Support NeoGAF

Pillville · Oct 31, 2014

Me and a lot of other people I know don't care for MP. We don't want to have the same "virtual paintball" game over and over again with real people.

So, when a game like Titanfall comes out, and the graphics, controls, world, etc... all look great, we'd like to have a SP portion to play alone.

I'm not saying MP only games shouldn't exist. I'm just saying I don't buy them.

digita1alchemy · Oct 31, 2014

Why do so many single-player focused games need tacked-on multiplayer that's dead a month after the game releases? Gotta tick those boxes.

Percy · Oct 31, 2014

Better multiplayer games than Titanfall have managed to include a single player component when they charge you full retail, so if Titanfall is going to not match the value proposition of it's peers, it better have a good reason for doing so... like, say... providing the most robust online multiplayer component it's possible to provide if that is literally all there is going to be to the game and it's still full retail priced.

As we saw though... it did no such thing.

If you want to charge the whole pie for a game, it sure as shit better have all the fillings.

Mesoian · Oct 31, 2014

Silky said:
Explain.

3 COD style multiplayer shooters come out around black friday almost every year. The multiplayer structure is basically the same with small differences between them. How does one stand out above the other two when the core of the game is basically the same? A decent single player campaign is a good way to do it.

Conversely, 3 3rd person shooter/traversal games are released in the spring. What's the best way to make your product stand out above the other two? A good multiplayer component MIGHT be a good way to do it.

Or make your multiplayer narrative campaign more than just a different deathmatch playlist.

Because I'll tell you right now, I didn't play a second of the multiplayer in Uncharted 2, but I found the multiplayer in Tomb Raider to be kind of fun, as a distraction. And Unreal Championship 2 had a GREAT single player mode, even though it was just a bunch of bot deathmatches.

MaschinenZimmer · Oct 31, 2014

The main problem I see with MP-only games is that your experience is highly depended on other players. Which means that your 60-70 dollar product could be worthless after a month or so when everyone and their grandparents go back to MOBA and COD.

I play games from the 90s just fine but people are already complaining here about having problems to find other players in Titanfall. And that game was supposed to be the next COD killer...

Most people don't play games hardcore for a couple of days or weeks and than buy the next and then the next and then the next etc. The majority of gamers are buying less than a dozen games during one console generation. Which means they are probably playing those games on and off during a large time span. If you are not able to do that after a couple of months past, then you want to have at least a SP game that you can enjoy. If your game don't provide that, many will feel ripped off.

So, in the end, it is a matter of price. If you want to charge the big dollars you need to go the COD way and provide a campaign and an offline skirmish mode.

Orayn · Oct 31, 2014

digita1alchemy said:
Why do so many single-player focused games need tacked-on multiplayer that's dead a month after the game releases? Gotta tick those boxes.

But why is it a bad thing unless it's confirmed that a large amount of development resources were diverted to it? Games widely considered SP classics like Doom, Baldur's Gate, and Deus Ex all had "tacked on MP," but there's no real harm done by having it included.

Flame Lord · Oct 31, 2014

I don't think it does. I don't know why people want some shitty campaign thrown in so that they can feel they got their money's worth. A good example is fucking Battlefield 3 and 4. I would totally prefer them to dump the campaign and just work on putting as many maps, vehicles and weapons in the game than messing with a campaign that's just going to end up being mediocre or worst.

Bolts-n-Rays1109 · Oct 31, 2014

silvermember said:
MP only games are a recent trend versus SP only thing. Most MP games are not worth 60 Dollars while the majority of single players games are worth $60.

Obviously they are exception but as a generally rule most MP only games are not worth 60 dollars. Actually very few if ANY are worth 60 bucks since they rely on servers to function properly, without other players you can't play a MP only game.

So, if I'm understanding the point you're trying to make, MP only games aren't worth $60 because they are a new trend and because of servers? I can give you the servers point, because a MP only game is useless when the servers go down, but I don't agree with because they are new they aren't worth the money. Also, I've logged many, many hours into Titanfall and it was extremely, and I mean extremely, rare when the servers were down. That being said, I do think MP only games need to have offline bot lobbies at least for when the servers do go down.

Northeastmonk · Oct 31, 2014

Mesoian said:
3 COD style multiplayer shooters come out around black friday almost every year. The multiplayer structure is basically the same with small differences between them. How does one stand out above the other two when the core of the game is basically the same? A decent single player campaign is a good way to do it.

