Support NeoGAF

[fresquito]

Good OP.

I've gotten 300+ hours out of Street Fighter V. I'm going to get hundreds more.

Some of us are more interested in playing games than consuming content.

Bingo.

The thing I hate most about the SFV drama is that all the focus was put on how the game doesn't have enough content for those that don't actually care about the game, so Capcom now is hard at work trying to provide content for those, instead of fixing any of the real problems the game has (BL, MM, Ranked, RQ, input lag, technical issues on PC, joystick support...).

On topic: Do you imagine people saying The Metamorphosis by Kafka is not worth it because it had fewer pages than other books?

 

[Gravy Boat]

Online multiplayer game mode should always be a bonus or separate thing , not the main focus of a game IMHO.

I would like to be able to play the game when the servers stop working/the community has moved on and there's no one to play with.

It's not a matter of the amount of content , it's how willing are you to spend 70€ for an ephemeral experience.

Do you still play every single player game you've ever bought? Do you even still own every game you've bought?

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

You can have less content but you can't charge the same price as a game with more content and just as much subjective quality. UC4 is $60. Overwatch is $60 (on consoles). Nope.

If you're happy paying more for less, go for it. It's your money.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

Lots of people think both are GOOD. They're completely different genres with different expectations.

They are both shooters with light RPG elements, though.

You can have less content but you can't charge the same price as a game with more content and just as much subjective quality. UC4 is $60. Overwatch is $60 (on consoles). Nope.

If you're happy paying more for less, go for it. It's your money.

The key is in subjective quality. I don't think Uncharted 4 has enough quality for $60 so I will wait on it. I bought Overwatch, love it and expect to get at least a dozen hours out of it.

 

[RexNovis]

Actually whats dangerous is thinking its not a problem to release games that are short on content for a premium price.

The more people support and buy these games the less content develolers are putting in future releases to save money and sell more dlc.

Certain games should have a healthy singular player campaign and certain games should be priced less than 60 and certain dlc should be in the game not sold separately.

Its like going to mcdonalds and there is one cashier and there are 50 people waiting. If no one complains, mcdonalds wont change, they are saving money

You can have less content but you can't charge the same price as a game with more content and just as much subjective quality. UC4 is $60. Overwatch is $60 (on consoles). Nope.

If you're happy paying more for less, go for it. It's your money.

The focus should be on whether or not the existing content is fun and unique not whether or not it fulfills some arbitrary amount. Let's put it this way:

Let's say we have two people looking for a place to eat. 1 person goes to McDonalds and orders the biggest combo on the menu large size and the works. They promptly receive their mountain of food for a measly $9! Person 2 goes to a mom and pop steakhouse down the road and orders a fresh 4oz sirloin with a potato for $9. Now person 1 technically received more food but person 2s food was of substantially higher quality and as such was not only more delicious but also far more filling. Who got the better deal here the person who got more greasy fatty food or the person who got less higher quality food?

This is exactly the argument people seem incapable of comprehending when it comes to games with lower amounts of content. Just because there is less of it doesn't make it any less (or more) good. The quality is what's important and that's where the focus should be not the total amount. Those that disagree can happily continue eating their premade fatty filler stuffed patties but I'll be over here enjoying my fresh one of a kind house steak.

 

[TeddyShardik]

The focus should be on whether or not the existing content is fun and unique not whether or not it fulfills some arbitrary amount. Let's put it this way:

Let's say we have two people looking for a place to eat. 1 person goes to McDonalds and orders the biggest combo on the menu large size and the works. They promptly receive their mountain of food for a measly $9! Person 2 goes to a mom and pop steakhouse down the road and orders a fresh 4oz sirloin with a potatoe for $11. Now person one trchjnicalky received more food but person 2s food was of substantially higher quality and as such was not only more delicious but also far more filling. Who got the better deal here the person who got more greasy fatty food or the person who got less higher quality food?

This is exactly the argument people seem incapable of comprehending when it comes to games with lower amounts of content. Just because there is less of it doesn't make it any less (or more) good. The quality is what's important and that's where the focus should be not the total amount. Those that disagree can happily continue eating their premade patty filler stuffed patties but I'll be over here enjoying my fresh one of a kind house steak.

