Support NeoGAF

[7DollarHagane]

This attitude came around with Titan fall, battlefront, evolve, battle born, halo 5, street fighter 5, and now Overwatch.

The attitude that content is king and if a game falls short in that way, any other successes or any of its own goals that it met are secondary and the game fails as a whole.

I think the people who take this attitude are wrong and are doing harm to good developers attempting to put good products out in most cases.

None of the games listed above were cheap to make or cheaper than what those teams made 7 years ago.

None of them were able to reuse content in any meaningfully budget cutting way.

And none of those games lied ahead of launch about what content was in their game. On launch day potential buyers could be informed about what the game was.

Taking this attitude that Overwatch isnt worth money because it doesn't have single player or Titan fall isn't worth it because it doesn't have campaign or halo 5 isn't worth it because it's missing some mode that was in halo 3 8 years ago is doing a lot of harm to titles that are really well made and worthwhile purchases.

Now there's the case of evolve, which had numerous other issues around dlc and game balance, and I fault no one for skipping that one. (I never bought it) and of course people can skip a game for whatever reason they want. It's this wave of outrage and snark that certain games get because a certain group thinks they are low on "content" and the people buying them are somehow eroding the value of games and they're just dumb sheep paying $60 for a multiplayer or online game.

I think it's much worse to expect every game to spend another 7 or 10 million to develop a halfway decent campaign or Co op or cobble together something from multiplayer assets.

I just think that this "content concern" attitude needs to be dialed back and let's focus on quality of game play and how much fun is the game. It's a very old way of looking at games to me or a childish way. I remember being a 13 year old looking for Playstation rpgs that were 50 hours and being so impressed by that. But thats no what every game can or should do anymore.

 

[Faustek]

That isn't really the problem, for me. The problem still remains with who holds the absolute power over when I can play some of those games.
It isn't me.

 

[watershed]

If people refuse to buy a game because they don't like what's in the package or don't want to support paying a premium for something that doesn't deliver on their wants, that's their choice. I don't think it's dangerous for consumers to speak with their wallets.

 

[JDB]

Almost all of your examples are single player gamers that are just mad someone dared to make a game not catered to them.

 

[texhnolyze]

Good thread. After Overwatch and its general receptions, I had exactly the same idea and about to make the same thread these days.

Also, I've read this kind of comment several times already. "Multiplayer only games are lacking in content because they don't have story mode." What, how about single player only games?

 

[KevinCow]

I can't speak for anyone else, but an online multiplayer only game is completely worthless to me because I don't like online multiplayer games. This goes doubly so for online multiplayer games on the PS4, because I couldn't play online even if I wanted to since I don't pay for the ripoff that is PS+.

But I will defend my criticisms of Street Fighter V's dearth of content to the death. It's not exactly a series that's known for its outstanding single player content, but there has always been a handful of single player modes available. SFV lacked every single one of those modes, yet still had the gall to charge the same price. It deserved every ounce of criticism it got.

 

[RexNovis]

AMEN! It is not about the quantity of content it is about the quality and depth of content. Especially in the current world of constant rehashes and content recycling. Increasing the number of times somebody has to forage food or climb towers doesnt make foraging for food or climbing towers a compelling gameplay element. More does not automatically mean better and the people arguing otherwise baffle me.

 

[PantsuJo]

OP, wtf. What is your problem, seriously.
Enjoy your games with millions of overpriced DLC and removed single player modes.

 

[IvanJ]

I don't see it as a problem.
That attitude usually comes from people with no interest in a particular game, but plenty of spare time for concern and outrage on internet forums.

 

[zoukka]

I agree. Massive content was great when I was 13 and all the time in the world to indulge in the fetch quests and filler missions.

Now I want to access the core gameplay as soon as possible and without any filler.

 

[redcrayon]

Almost all of your examples are single player gamers that are just mad someone dared to make a game not catered to them.

The attitude of 'more content = better game' affects developers of single-player games too, when they end up bloated with endless unnecessary filler, mechanics (like crafting or xp) and fetch quests to pad a game out or slow progress down.