Conversely, 3 3rd person shooter/traversal games are released in the spring. What's the best way to make your product stand out above the other two? A good multiplayer component MIGHT be a good way to do it.

Or make your multiplayer narrative campaign more than just a different deathmatch playlist.

Because I'll tell you right now, I didn't play a second of the multiplayer in Uncharted 2, but I found the multiplayer in Tomb Raider to be kind of fun, as a distraction. And Unreal Championship 2 had a GREAT single player mode, even though it was just a bunch of bot deathmatches.

The Modern Warfare series was a trilogy. Treyarch did Black Ops real well and then they did the future with BO2. I think what we don't see are the plots. They're a tad short at times and some people feel like they're on the verge of being "Time Crisis", but still. I think it's the same but different CoD, but people aren't looking at the single player concept alone. If you look at MW. Each game told a unique story, but anymore players just buy it for multiplayer. Heck, I wouldn't know the difference if I was like that. With AW coming out there are futuristic weapons, new maps, and a lot of stuff veteran CoD players can point out to be cheap. The controls have stayed the same to be honest. It's not like Halo where they made each game change Master Chief into a new character with moves and abilities (this is in reference to the simple Halo MP). In CoD you're watching fast paced players who throw sh*t to the wind just to play a match. That's multiplayer games for you. Once they have their set pack the game could be grilled and served for dinner.

I find the explosions, gunplay, and the graphics of CoD to be great. I think the series would lose a lot if it lost its campaign. Plus not a lot of us are into getting wiped out by the OP team playing matchmaking with all their gamertag(s) like this: "[ GTRS Gamertag ]" I'd might as well not go into a match with a gamer tag period. I'd rather them just show up as made up names.

Zen_Arcade · Oct 31, 2014

It doesn't. It does however have to have a substantial amount of multiplayer content to justify the price tag. If your $60 multiplayer only game only has the same amount of content in it that every other multiplayer game has, but doesn't have the single player portion to round out the package then I see it as a rip off.

Nome · Oct 31, 2014

MAtgS said:
When it's $60.

Yet when SP games get tacked on multiplayer, people complain.
Tacked on SP is just as bad.

Razzorn34 · Oct 31, 2014

MaschinenZimmer said:
The main problem I see with MP-only games is that your experience is highly depended on other players. Which means that your 60-70 dollar product could be worthless after a month or so when everyone and their grandparents go back to MOBA and COD.

I play games from the 90s just fine but people are already complaining here about having problems to find other players in Titanfall. And that game was supposed to be the next COD killer...

Most people don't play games hardcore for a couple of days or weeks and than buy the next and then the next and then the next etc. The majority of gamers are buying less than a dozen games during one console generation. Which means they are probably playing those games on and off during a large time span. If you are not able to do that after a couple of months past, then you want to have at least a SP game that you can enjoy. If your game don't provide that, many will feel ripped off.

So, in the end, it is a matter of price. If you want to charge the big dollars you need to go the COD way and provide a campaign and an offline skirmish mode.

This. Add in the crazy amount of DLC and Season Pass bullshit, and I can see why no one would ever want to pay $60 for a multiplayer only title.

Pillville · Oct 31, 2014

I would like to some age stats on the opinions here.

I'm guessing old farts, like me, consider SP the important part, and an MP only game to not be worth $60.

While the younger people (25 and under), consider MP more important.

digita1alchemy · Oct 31, 2014

Orayn said:
But why is it a bad thing unless it's confirmed that a large amount of development resources were diverted to it? Games widely considered SP classics like Doom, Baldur's Gate, and Deus Ex all had "tacked on MP," but there's no real harm done by having it included.

I didn't say it was bad (and don't always think it is). Just stating why these kinds of decisions are made these days. Source: I work for a large game company.

KaiserBecks · Oct 31, 2014

Percy said:
Better multiplayer games than Titanfall have managed to include a single player component when they charge you full retail, so if Titanfall is going to not match the value proposition of it's peers, it better have a good reason for doing so... like, say... providing the most robust online multiplayer component it's possible to provide if that is literally all there is going to be to the game and it's still full retail priced.

As we saw though... it did no such thing.

If you want to charge the whole pie for a game, it sure as shit better have all the fillings.

Tifanfall needed more MP content/variety. The game's problems had nothing to do with the lacking single player mode. "Better multiplayer games than Titanfall..." is also quite a stretch.
I can think of a couple of games that are just as good in the MP department, but none of those had a SP worth my time.