Great now you have the vacuum covered. But the grill next door offers you two steaks of the same quality for the same price.

 

[vazel]

I'm ok with games that are low on content but are highly replayable, most of my favorite games from the '90s were like that.

 

[RexNovis]

Great now you have the vacuum covered. But the grill next door offers you two steaks of the same quality for the same price.

Way to completely miss the point of the metaphor.

 

[Klyka]

"Look bro, we have like 2000+ community maps to choose from!!"

"Let's just play de_dust2"

"Yeah, let's do that."

 

[TheYanger]

Less content with Titanfall came about as a justification not to buy it because it wasn't on PS4.

Less content with Overwatch and most any other 'multiplayer only? SCOFF" game is a justification for why someone doesnt' care about multiplayer only games. Reality is, it's perfectly fine for you not to like a multiplayer only game. really. You don't have to try and pretend it 'lacks' content though, implying it's somehow missing something that the game sorely needs to be a good game. It might not have as much as some other game, but if it were a LACK of content it would be notably missing something (like SF5 arcade mode). The reality is, if you think something like OW or Titanfall genuinely lacks content, the genre flat out isn't for you, because for the types of games that those are, the content is completely in line and fine. You don't have to try and lambast it for not being something it isn't, it just means you wish it appealed to you and it doesn't.

 

[TeddyShardik]

Way to completely miss the point of the metaphor.

Well it's only useful if when you say there is only big loads of bad content or small doses of great content. The reality is different though.

Of course more isn't always better. Noone even says that. It's just that more of a thing I love IS always better.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

My biggest problem is the drive-by posts that clog up every MP-focused game thread.

"No SP, no buy."

Thanks for that contribution. We get it, the game isn't marketed towards you. You don't pay for that game to have access to it forever; you're paying for maybe 100 hours of game time with friends online over the next few months. That can be a great bargain on its own merits.

 

[Jack The Nipper]

This is the issue I'm seeing with gt sport . They can't make everything they did before and still get the game out. Things are becoming a lot more detailed and twice the time in some instances, faster in others.


For some games though missing parts is just bad. Halo 5 didn't have very core features and still missing a lot.

Maybe not missing in some ways but replaced. But I would definitely take better btb maps, objective , better maps, team doubles over warzone.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

Content and quality/polish don't have to be mutually exclusive things. A game as package should absolutely get called out and be critisized if it's failing to deliver on either front. Particularly if it's above the budget $20 price tag.

 

[TeddyShardik]

My biggest problem is the drive-by posts that clog up every MP-focused game thread.

"No SP, no buy."

Thanks for that contribution. We get it, the game isn't marketed towards you. You don't pay for that game to have access to it forever; you're paying for maybe 100 hours of game time with friends online over the next few months. That can be a great bargain on its own merits.

These people are just trying to stir shit. No need to take them seriously. If a game is exactly what was promised noone has any right to complain about what it isn't.

 

[cgoodno]

For me, it's not a rule on whether it has enough or not, but on what it has that I want. The games you mention don't have what I want.

But, as far as rating a game, the issue I have is when someone rates one game of its sort based on the amount of content (let's say SFV) but then doesn't do the same for another game (let's say Overwatch). I don't have an issue in expressing one's own desire for what they would want in the game, but it becomes an issue when the review and score is affected by it IMHO (at least be consistent if you do take it into account). Especially knowing that the same reviewer will often turn around and rate a 2-hour experience as a 10/10 solely because it only costs $5.

 

[IvorB]

It's pretty crazy to try and argue that the amount of stuff in the package shouldn't affect the value of it. No matter how much you may like Overwatch or those other games, the fact of the matter is that there are games with robust single player and multiplayer components that ship for the same price as the game with only one of those things. So it's unsurprising that people would question the value of the latter. Such consumer vigilance is in no way a bad thing, especially in an industry like gaming.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Well it's only useful if when you say there is only big loads of bad content or small doses of great content. The reality is different though.

