see where he is coming from but games no have more replay value thanks to achievements and trophies. Some people like beating the game on hardest difficulty too.

RKRigney4204d ago

It's like you didn't even read it. every point you argued about was addressed in the article. Allow me to copy paste some of it, since you're too lazy to do anything but read the title.

With services like GameFly, and even old-school, slightly disease-infected brick and mortar rental stores, single-player games like Bioshock can be simply rented and completed over the course of a week, all for less than $5. Is Bioshock worth $60? Absolutely.

My point is that games with no multiplayer, or simply lackluster multiplayer (or no replay value) aren't doing anything to convince gamers to buy when they could simply rent at a much more wallet-friendly price.

If you spent half the amount of time reading instead of writing whiny comments, you'd see that we agree.

JokesOnYou4204d ago

that co-op and multiplayer games do exactly what they are designed for= ADD longevity to games and with the current economic times theres no denying that there is plenty of validity to his comments but in the end if a Single player game is good enough on its own then its certainly worth the cost....the bad news is its only going to get harder to convince gamers that they should go out an BUY a single player game vs renting it since you can get the same experience while saving alot of cash then if you really think you want to play it over and over again you can buy it later when its cheaper, unfortunately thats not good news for developers.

JOY

Parapraxis4204d ago (Edited 4204d ago )

I read the article, I just fundamentally disagree with thie statement you are making.

You are only attributing to this notion that no SP game is worth buying and should simply be rented, which is not the case.
Although many are (I rent frequently) there are still many SP-only games that are well worth the money.

By permeating the gaming community with this concept, you will attribute to developers not making the money they deserve, because more and more people may consider a rental "enough", it may be, but supporting devs is crucial, if a game is great, buy it.
AND by making blanket statements like this you will only sway more people into this way of thinking, which will in turn cause more developer to take away from their games core ideas and deleniate into other areas such as adding co-op and MP, when it may not be neccisary, and actually may in-turn make the core SP game a lesser experience and lower quality.

Here's a little vid.
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blo...
Watch it.
Stop thinking in such cut and dry terms.
Seriously, if you had made a case as to why SOME SP-only games were not worth 60$ I'd gladly agree, but you made an idiotic statement saying ALL SP-games are not worth buying.

Danja4204d ago

Well not everyone wants to play online games or Co-Op games , Games like GOW or Uncharted has alot of replay value packed into them even though it has no bells and whistles attached....

So i guess games like Mass Effect , Alan Wake , Bioshock 2 , Uncharted 2 aren't worth $60 because they choose to give a well written story and great gameplay mechanics over ...a 6HR crap story and run and gun online addition.

I can't agree some of the best games i've played this gen has been single player only games,...

CrazzyMan4204d ago (Edited 4204d ago )

And Oblivion, and many other GREAT single player games.

Everything depens on experience, that you get through the game.

But, yes some of games should cost less. YET, there are a lot of single player games, which definitely worth all those 60$, those are really GREAT games.

BUT who decides? YOU, as a gamer. You decide, if that single experience worth for you those 60$ or no. If it worth you buy the game, if not you rent or don`t buy the game(or wait for cheaper edition, or for resale, or even use just a torrent). Simple.

Why o why4204d ago

platinum holder

well worth the loot. nice sessler post Parapraxis. If we act like this we will be killing the art of making a great single player game.

BulletToothtony4204d ago

still won a bunch of game of the year awards...

Double standards much?

Dark General4204d ago (Edited 4204d ago )

Seriously. It can easily be summed up like this. You pay for entertainment not how many hours the game will provide. It's more about the experience than it is "bang for your buck".If that was the case they should charge us more for games over 40 hours. If it goes one way it has to go the other as well. As for the fact that you can rent games while that is true you aren't supporting the gaming industry. The money that you use to rent games does not go back to the publishers or developers. That means less funds for them to work with and gives them less incentive to make a sequels for certain games. Like i said elsewhere it's because of stuff like this why so many smaller developers and devs in general are being forced to make half assed multiplayer to go with a single player. Where they could have simply used those funds to perfect the single player experience more.

And as for the lack of replay value i find that to be a invalid claim. If a game is good enough and you liked it you'll WANT to go back and play through certain parts and pick up on subtle things you might have missed. It's much like going to see a movie or buying a dvd if you liked it enough you'll WANT to go back and play it. It's a testament to the quality of game.

MazzingerZ4204d ago (Edited 4204d ago )

I'm buying 7 copies of GoW3, one for each day of the week, why? because I can...but thank you for the advice and caring about my economy slapstic.com but you are missing one small detail:
God Of War 3 wil be EPIC, nothing will dare to release the same week...

well, maybe some DLC for GTAIV or Halo ODST...by the way, DLC should be also be possible to rent if that's the case... at least by buying the retail copy you own it and can resell it or put it in a frame if you want to...but DLC?