TheIdleMiner · Oct 31, 2014

Titanfall as a MP only game for $60 was worth every single penny due to the ludicrous hundreds of hours I've put into playing it. That's how I weighed my purchase.

E92 M3 · Oct 31, 2014

On consoles any multiplayer that isn't COD or Battlefield eventually die. I don't want to link 60 dollars to needing a committed population. Titanfall and Destiny were worth it for me, but in general I don't buy MP only games.

Card Boy · Oct 31, 2014

Single player gives you something to do when the multiplayer is dead. Right now Titanfall is a digital coster to me and I have no further value and cant do anything with the game.

vasametropolis · Oct 31, 2014

The only answer is value. I played Titanfall. Liked it, not worth $60. Arkham Asylum and City, each worth $60. They were better games, had more content, and kept me playing longer.

How much should they charge? Proportional to budget and content. CS GO is fucking amazing, but it's incredibly simple and would not justify $60.

GTA V? That's probably worth at least $80 when you think of it. I would not have scoffed at them if they charged higher.

It's highly subjective. I'd say many people landed where I did with Titanfall though. I'm used to having more plentiful, better multiplayer content in a game that ALSO offers SP.

Polioliolio · Oct 31, 2014

It'd sure be nice to have some extensive single player tutorial or challenge content to get you straight before you get reaped online.

OverturePT · Oct 31, 2014

vasametropolis said:
The only answer is value. I played Titanfall. Liked it, not worth $60. Arkham Asylum and City, each worth $60. They were better games, had more content, and kept me playing longer.

How much should they charge? Proportional to budget and content. CS GO is fucking amazing, but it's incredibly simple and would not justify $60.

GTA V? That's probably worth at least $80 when you think of it. I would not have scoffed at them if they charged higher.

This is it. Nothing else. Value obviously depends on your opinion but it's in my opinion the only factor that matters. It's not a matter of it being single player or multi-player only.

Abounder · Oct 31, 2014

Because it makes for a better trailer, you can sell a game easier with cinematic setpiece moments. Also people want mini-movie experiences from their games ever since the CGI CDROM PlayStation days.

I generally prefer multiplayer specific games because they have the most replay value, and they generally focus more on gameplay vs single player focused titles. When it comes to Titanfall we're still looking at an 8+ game with a sequel to come, and without significant delays IIRC.

Orayn · Oct 31, 2014

digita1alchemy said:
I didn't say it was bad (and don't always think it is). Just stating why these kinds of decisions are made these days. Source: I work for a large game company.

Okay, I was just bringing up some historical examples because I feel they often get glossed over when people bring up MP components in primarily SP games.

Randam · Oct 31, 2014

People want to play a single player with the titan fall gameplay.

lastflowers · Oct 31, 2014

Because people can't handle the fact that they have to play against/with others. That's fine, because not everyone likes MP games. I'd much rather a game like Titanfall have ONLY multiplayer than split dev time working on a story that is garbage. I think Killzone:Shadowfall would have benefited by being a MP only game. The singleplayer is such garbage, that I can't imagine how much better the MP would have turned out had they spent 95% of their efforts on that.

MAtgS · Oct 31, 2014

Nome said:
Yet when SP games get tacked on multiplayer, people complain.
Tacked on SP is just as bad.

I'd take the former over the latter anyday.

SP with tacked on MP=Star Fox 64
MP with tacked on SP=Star Fox Assault

One is the my favorite game of all time. The other was a colossal let-down. Guess whicvh is which?

As for MP-only, especially online only MP, especially online only MP with EA as the publisher...well in 10 years it'll still be possible to play a SP game released today. About how long do ya reckon TF has before EA shuts down the servers? The PC version is already a ghost-town on most match types.

vasametropolis · Oct 31, 2014

Pixel Warrior said:
This is it. Nothing else. Value obviously depends on your opinion but it's in my opinion the only factor that matters. It's not a matter of it being single player or multi-player only.

Value is subjective, but is kind of controlled by the majority in this market. Titanfall for me would have been a $60 value if they were giving away map packs for free. I just don't feel the amount of content justified the price tag.

I don't think it should be a time played argument. People play Tetris endlessly STILL, but that isn't a $100 game. It should have most bearing on content and how much they actually invested in the thing.