Of course more isn't always better. Noone even says that. It's just that more of a thing I love IS always better.

Even this isn't always true. I love Rocket League but I don't see how it would benefit from a single player campaign. Same with Dota. Some games just don't need it.

It's pretty crazy to try and argue that the amount of stuff in the package shouldn't affect the value of it. No matter how much you may like Overwatch or those other games, the fact of the matter is that there are games with robust single player and multiplayer components that ship for the same price as the game with only one of those things. So it's unsurprising that people would question the value of the latter. Such consumer vigilance is in no way a bad thing, especially in an industry like gaming.

And there are plenty of games that ship with just a single player componenet for the same price. A game just needs to be good, it doesn't need to offer everything. I don't remember seeing anyone complain that The Witcher 3 was bad value because it didn't have multiplayer.

 

[Weiss]

Content is what you make of it.

Dark Souls and Bloodborne needed to be jampacked with stuff to do, because that's how those games were built. Undertale is a 5 hour long straight shot to the ending, and it still manages to do everything it needs to in those five hours.

Conversely, the new Ratchet & Clank is really hit hard by its lack of content, because every other game in the series dwarfs it in size and scope. It just feels like there should be more to do.

 

[TeddyShardik]

Even this isn't always true. I love Rocket League but I don't see how it would benefit from a single player campaign. Same with Dota. Some games just don't need it.

Maybe not a single player campaign, but I sure wouldn't complain about more modes or cars to try. I'm not saying every game needs both multi and single player content, just that a great game with lots of content is always better value than a great game with much less content.

 

[GamerJM]

On one hand I kind of agree, on another hand I totally get the sentiment from individuals with limited spending money and a decent amount of free time. Personally I don't judge games by sheer quantity of content but I think it's fair if others do, it's totally valid if you feel like you're not getting your money's worth if a game has a limited amount of content compared to its brethren in the same genre.

 

[geordiemp]

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.

.

But we never got those full price on line only games not so long ago. Why the change ?

My biggest gripe is that these game mechanics often would be well served with some horde mode Mass Effect style mode. The reason we dont get it as it probably adds 30 % to the dev costs (number from my arse, if you think it adds maybe 5 %, then I dont believe you)

And then their is the plants vs Zombies example.....If this was a benchmark for such shooters nobody would be on the fence.

Not all multiplayer games are fun solo, sometimes the only way to be competitive is you need a co-ordinated team effort.

COD is popular as its the type of fast killing shooter where you can play TDM solo. Overwatch probably is not so much, and there lies the problem.

If you buy a game like overwatch and your mates are not on regularly, then it would be nice to have another mode to play with randoms...But you dont.

The same issue was with Evolve unless you were the monster. Yeah its OK to have co-ordinated multiplayer team based shooter PVP only and full price, but dont expect it to reach the levels of games that offer more.

Edit ; Yes some posters will say but I play solo and I just deal with the frustration...OK, thats cool.

 

[TDLink]

I agree.

Not every game is made for every type of person. Some games being multiplayer only are okay. Just like some games being single player only are okay.

Since Overwatch is the trigger here the biggest thing I'll say is that the level of content is perfectly fine. The game is fine and very replayable. It's extremely easy to rack up hours of game time with the base game maps and characters. The kicker that pushes it even further the edge is that Blizzard has committed to releasing future maps, modes, and heroes for no additional cost provided you paid the $40 or $60 to buy the game in the first place. And seeing how Blizzard has supported several of their other games literally well over a decade after their release, it makes a lot of sense why this is a great value. Extremely fun and addictive gameplay that leads to lots of replay now, with even more content coming later for free. Can't really knock that.

If you want a single player campaign, maybe that will be a separate sort of game in the future, but that isn't this game. And that's okay. It doesn't have to be.

The difference when it comes to, say, something like Star Wars Battlefront is that game had even less than Overwatch at launch, isn't as replayable, forces you to pay $50 if you want the planned additional content, and essentially already has confirmed loss of support within a year and a half due to a sequel.