I think you should start there Mr. slapstic.com

BattleAxe4204d ago

The arguement that I would make with the article is ......Uncharted: Drakes Fortune. And to a lesser extent The Darkness, Medal of Honor: Airborn and GTA4 because their online modes were not a huge part of these games, but the single player experiences were great.

- Ghost of Sparta -4204d ago (Edited 4204d ago )

I love how these small websites think their opinions are worth making a story out of. SlapStic sucks and so do their writers. They couldn't write a decent article even if their lives depended on it.

Genesis54204d ago

I play and collect games. Not rental receipts.

morganfell4204d ago

Parapraxis, let it go. This guy is missing the point that great games are not rentals. They are keepers. Bioshock is certainly worth 59$. Uncharted, a good point with Oblivion, The Witcher (70+ hour game with 5 distinct endings), System Shock 2 (a game that currently costs more than $59 and worth every penny) the list is endless.

Many titles are better for the devs NOT attempting to throw in some lackluster multiplayer that would have only cost valuable single player development hours.

This writer(?) doesn't understand that the value in a game isn't based on a checklist of features but rather such worth is determined by the gamer experience.

RKRigney4204d ago

You're seriously missing the point. I never said anything about the quality of games that only have single player (or, as I continue in the article, games that have bad multiplayer or just mediocre replay value). I JUST said that it's a more wallet-friendly idea to rent these games instead of buying. Admittedly, games like Fallout 3 have awesome replay value, but I do mention in the article that games with high replay value don't fall into the "rent" category. Chill out.

Montreafart4204d ago

He would not buy GoW3 for 60 bucks.

But in the meantime, he would buy Ninja Blade for the 360. Bioshock, Banjo, Ninja Gaiden 2, Alan Wake, Splinter Cell.

All games with single player modes only.

BkaY4204d ago

to have coop in every game...

it depends on the game .... a good is a good game .... it doesnt need coop or single player mode all the time....

my all time fav online game is "warhawk"... which didnt hav single player.. and im happy with tht...

and god of war , uncharted and yes heavenly sword are in my top 10... which didnt have online or coop...

im an old school gamer.... started from atari..... and sometimes i feel that games industry is not all about games anymore...(its hard to explain)... fanboyism is the worst thing happen to the gaming industry .

peace

Cheeseknight284204d ago

Another idiot that didn't even read the article. He said he rented Bioshock, even his comment above suggests that.

Oh, and Banjo isn't single player only.

shadow27974204d ago

You guys are GAMERS, of course you feel that way. But that does not mean that most people that play videogames feel that way or that it's stupid to feel that way. I'm sorry you are all up in arms about him stating his opinion, especially when it's a fairly valid one.

Most people don't play single player games more than once. Most people aren't Achievement/Trophy whores. Most people rent.

And so do I. Bite me. Videogames are expensive, an argument can be made that paying $60 for any of them isn't worth it, especially the ones that'll get one or two play-throughs. If you choose to pay full retail for your games to support the developers or however you rationalize it - fine. But don't hate on the people who enjoy the same game for a fraction of the price (the ones that do it legally, anyway).

To be clear, I have bought my fair share of single player games. But it takes a lot less coaxing for me to drop $60 on a game with multiplayer. Which is something developers should keep in mind.

season0074204d ago

both quality and quantity are important...

there are many more things that costs less and you get to spend more time on it...and other things that costs more and you just get to spend maybe 15minutes on it...

see maybe blowjob should only costs a quarter in this guy's mind since the experience probably won't last more than 30minutes

phosphor1124204d ago

"First off, this "article" was debunked by the author by the whole Bioshock statement. Why is it worth $60 when no single player game is worth $60? Bioshock isn't the only good single player game ever.

Secondly, the point of Brother's in Arms had no purpose to support the author's point either. The multiplayer wasn't good enough in Hell's Highway, and then the next paragraph talked about God of War 3 needs some incentive for replay value (hinting towards multiplayer). Then what was the point of bring up Hell's Highway? If multiplayer is bad in a single player based game, then why even have it?

Thirdly, this "article" doesn't prove anything against buying single player games, or any games at all. This article is a big advertisement for rental services. Why buy any game at all when you can rent? Well let's see... why should all my money go towards people who lend out games, when it should rightfully go towards publishers and developers so they can make MORE games? The argument this author is conveying is that rental services are more affordable than purchasing any game.

This article is crap and completely one-sided. In a nut shell, the message is "Only rent games unless it's Halo 3" "

BiG_LU4204d ago

HATERS all over and back again LOL, if u never play God Of War u should be quiet or get another game cuz this one is worth the money and more

JasonXE4204d ago

How about not paying full price for games that are not worth the price tag.

SL1M DADDY4204d ago

Sorry, but as an old school gamer I come from a generation where all there was were single player games. It wasn't until the fighter genre that I got to actually play against somebody in a game other than pong. Playing online is ok but I will gladly fork out 60 bucks for a great game regardless if it has online or not. To this day I have played Uncharted 7 times and that alone makes the 60 bucks I spent on the game well worth it.