 

[KevinCow]

AMEN! It is not about the quantity of content it is about the quality and depth of content. Especially in the current world of constant rehashes and content recycling. Increasing the number of times somebody has to forage food or climb towers doesnt make foraging for food or climbing towers a compelling gameplay element. More does not automatically mean better and the people arguing otherwise baffle me.

I feel like there's a middle ground between "Lacks basic features and is pretty much just a coaster if your internet goes down" and "Forces you to do repetitive, tedious tasks over and over again just so they can say the game is longer."

 

[Blizzard]

I feel like there's a middle ground between "Lacks basic features and is pretty much just a coaster if your internet goes down" and "Forces you to do repetitive, tedious tasks over and over again just so they can say the game is longer."

Yep, I agree with this.

I don't think more content makes a game BETTER necessarily. The content can be filler, poor quality, etc.

However, lack of content can make a game worse.

 

[JumPeRJumPzZ]

Agree what you OP.
But i have to disagree on that with Halo 5. Halo 5 is a successor, not a Reboot or new IP.

With a successor i expect content etc that was available in the last couple of games and not stripped away for no reason.

Next best example will be Gears 4. If there is no Horde Mode, people will be pissed.

 

[choodi]

No one goes into a movie saying, 'this better be three and a half hours long or I want my money back', so why do we expect that with our games?

I understand the need for value for money, but developers need to find a better way to provide it than by pushing out the content with sub-par filler.

JRPGs and their fans are probably most guilty of this.

 

[george_us]

I agree. Massive content was great when I was 13 and all the time in the world to indulge in the fetch quests and filler missions.

Now I want to access the core gameplay as soon as possible and without any filler.

Word. Nowadays when I hear an RPG is 30 hours or less my reaction is, "Thank God" instead of "Too short!"

 

[slick7rick]

No one goes into a movie saying, 'this better be three and a half hours long or I want my money back', so why do we expect that with our games?

I understand the need for value for money, but developers need to find a better way to provide it than by pushing out the content with sub-par filler.

JRPGs and their fans are probably most guilty of this.

I'd say it compares more to not buying a Blu-ray if the disc doesn't have deleted scenes or commentary or something. But I still get what you mean.

I never play online, but I love a good single player campaign so even though I'm very interested in games like Star Wars Battlefront and Overwatch, I have no reason to play them.

 

[the_sun_king]

JRPGs and their fans are probably most guilty of this.

Wat. Let's not generalize an entire genre of game

Spoiler

(I still hate the label "JRPG")

and their fans, please.

 

[Eumi]

Hooray, more people telling me my reasons for not liking something are wrong and bad.

Look, the exact same thing can be said of the opposite, that if people care too much about quality it'll be dangerous, that it could lead to people paying tons of money for barely anything in return.

I'm happy that so many of you can apparently afford to buy a game that isn't going to last you very long, but for a lot of people video games are a big investment. If someone struggles to afford a single $60 dollar game, I'm not sure telling them that complaining about not getting their money's worth is dangerous and bad is exactly fair.

 

[sbkodama]

Depend of the game, less content means better game is dangerous too.

 

[Otakumegane]

Awesome per second.

Now where's that video....

Here.

Lots of barebones content Xenoblade X, MMORPGs, Battle Network 4, Windwaker etc. Does not make a better game. Do people criticize the fact that Pokemon games take less time to prepare a competitive worthy team now?

 

[SwolBro]

i've been going nuts when i see this narrative for some time now. i can't stand it. It actually started with me around the time the ShadowRun (360) FPS came out. It had the best most balanced gameplay out of any shooter in so long. It was way ahead of it's time with the different types of abilities, and the fact that it was cross play with PC.

yet? it died because of this "lack of content" crap. Seriously, i hope this goes away soon. A game can lack content at launch, but if the gameplay is amazing, let it have it's time to gain more content.

Titanfall has amazing gameplay, and after launch it got enough content for people to justify the price but no, the push for it's downfall started immediately. So damn annoying.

 

[Breads]

Overwatch not having a single player campaign is such a missed & wasted opportunity.