I could tell right away when playing Titanfall that it didn't meet my content standard for the price. There's a socially accepted minimum based on prior games we've all played.

Destiny, for example, is objectively a $30-$40 game at best, regardless of how much you like it. It doesn't meet the $60 content standard of today at all. Others before it have done much better for the exact same price.

Silky · Oct 31, 2014

MAtgS said:
I'd take the former over the latter anyday.

SP with tacked on MP=Star Fox 64
MP with tacked on SP=Star Fox Assault

One is the my favorite game of all time. The other was a colossal let-down. Guess whicvh is which?

As for MP-only, especially online only MP, especially online only MP with EA as the publisher...well in 10 years it'll still be possible to play a SP game released today. About how long do ya reckon TF has before EA shuts down the servers? The PC version is already a ghost-town on most match types.

Microsoft runs the servers (Azure) for Titanfall.

ebullientprism · Oct 31, 2014

It doesnt.

If Dice's time wasnt wasted with that bullshit SP campaign that maybe 0.001% of the players actually played and liked they probably wouldnt have put out such a broken ass game.

Rembrandt · Oct 31, 2014

MAtgS said:
When it's $60.

I've gotten more enjoyment/time out of Titanfall for $60 than I have out of some $60 only single player games, so no.

was L4D2 $60 last gen? If so, I got more enjoyment out of that, too

Northeastmonk · Oct 31, 2014

ebullientprism said:
It doesnt.

If Dice's time wasnt wasted with that bullshit SP campaign that maybe 0.001% of the players actually played and liked they probably wouldnt have put out such a broken ass game.

I love single player games and I didn't even get past 5 minutes of BF4's single player campaign. That and they have that lousy browser as their menus.

Experien · Oct 31, 2014

My problem with multiplayer only games is not just the $60. I have no problem if it was multiplayer only for $60 but had that much content. It seems that most multi-only games this gen are coming out at that price only have as much content as a single player AND multiplayer game and not a multiplayer only game.

Evolve seems like a cool multiplayer mode to a single player game...but there is nothing else with it as of now.

Lactose_Intolerant · Oct 31, 2014

BananasWithGuns said:
Doesn't really apply unless you also consider $60 overpriced for a game that only has single player.

if the game lasts like 4 hours, then yes, it is overpriced.

if it has some sort of skill based competition mode in it that I will play for hours on end then I will gladly pay $60 for it.

Northeastmonk · Oct 31, 2014

Experien said:
My problem with multiplayer only games is not just the $60. I have no problem if it was multiplayer only for $60 but had that much content. It seems that most multi-only games this gen are coming out at that price only have as much content as a single player AND multiplayer game and not a multiplayer only game.

Evolve seems like a cool multiplayer mode to a single player game...but there is nothing else with it as of now.

I bought Evolve already and I think it looks great. However I see two creatures and I've only made out a few different maps. I feel like it's going to be as fun as its popularity is. I could be wrong. I just hope it has amazing bots.

Vio-Lence · Oct 31, 2014

So why are 6-8 hour single player games worthy of 60 usd? Multiplayer component typically has way more replay value vs campaign or sp.

SmoothRunningGun · Oct 31, 2014

MAtgS said:
When it's $60.

You won the thread.

MaschinenZimmer · Oct 31, 2014

Silky said:
Microsoft runs the servers (Azure) for Titanfall.

Ever heard of Games for Windows - Live?

Kill3r7 · Oct 31, 2014

It shouldn't but the numbers seem to indicate otherwise.

Titanfall is my second most played game this year behind Destiny. Neither one of these two games had an adequate campaign. Their campaigns pail in comparison to Wolfenstein, Tomb Raider DE, Infamous, Bravely Default or Watch Dogs but so what. I would say that I've more than gotten my monies worth based on playtime alone.

Corine · Oct 31, 2014

It doesn't as far as I'm concerned. Short linear single player games need online way more for the $60 price. I'd never pay that price for a 8-12 hour campaign when I could buy an online game for that price and get 100s of hours of gameplay.

LaunchpadMcQ · Oct 31, 2014

It doesn't, plain and simple. I haven't played a game that I paid $60 to play multiplayer where I actually completed the single-player because I wanted to since COD4; TLOU doesn't count because the multiplayer was a present surprise. I've purchased several COD iterations, BF3, BF4, Bad Company 2, and several other games for multiplayer. So, quite frankly, it's nonsense.