It's a case by case basis. In Overwatch's case it's fine considering the circumstances. Personally, I do typically spend way more time with multiplayer only or multiplayer focused games than single player only or single player games. Most are going to run you 8-20 hours or so. Some RPGs will be longer than that, maybe up to around 100 depending on the game. Multiplayer focused games like Overwatch you can easily put well over 100 hours in without even noticing.

 

[*Splinter]

What bothers me the most with Overwatch is the whole marketing campaign for it by Blizzard.

The ads etc hype up a huge massive story about heroes an villians, global wars and the team needing to save the world.

Then you get to the actual product and its basically a standard shooter/moba with none of the actual cool shit the marketing hypes.

Kind of silly, maybe you should reconsider the way you interpret/receive marketing?

Characters should have back stories, marketing is going to display those back stories when possible

 

[Gren]

This seems to mainly be a problem with AAA games. When you're fishing for the largest possible audience, you're expected to be casting the widest net. I think it's more realistic for some of these pubs to readjust their game's scope, target audience, product price, etc than to expect the mass market to see some sort of shift in its view of perceived value.

Plenty of Indie & smaller-scale titles do just fine by targeting (and budgeting for) a more specific audience.

 

[Inuhanyou]

"People who would like to see content they want are dangerous!"

I think that attitude is more dangerous than what some people like to see out of their games OP.

People have their own views on gaming based on what their priorities are, what they would like to invest in and where they put their money. And if you don't like that, that's your own problem.

Its also dumb hearing you talk about SF5 and Halo 5, as if having less content than any previous game is somehow acceptable and should be accepted by the community at large just because

 

[IvorB]

And there are plenty of games that ship with just a single player componenet for the same price. A game just needs to be good, it doesn't need to offer everything. I don't remember seeing anyone complain that The Witcher 3 was bad value because it didn't have multiplayer.

Well I guess maybe the perceived value of a robust single-player experience is higher than that of the multiplayer portion. Maybe gamers have been conditioned to expect multiplayer as a value-add rather than the main product itself. Anyway, comparing OP's list to a long form RPG doesn't seem apt. In general shooters tend to come with both portions don't they?

 

[Lemstar]

People aren't very mindful of how wording affects the tone of their posts. (And this isn't even referring to the aforementioned shitposts - I'm not even sure why those are tolerated.)

"Titanfall should have had a campaign" won't be perceived as 'I don't like games that don't have single player, so Titanfall isn't for me and I accept that'; it comes across as "Respawn should have added a singleplayer campaign so that I can deign to give them my $60 for Titanfall". It's really obnoxious to read.


Port begging's banned here, right? Maybe content begging should be, too.

 

[GamerJM]

People aren't very mindful of how wording affects the tone of their posts. (And this isn't even referring to the aforementioned shitposts - I'm not even sure why those are tolerated.)

"Titanfall should have had a campaign" won't be perceived as 'I don't like games that don't have single player, so Titanfall isn't for me and I accept that'; it comes across as "Respawn should have added a singleplayer campaign so that I can deign to give them my $60 for Titanfall". It's really obnoxious to read.

What about saying "I wish Titanfall had a campaign."? It's sort of a middle ground where it doesn't come across as entitled but it also doesn't really come across as "well, good for everyone else that's enjoying Titanfall but the game just isn't for me".

 

[texhnolyze]

"People who would like to see content they want are dangerous!"

I think that attitude is more dangerous than what some people like to see out of their games OP.

People have their own views on gaming based on what their priorities are, what they would like to invest in and where they put their money. And if you don't like that, that's your own problem.

Its also dumb hearing you talk about SF5 and Halo 5, as if having less content than any previous game is somehow acceptable and should be accepted by the community at large just because

It's fine if people don't want MP only games, all they need to do is ignore those games.

The point of this thread is people who don't want MP only games throwing their complaints at the already exist MP only games that are not catered for them in the first place.

Why, you ask? Because believe it or not, there are people out there who love MP only games. Shocking, isn't it?

 

[Jacksinthe]

Lots of people seem to get the content argument wrong.

