Not an option for a licensed game that's a semi-tie-in with one of the biggest movie releases in quite a while.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Please stop removing single player campaigns!
- Thread starter JumpJeff84
- Start date
Not an option for a licensed game that's a semi-tie-in with one of the biggest movie releases in quite a while.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Silent Chief
Member
I look at it the other way. If it's mostly an MP game and it retails for $60, than the campaign isn't probably worth more than $20. By the time the game drop to that, it's an old, dated campaign and it's still not worth the money. So, really, I wouldn't buy it unless the reviews are clear that the MP is garbage.
LordOfChaos
Member
If there can be SP only, there can be MP only. I never play MP for long, but some people sink hundreds of hours into MP for games and zero into the SP, so for them a 60 dollar game would be worth it for hundreds of hours gotten out of it.
paperspace
Member
Yeah, why did they remove the multiplayer from Fallout 4?
Demoskinos
Member
If Multi-Player isn't your thing thats fine but I think if there is enough content $60 for a multi-player only game is fine in my book.
Richard the Lionheart
Neo Member
Anyone who says the original Battlefront games had a single player campaign is a mythomaniac. Those games simply had bots, and the second game merely had loose narration. Bots are in the current Battlefront and so is the loose Narration in mission mode.
As for the current trend towards multiplayer only games, it's origins are with the explosion of MMOs last decade. World of Warcraft etc were beyond profitable, and it transcended the false stereotype that gaming is an antisocial behavior. Thus, you'll automatically have a greater player base, reach, number of unique users, etc because there is no stigma attached to playing. That continues to be true because people are more inclined to participate in a social activity.
As for the current trend towards multiplayer only games, it's origins are with the explosion of MMOs last decade. World of Warcraft etc were beyond profitable, and it transcended the false stereotype that gaming is an antisocial behavior. Thus, you'll automatically have a greater player base, reach, number of unique users, etc because there is no stigma attached to playing. That continues to be true because people are more inclined to participate in a social activity.
SillyEskimo
Member
I believe the lack of single player really hurts a game in the long haul. Especially when the popularity wears off and you're stuck with a game that's basically useless.
Every multiplayer game should have a bot mode at a bare minimum. A full single player campaign is preferred though, at least for me.
Every multiplayer game should have a bot mode at a bare minimum. A full single player campaign is preferred though, at least for me.
I see the small increase in these multiplayer only games as a symptom of ever-growing development costs. Last gen it still made more financial sense to try to cram both a single player story campaign (maybe with coop) and a competitive multiplayer into a game in hopes of better sales & longer legs since multiplayer shooters & such were all the rage, but the market is kind of saturated with ever-similar multiplayer shooters now & some of the enthusiastic multiplayer crowd has moved to MOBAs & such. And as development costs grow maybe that kind of gargantuan effort of including SP & MP both isn't as good of a tactic anymore and thus some publishers will start "removing" or not including single player in some games that they see as more multiplayer focused affairs.
D
Deleted member 59090
Unconfirmed Member
Are people really that desperate for new games to play that they would change games they're not interested in into something different just to have something to play? I mean it's OK not to buy multiplayer only games for $60 if that's not your thing. If you're only slightly interested you can wait for a price drop (those come exceptionally quick these days) or a goty/definitive edition with everything packed in 6-12 months later.
Kssio_Aug
Member
I prefer a MP game done right, with all resources going to it, rather than having a totally forgetable and "so so" experience for the sake of having a single player campaign.
A game featuring or not SP doesnt necessarily should or should not value 60 dollars. That totally depends on the overall content in the package! If I don't think it's worth 60, than I just won't pay it.
There are A LOT of great single player games out there! I don't need an MP focused game with a bad SP into it to fill my needs! (and neither the opposite)
A game featuring or not SP doesnt necessarily should or should not value 60 dollars. That totally depends on the overall content in the package! If I don't think it's worth 60, than I just won't pay it.
There are A LOT of great single player games out there! I don't need an MP focused game with a bad SP into it to fill my needs! (and neither the opposite)
It's a double standard imho for MP games.
Solid Samus
Banned
if someone is willing to pay more to download a bombastic, totally complete 2 hour movie than they would to download an 8 hour long season of a sitcom, would you somehow consider that a double standard?
Gman_is_watching
Neo Member
My initial thought is, why don't companies go the Splatoon route of periodically releasing free multiplayer content say over 6-12 months and add an awesome single player DLC. I know its going to be because of all the money they make from the multiplayer DLC but damn do i hate having to cough up extra money for online oriented stuff when its predominantly a multiplayer game! If they made a great single player experience I would probably pay for it!
I'm just saying. People say: "Oh does this game have $60 worth of MP content?"
When the reality of MP is to simply have replay value of that content. It may not have 15 hours of straight new content like a SP game may, but rarely do any MP games have 15 hours of new content because it's expected you will be playing it over and over again on the maps given.