REV 09 · Oct 31, 2014

I think a sp helps bring context to mp games and helps the player delve into the broader universe of the game. I tend to enjoy mediocre campaigns for what they are even if they're just the side dish. Titanfall definitely needed a campaign.

Shining Sunshine · Oct 31, 2014

Silky said:
And a singleplayer-only game being $60 gets a free pass? Explain to me what makes a SP game get away with being $60 only, but when a MP game does it it's suddenly bad.

a 4-8 hour campaign with nothing else left but a NG+ isn't exactly worth $60 to me.

Because League of Legends is free, DotA 2 is free, Team Fortress 2 is free...

Starting to understand? Titanfall had a nice budget and a long development time. It should have had a singleplayer.

Sentenza · Oct 31, 2014

Well, it doesn't.
A single player campaign tackled in "for the sake of it" in a strongly-multiplayer-focused game is every bit a worthless garbage and a massive waste of development time as it is multiplayer tackled in for the same reason on single player games.

Alchemy · Oct 31, 2014

So the game doesn't become useless when the gaming population moves on to the next big multiplayer game. With a small player base, games like TitanFall are completely worthless now. If I really want I can still play older CoD games.

RedSwirl · Oct 31, 2014

Some people have already said it, but a lot of people are afraid of the idea that when the servers go down, the population disappears, or you don't have an internet connection, your $60 game might become useless. This is a common idea among console gamers because online penetration on consoles has always been significantly lower than for PC gamers.

Also, online just hasn't been a thing on consoles for as long. For a combination of these reasons, a lot of console gamers see singleplayer as the "default" way or mode in which to play a game. It's the mode you can always play as long as you have one player, the game, and electricity. 20 years later I can still play my SNES copy of Super Mario World. Will you still be able to play the Xbox One version of Titanfall 20 years from now? This is why console gamers think AAA singleplayer-only games are worth $60.

Silky said:
LAN, split-screen, bots would be better substitutes.

I agree with this, and I would add horde mode to that. I personally don't think any shooter isn't improved by the addition of horde mode. At the very least it let's you practice the maps and base mechanics of a game in an endlessly replayable setting with its own appealing rules. I just wish more horde modes were practically playable solo.

Silky · Oct 31, 2014

Shining Sunshine said:
Because League of Legends is free, DotA 2 is free, Team Fortress 2 is free...

Starting to understand? Titanfall had a nice budget and a long development time. It should have had a singleplayer.

TF2 was never free all the time. TF2 had a big budget and a long development time. Now TF2 has co-op.

Since when does large budget, long development time automatically mean it should include SP?

Bioshock Infinite had a big budget and a long development time. By this logic, why didn't they have MP like with Bioshock 2--another game with a big budget and a lengthy dev time.

Lingxor · Oct 31, 2014

In Titanfall's case, I hate to see so much cool design and fiction work get underutilized in another endless team vs team shooter.

Thug Waffle · Oct 31, 2014

MAtgS said:
Nope.

yup.

RalchAC · Oct 31, 2014

Silky said:
And a singleplayer-only game being $60 gets a free pass? Explain to me what makes a SP game get away with being $60 only, but when a MP game does it it's suddenly bad.

a 4-8 hour campaign with nothing else left but a NG+ isn't exactly worth $60 to me.

LAN, split-screen, bots would be better substitutes.

My main problem wouldn't be the 60 price tag but the fact that in most cases the game would cost, at least, 90 with the Season Pass. A single player game can be 60 and I would buy it with zero problems. A multiplayer only game with free updates and cosmetic microtransactions too.

A 60 multiplayer only game with a Season Pass must be an awesome value if they want me to bite. Destiny wasn't and that's the reason I'm dropping it even if I like the game.

Shining Sunshine · Oct 31, 2014

Silky said:
TF2 was never free all the time. TF2 had a big budget and a long development time. Now TF2 has co-op.

Since when does large budget, long development time automatically mean it should include SP?

Bioshock Infinite had a big budget and a long development time. By this logic, why didn't they have MP like with Bioshock 2--another game with a big budget and a lengthy dev time.

TF2 is currently free and has been free for 3 years.
3 years ago is not now when F2P games haven't been so prevalent as it is now.

Titanfall is competing with games now, not from 3 years ago.

Support NeoGAF

So why does a multiplayer-only title need a single player component?

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Gold Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Neo Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Gold Member

Member

Member

Gold Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Junior Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Similar threads