Content is only part of the equation. Doom is my favorite game in fucking forever, but I would be right fucking pissed if it was limited to Act 1. I'd ask or more content. As good as the game is, those legs can only carry a game so far with limited shit to do and replayability.

Quality of content comes first and foremost but the content has to be there so you can enjoy it.

Destiny. Amazing gunplay and game, had fuck all for content at launch and the content that was there, was repetitive as fuuuuuuck.

No thanks. That's not what I want. You CAN have cake and eat it, too, especially in this medium.

 

[hamchan]

I'm fine with multiplayer games like SFV and Overwatch totally skipping the single player portion as long as what they do have in there is great.

SFV failed that and is still failing that with all the problems that game has unrelated to the amount of content, while Overwatch pulled it off perfectly.

 

[Movalpolos]

English is my native language and I am just now realizing that content, and content (like satisfaction) are spelled the same, yet pronounced differently and have different meanings.

 

[Jamiaro]

What bothers me the most with Overwatch is the whole marketing campaign for it by Blizzard.

The ads etc hype up a huge massive story about heroes an villians, global wars and the team needing to save the world.

Then you get to the actual product and its basically a standard shooter/moba with none of the actual cool shit the marketing hypes.

This campaign has actually stopped me from buying this game. Smells like Destiny.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

You can have less content but you can't charge the same price as a game with more content and just as much subjective quality. UC4 is $60. Overwatch is $60 (on consoles). Nope.

If you're happy paying more for less, go for it. It's your money.

My time is more important than my money.

There's very little difference to me between a $1 price tag and a $100 price tag. I completely ignore most Steam bargain sales because I'm just not interested in any of the games, but I'll occasionally throw down triple digits for a collector's item that I really, really want to play and own. I don't buy very many games.

The amount of effort or man-hours put into the development of a game is pretty much completely unrelated to how much time I'm willing to spend playing it. If the game is infinitely replayable, "content" arguments are irrelevant. And if I'm willing to sink 1000 hours into it, then its price is also pretty much irrelevant.

 

[2+2=5]

A bad game with lots of content is still a bad game, a bad game without content is even a worse game.

A good game with lots of content is a better game than a game with comparable quality but less content.

It's not that hard.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

The same game with more content will usually be better for it, unless it's some sacrosanct experience like Journey or something where even extra UI just tarnishes it.

Resident Evil 2 wasn't worse for having two playable characters on two discs, with A & B scenarios, plus lots of unlockables and replay value. RE2 was a better RE2 than it would have been had it just been Leon scenario A and nothing else. This also doesn't mean that Resident Evil 4 was worse for instead turning this same amount of content into a longer, singular experience.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Well I guess maybe the perceived value of a robust single-player experience is higher than that of the multiplayer portion. Maybe gamers have been conditioned to expect multiplayer as a value-add rather than the main product itself. Anyway, comparing OP's list to a long form RPG doesn't seem apt. In general shooters tend to come with both portions don't they?

In general, maybe? That still doesn't mean anything though. Some of the most popular FPS games ever don't have single player campaigns. Even if they did, you don't judge a games value based on another game, especially games from a different franchise. Overwatch is a new IP with no history of having a singleplayer campaign, seems unfair to say it's lacking content because it's multiplayer only. Likewise saying The Witcher 3, or Until Dawn, or Sunset Overdrive lack content because they don't have multiplayer would be unfair.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Gonna have to disagree. I don't care how many assets can be reused or how expensive a game was to make. If the amount of content doesn't seem worth my money, I'm not going to pay for the game. What kind of weird apologist position is this?

 

[IcyRhythms]

I think for many(myself included at times)gamers they're looking for how many dollars per hour did the game give them. If you buy a $60 game and the campaign is over in less than 10hrs, you're probably going to be a little disappointed. Sometimes that "padding" and repetitive gameplay can be fun and add more value to the existing content.

 

[TDLink]

Gonna have to disagree. I don't care how many assets can be reused or how expensive a game was to make. If the amount of content doesn't seem worth my money, I'm not going to pay for the game. What kind of weird apologist position is this?

What do you think about stuff like League of Legends which is primarily a single map and has millions of players, most of which have spent hundreds of hours playing.