Why does Overwatch get a pass?

SFV vs Overwatch

And now this.

I wonder how many permutations of the same topic we're going to have.

Personally think the conversation is kind of odd. Mobas and team shooters have always had the capacity to doing incredibly well if the quality is in the right places despite not having single player campaigns or a multitude of maps/ game modes and it seems like the people crying foul are either people who aren't in these game's demographic or people coming into this thinking it was something other than what it is.

I hope devs recognize naysayers as a vocal minority and don't make the mistake other devs have by diverting resources and attention away from the core experience that matters to the people who would support these games the most.

 

[The Lone Courier]

You better charge less than $60 if you want me to play your barebones game.

 

[zoukka]

Depend of the game, less content means better game is dangerous too.

But nobody is saying that. More content doesn't mean a game is better does not mean that less content makes a game better.

 

[Lionel Richie]

This attitude is a response to living in the days of DLC and season passes.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

The price vs content tho.

 

[SwolBro]

You better charge less than $60 if you want me to play your barebones game.

shouldn't you base the value your willing to pay for something by how fun it is to play? and how much you're going to actually play it?

you only play games if it has a ton of stuff to obtain? i don't get it, i really do not.

 

[Zombie James]

When every game is $60 regardless of budget and what's on the disc, content comparisons and noticing what's missing will happen and I think it's fair. I don't think more content equals a better game by default, but we can't keep accepting less content for the same money with a smile.

 

[KevinCow]

No one goes into a movie saying, 'this better be three and a half hours long or I want my money back', so why do we expect that with our games?

Sure. But if someone paid a full $10-15 for a movie that turned out to only be 20 minutes long, they'd probably be more than a little upset.

It's about balance. Yes, the people who demand that every game provide 100+ hours of entertainment are ridiculous, but no more so than the people saying that it's perfectly acceptable for a game to lack the absolute bare minimum of game modes and still charge full price.

 

[Dark Ninja]

In my opinion its similar to 2D games aren't worth full price mentality

 

[JustSomeone]

I feel like there's a middle ground between "Lacks basic features and is pretty much just a coaster if your internet goes down" and "Forces you to do repetitive, tedious tasks over and over again just so they can say the game is longer."

A middle ground which OW reached

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I think with sequels especially you can make reasonable assumptions on what to expect based on predecessors. When a sequel fails to have as much content as its predecessors people get pissed off, and I understand that.

However, I'm often a fan of shorter games myself these days - with a pregnant wife and two kids I only have a little time for gaming very late at night, and I'm happy playing something with a seven hour campaign. I really appreciate longer campaigns if the pacing is good, or ones that have lots of extra content, but typically I'll play through once and I'm done with it. I rarely play multiplayer, so that's not really a concern for me (although despite that I'm considering buying Overwatch as the beta was tons of fun).

 

[packy34]

shouldn't you base the value your willing to pay for something by how fun it is to play? and how much you're going to actually play it?

you only play games if it has a ton of stuff to obtain? i don't get it, i really do not.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Value for me is about time spent per dollar. If I'm still playing Overwatch next year - which, right now, seems like what's going to happen - then I've gotten more value from it than a lot of other games I've paid for. I don't understand the need for endless content. The gameplay loop is what matters.

 

[UnluckyKate]

Awesome per second.

Now where's that video....

Here.

Lots of barebones content Xenoblade X, MMORPGs, Battle Network 4, Windwaker etc. Does not make a better game. Do people criticize the fact that Pokemon games take less time to prepare a competitive worthy team now?

amazing channel.

Subscribed.

 

[SwolBro]

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Value for me is about time spent per dollar. If I'm still playing Overwatch next year - which, right now, seems like what's going to happen - then I've gotten more value from it than a lot of other games I've paid for. I don't understand the need for endless content. The gameplay loop is what matters.

Somewhere a long the lines people forgot this. i don't know why, or how it happened, but it happened and it's annoying as hell.

 

[Nabbis]

Real talk. Their quality is not enough to offset the small size, otherwise no one would care.