So honestly for me, if an MP game has 12 maps and I can get over 10 hours of fun. Then my money was well worth it.
Wasn't a lot of the 'free' Splatoon DLC in the base game just not unlocked yet? Cause it launched very bare bones.
EvilAlPacino
Banned
I totally support games that release MP only. I enjoy it with Titanfall, Battlefront and from the PS3 days, Warhawk. For me, rather have the devs dedicate their resources on the MP since that's where the majority of the buyers are going to play anyways.
Took me almost a year to even touch the single player story in Battlefield 4 and I havent even started the single story mode in Hardline. I would have been just fine if they would have excluded the story mode all together and made it 100% MP only.
What I do get annoyed with are games that are known for their story mode and then they want to implement a MP mode in it, such as Dead Space and Mass Effect. These games do not need any sort of MP mode. The game's story is what sales the game.
As for the price for MP games only, if it's worth it to me, then I dont mind paying the normal full price of a game. If not, then I simply wont buy it. Simple as that.
For the people saying, "see if you say the same thing when they shut down the servers," .....by the time they do shut down their servers, I've already got my $60 worth of game play and enjoyment. So I dont see it as a loss.
Took me almost a year to even touch the single player story in Battlefield 4 and I havent even started the single story mode in Hardline. I would have been just fine if they would have excluded the story mode all together and made it 100% MP only.
What I do get annoyed with are games that are known for their story mode and then they want to implement a MP mode in it, such as Dead Space and Mass Effect. These games do not need any sort of MP mode. The game's story is what sales the game.
As for the price for MP games only, if it's worth it to me, then I dont mind paying the normal full price of a game. If not, then I simply wont buy it. Simple as that.
For the people saying, "see if you say the same thing when they shut down the servers," .....by the time they do shut down their servers, I've already got my $60 worth of game play and enjoyment. So I dont see it as a loss.
People spend 1/4th that price to watch 2 hour movies in theaters..
I think you'll get $60 of value out of a product before it's servers shut down. Value isn't determined by "can I play this in 5 years"
I don't think I'll ever buy another "multiplayer only" game. At least not one that isn't cooperative. Player vs Player is one of my least favorite forms of gaming.
That being said, I think there's a market for multiplayer only titles. I don't think they should be priced at $60, just like I don't think singleplayer only games should be priced at $60, but that's a different conversation.
That being said, I think there's a market for multiplayer only titles. I don't think they should be priced at $60, just like I don't think singleplayer only games should be priced at $60, but that's a different conversation.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Bad Company 1, released in 2008, still has its servers up and a player population. I'm not worried about Battlefront.
Woo-Fu
Banned
The resources that could have been spent on multiplayer were instead devoted to populating the Fallout 4 world with ash trays and coffee cups, money well spent.
If a development team doesn't bother to put a single player campaign into their MP focused game, whatever campaign they could have come up with probably wouldn't have been worthwhile anyway.
I don't know if Video Games have lost anything important with Battlefront and Siege not getting single player campaigns.
I don't know if Video Games have lost anything important with Battlefront and Siege not getting single player campaigns.
Poor resume for campaigns over the years is no excuse.
Multiplayer I agree, as it's a mode that thrives on player numbers, but single player? Nah. I'll take it. I've enjoyed the campaign in every single COD and BF, even when they haven't been amazing. They still offer a decent distraction, set pieces, locales, characters, some sort of narrative, improved visuals etc.
I think these specific cases are frustrating.
Rainbow Six was very much a single player experience. It's been dumbed down over the years, but the idea that all of the SP content would be stripped away seems like madness.
For Battlefront, well, it's one of the best looking, best performing games on consoles and it's Star Wars. You see that and can't help but want something that delves deeper into the world via a single player experience. I mean, it's the best looking Star Wars game ever made so this desire shouldn't be surprising.
Also, the previous Battlefront games had pretty good SP modes/campaigns and bot matches, both are not in DICE's Battlefront. And of course there's the fact that Battlefront (and Republic Commando) are the only Star Wars action games where you're not forced into the shoes of a Jedi and are just a random soldier, that's a huge selling point for some people (like me).
Gemüsepizza
Member
Just saw this video on reddit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_boXq0OWzg
I think he makes some good points. I wonder how popular CoD would be today if they hadn't included SP campaigns, if there never had been a Captain Price from MW1 or a Ghost from MW2. Or Rainbow Six without a Ding Chavez. Those are memorable things people will still remember and talk about in years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_boXq0OWzg
I think he makes some good points. I wonder how popular CoD would be today if they hadn't included SP campaigns, if there never had been a Captain Price from MW1 or a Ghost from MW2. Or Rainbow Six without a Ding Chavez. Those are memorable things people will still remember and talk about in years.
Similar threads
- Poll