Is a game with a single map that provides hundreds of hours of content worse than a game you play an 8 - 20 hour campaign once?

 

[artsi]

I like my games with a lot of content that is good.

Those do exist, it's not like it's always a huge compromise between quality and amount.

 

[Chaos17]

Imo, it depend of the type of the game and the replaybility.

For example, at the moment, I'm playing Tree of Savior.
End game content is missing but the gameplay is enjoyable.
Though, I doubt I will make a new reroll before the game has more end game content to do beside just reaching max level.

In contrary, while I play, Granblue Fantasy, I've so many things to do, that I know I can play it daily without worrying what I will do at high level.

 

[hodgy100]

Few individuals are saying more content = better games. Most are saying more content = better value for games. Selling a $60 game for the MP seems very lacking. Overwatch is $40 on PC, so why is it $60 on consoles? Lack of content = less value.

Because PC games have traditionally always been cheaper than console games as there is isnt any platform holder cost's + OW is sold directly by blizzard so there is no retailer cut on the $40 version. they just passed that saving onto the consumer.

its only recently over the past couple of years that the pc version of games have cost the same as the console versions.

 

[antennaehead]

I think people are mixing up two different arguments here:
1. The relation between game's quality and content - i.e. could this 2 hours game be better than 200 hours game?
2. The relation between game's content and price - i.e. should this 2 hours game be priced at 60$?
If we take Overwatch as an example, personally I think the game itself is great, but it certainly lacks content for 60$ price point.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

I find it reasonable to criticise games from big companies for having little content. Often their management wants to cut corners to increase profits by not putting enough people on a project or by limiting the time available for development. So why defend them?

 

[Inuhanyou]

What bothers me the most with Overwatch is the whole marketing campaign for it by Blizzard.

The ads etc hype up a huge massive story about heroes an villians, global wars and the team needing to save the world.

Then you get to the actual product and its basically a standard shooter/moba with none of the actual cool shit the marketing hypes.

That's the thing that bothers me most about the game itself, the entire point seems like its about this big story of unique individuals contributing to some greater goal or objective as freedom fighters against some unknown threat. And then the game is nothing like that.

I don't have a problem with that kind of game, but then you should not have made your pre launch materials so grandiose as if to ape something greater. Center everything about the game your making, and the fact that your going to be shooting other players in the face over and over with different powers and weaponry.

 

[hodgy100]

I find it reasonable to criticise games from big companies for having little content. Often their management wants to cut corners to increase profits by not putting enough people on a project or by limiting the time available for development. So why defend them?

do you think thats what has happened with overwatch?

Its much more likely that they prioritized something else over content. all the money went into gameplay design, balancing and polish rather than pure content.

and thats what game development is: a balancing act between, time, cost, ammount of work. they jsut balanced it in a different way so that the game was as polished and fun as they could possibly make it and its n'ot like the game has no content. there are 12 maps, 21 characters, 4 game modes.

would you guys also slam Quake 3 arena for being multiplayer only? You know one of the most revered multiplayer games of all time?

 

[7DollarHagane]

I think people are mixing up two different arguments here:
1. The relation between game's quality and content - i.e. could this 2 hours game be better than 200 hours game?
2. The relation between game's content and price - i.e. should this 2 hours game be priced at 60$?
If we take Overwatch as an example, personally I think the game itself is great, but it certainly lacks content for 60$ price point.

No, for $60 is it basically all you can eat on the multiplayer until the servers come down. And since people can still play warcraft 2 on battle.net there's probably at least 20 years of that.

 

[Devil]

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

Why so aggressive? One could just as well reply have fun with your tacked on campaigns and MPs for which millions were spent which could have otherwise been invested into the depth of the core game. Those SP/MPs are often nothing but crowdpleasers, a box to check in order to fend of shitstorms by people who often are exactly the same people who will put down that game shortly after anyway.

Of course voting with your wallet is your choice and ok to do. But I think OP is criticising many of these votes as harmful because it may negatively influence the success of great games for shallow reasons and therefore the way future games will release.