 

[slick7rick]

amazing channel.

Subscribed.

https://youtu.be/zpp6spOs2EU
From the same channel, similar topic.

 

[ReverendLovejoy]

I don't see how it does harm to the games. At the same time I find it equally nonsensical to "protect" those games by saying they are great the way they are!?
It seems like some people really take offense when others point out that a game fell short in a certain aspect and I don't think that that's a healthy reaction since it's kind of not debatable. If I feel like Overwatch with a single-player campaign would be a better game then that is a valid position to take no?
Discussing it is okay of course but why let it become such an emotional debate?

 

[Mokujin]

I'm not going to talk about the rest of the games but Street Fighter V was a half finished game on release. Full stop.

If they wanted to rush out a hardcore players only version they could have handled it in much better ways.

 

[OnimaruXLR]

I've played 60 dollars for 6 hour games that I've come away from feeling super satisfied from, so I definitely think the dollar cost=length equation is fallacy.

Meanwhile there are games that are chock full of things to see and stuff to do and I don't give a shit because they are boring and terrible.

I do think that charging full retail for multiplayer only games is shenanigans, though. That might be ironic considering that you generally sink more time into multiplayer centric games, but from where I stand there's too much unpredictability in the experience (i.e. am I going to play with cool people or am I stuck with internet shitheels?) whereas if I'm doing a single player gig I don't have to worry about that

That's why if I do get Overwatch, I'll be getting it on PC, and also why I haven't bought SFV yet.

 

[SwolBro]

https://youtu.be/zpp6spOs2EU
From the same channel, similar topic.

this needs to be drilled into some people

 

[Romars202129]

Here here OP.

Real talk. Their quality is not enough to offset the small size, otherwise no one would care.

Real talk, where's your example to prove that? Where's the low content game nobody complained about?

 

[Zemm]

I agree but I think the weirdest ones are the 'what happens in 150 years when the servers go down!? No buy' reasons.

 

[RPGam3r]

I may have purchased Titanfall, Evolve, SFV, Battlefront if those games had more content, or in other words gave a shit about single player content.

I'm not "wrong" for wanting content I'll actually play.

 

[SMattera]

Hooray, more people telling me my reasons for not liking something are wrong and bad.

Look, the exact same thing can be said of the opposite, that if people care too much about quality it'll be dangerous, that it could lead to people paying tons of money for barely anything in return.

I'm happy that so many of you can apparently afford to buy a game that isn't going to last you very long, but for a lot of people video games are a big investment. If someone struggles to afford a single $60 dollar game, I'm not sure telling them that complaining about not getting their money's worth is dangerous and bad is exactly fair.

The amount of content =/= how long the game will last you.

Between beta and retail, I think I've put about 25 hours into Overwatch. Every match still seems fresh and new, and I can easily imagine investing hundreds of hours into the game over the next five years. I know plenty of people that invested literally thousands and thousands of hours into DOTA. I know it has dozens and dozens of characters and items, but the total amount of content, relatively speaking, is not much.

Compare that to the average single player game, which you can usually finish in 10-20 hours and then you'll probably never replay.

If it's well-made and you enjoy it, online-only multiplayer games offer some of the best value for the money. By far.

 

[Nabbis]

Here here OP.



Real talk, where's your example to prove that? Where's the low content game nobody complained about?

A good game will satisfy with the level of content it provides, if it can't then it's simply not designed properly. Common sense.

 

[IvanJ]

I agree but I think the weirdest ones are the 'what happens in 150 years when the servers go down!? No buy' reasons.

That one is my all-time favorite concern.
"If it had offline bots, I would have been able to play this game in 2028"

 

[Unknown Soldier]

DOOM is proof that a moderate amount of GOOD content outweighs a ton of BAD content like say Fallout 4.

 

[veloxStrix]

I honestly think that whole mentality is just a hangover from a period where Call of Duty dominated the market. We'll get out of it, and it doesn't seem like it's anything more than a vocal minority of people complaining. Battlefront's sales certainly didn't suffer much from the warnings given before it released.