Mikerra174203d ago

the way i look at it is, if we payed $50 for ps2 and ps1 games that most of the time had no online, I dont see why this needs to change

Ahmay4203d ago (Edited 4203d ago )

that was how i felt... being able to beat the game in a day or two was not worth the money.

that's why i only rented god of war 1 and 2. imo great games but no replay value. but that was last gen. now we have scoreboards, leaderboards, and "TROPHIES". Now, there IS replay value for me. trophies for mgs 4 please! the games should be worth the 50 60 bucks..

i hope they don't try to implement online gameplay for every single game out there. some are not needed.

Homicide4203d ago

Ryan makes a good point. I would never buy Heavenly Sword at full price. I beat it in 4 hours and never played it again. It would be a huge waste of money buying it.

Dandiego4203d ago

I buy every AAA title but that is a valid point... not every gamer is a hardcore must buy everything player... there are people that don't have alot of money that will rent. On the other hand those people probably don't play online anyways since you have to pay for internet connection. One thing is for sure those gamers are not on N4G

thesummerofgeorge4203d ago

Who is he to decide what aspect of a game makes it worth paying for? I would rather a great single player experience than online play, it's the heart of the game. And suggesting renting it is crap, I want to support my favorite titles so they can continue to make these games.

Viper74203d ago

There are gamers who hate multiplayer games, and rather focus on single player game. For these gamers its the completely oposite.

nisamun4203d ago

I think saying that renting a game doesn't contribute to devs is completely wrong. This may have changed over the years but when I worked at Blockbuster they didn't pay $60 or $15-$20 respectively for games and movies. They paid well over market value because it is designated as a rental copy, and there are licensing fees/kickbacks attached to every copy of said game/movie.

Do you think publishers and studios would even allow rentals of essential their property if it wasn't a lucrative business for them? While renting might be cheaper for the consumer, everybody still makes their money. Plus renting is a pain, I've never gotten a game from Gamefly on release week.

Dark General4203d ago

I think we need someone who can maybe speak more about how the rentals work in detail who works currently (or recently) at a retailer that allowed people to rent games. Because i know at my blockbuster you can rent or buy games and they are pretty much the same games. Just one in shrink wrap.

+ Show (32) more repliesLast reply 4203d ago
DragonWarrior465344204d ago

I agree and disagree. I agree that single player games shouldn't have as high as a price tag as an awesome multiplayer game. However, thats only the case IF the single player experience isn't justified. God of War 3 will be more then worth the $65 dollar price tag because its gonna be freaking Epic. Ignorance is bliss.

RKRigney4204d ago

yeah I'm sure that God of War 3 will be worth full price, but for many people, a cheap rental will just make more sense.

Parapraxis4204d ago

So then you disagree with your title and overall statement of your own article?

CoxMulder4203d ago

Ryan Rigney doesn't want anybody to buy GOW3 for some reason..

Somehow GOW3 isn't worth the money L4D or Halo 3 is, since it took the developers nowhere near the dedication, work & effort it took to develop L4D ..oh wait!

Also GOW3 has no replay value because there are no multiple difficulties, unlockable/upgradeable weapons/abilities ..oh wait

Ryan also knows how long GOW3 is gonna be & if there are special reasons for replaying it, because he played the full game or atleast a review copy and isn't just talking out of his ass.. ...OH WAIT!!

This SlapStic.com site is really starting to become ,well, slapstic..

PirateThom4204d ago

I'd rather pay the same amount of money for a good length single player, than a game with short single player and very full multiplayer.

Then again, I'm pretty old and set in my ways.

xaviertooth4204d ago

the name GOD OF WAR alone justifies $60!!

DNAgent4204d ago

I would've agreed if it wasn't for that lame PSP version. The first 2 games on PS2 were good but the PSP game they put out was horrible. I'm just glad God of War 3 will be on PS3.

Danja4204d ago

Lame PSP version ?? I know your not talking about GOW : Chains of Olympus ??

That game was freaking amazing one of the best PSP games I ever played , im guessing you never really played it though because your the first person I have ever heard who didn't like that game.

360community59_954204d ago

That game was frigin awesome, have you even played God of War on the psp?

Mikerra174203d ago

I look at all of this is, if I payed $50 for previous console games that had no online I dont see why this should any different

taco_tom2374203d ago

god of war was the best game i played for the psp although i beat in under 3 hours but it was still epic

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4203d ago
gambare4204d ago

"Why pay $60 for God of War 3 when you can rent it and beat it in a week for $5? "

because there are games that are classics and even if you beat them in a few hours you want to play them again and again, just like uncharted or dead space, I already beat them on the highest difficulty level and unlock everything but the games are so good that I always want to play them again and again.