Support NeoGAF

[7DollarHagane]

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.

I'm just talking about how it poisons the discussion, discourages other people from trying the game, and generally kind of reduces what you're exposed to.

The game should be judged on how much fun it is to play and how it keeps you coming back. If it does that with little "content" then all the better. If you don't like multiplayer or playing against people, that's fine, but stop shitting up OTs and making topics about how its so bad that these multiplayer only games are $60.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

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?

From what I have read about Overwatch, it seems that they scraped their original vision ("Titan") very late into development, and basically created a new game after that with some of the assets. I assume this is where a big part of their budget went. While I do understand that they have been in a bad situation with this game, I'm not sure if customers should be the one to make up for the troubled development by paying 60€ for a game, which probably could have been cheaper.

Edit: And it makes me wonder about a possible Overwatch 2. Will the game be more ambitious, like their original vision, with a similar budget? Or will they now only use a limited budget from the start, after they have seen that they can get away with a game which has a smaller scope?

 

[NinjamicWZ]

Spec your game and business to the amount of customer dollars you realistically have. I don't see how the Last of Us's audience not being the esports audience would in any way artificially inhibit either of them. It's no one's civic duty to support the local stadium instead of their local theater.

 

[flatearthpandas]

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?

It is a personal choice, is my point. If the content doesn't suit someone, everyone is in their right not to purchase it for that reason and that isn't really something that can be criticized. Someone could legitimately call hypocrisy if the issue comes up between like titles, but a lot of the thread is apples to oranges anyway.

 

[Autosaver]

Games that are low on content should have their entry lowered with profit made up elsewhere. I have trouble paying $60 along with a $30 season pass for a game with 3 maps.

 

[Birgitte2004]

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?

And how many of those people would truly like it less if it had a Single Player mode too?

Would Overwatch suck if it had a campaign? Would you be pissed that you got a campaign mode for the same $ you are spending now?

Unless you can answer that having single player would take away from the game, then you don't love "MP only games". You happen to love this particular MP. The fact that it's MP-only is irrelevant. So it really shouldn't bother you when people want more.

 

[hodgy100]

From what I have read about Overwatch, it seems that they scraped their original vision ("Titan") very late into development, and basically created a new game after that with some of the assets. I assume this is where a big part of their budget went. While I do understand that they have been in a bad situation with this game, I'm not sure if customers should be the one to make up for the troubled development by paying 60€ for a game, which probably could have been cheaper.

Edit: And it makes me wonder about a possible Overwatch 2. Will the game be more ambitious, like their original vision, with a similar budget? Or will they now only use a limited budget from the start, after they have seen that they can get away with a game which has a smaller scope?

Yes concepts have been re-used but the bolded is nothing but conjecture. Yes reuse of concepts, ideas and assets were to recoup cost's from a scrapped game but to insinuate that that is what lead to the pricing descision of the game is nothing but a guess.

and yes i would expect overwatch 2 to have a larger scope if they had the same budget, they have overwatch 1 to build upon.

but what is morel ikely is that overwatch is a "game as a service" and it will instead be updated over time.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Games that are low on content should have their entry lowered with profit made up elsewhere. I have trouble paying $60 along with a $30 season pass for a game with 3 maps.

What game was that?

 

[TDLink]

And how many of those people would truly like it less if it had a Single Player mode too?

Would Overwatch suck if it had a campaign? Would you be pissed that you got a campaign mode for the same $ you are spending now?

Unless you can answer that having single player would take away from the game, then you don't love "MP only games". You happen to love this particular MP. The fact that it's MP-only is irrelevant. So it really shouldn't bother you when people want more.

Yes a single player campaign would make it even better, but not having one doesn't make it not worth the $40/$60. It still offers hundreds of hours of gametime if it's a type of game you're into. I've already put in the amount of time a campaign would likely run me, and I'm going to put in a lot more.

From what I have read about Overwatch, it seems that they scraped their original vision ("Titan") very late into development, and basically created a new game after that with some of the assets. I assume this is where a big part of their budget went. While I do understand that they have been in a bad situation with this game, I'm not sure if customers should be the one to make up for the troubled development by paying 60€ for a game, which probably could have been cheaper.

Edit: And it makes me wonder about a possible Overwatch 2. Will the game be more ambitious, like their original vision, with a similar budget? Or will they now only use a limited budget from the start, after they have seen that they can get away with a game which has a smaller scope?

Titan was originally a MMO. Other than that we don't know a lot about it. Getting an arena shooter out of it is not bad though, better than nothing. And it helps that they spent 3 years after settling on it just being Overwatch polishing it and making it very fun so you would keep coming back for more.

It is a personal choice, is my point. If the content doesn't suit someone, everyone is in their right not to purchase it for that reason and that isn't really something that can be criticized. Someone could legitimately call hypocrisy if the issue comes up between like titles, but a lot of the thread is apples to oranges anyway.

Ok, people don't have to purchase it. Not saying everyone should. It's for precisely that reason that I think it's unnecessary for people to whine that the game is completely multiplayer. The game is a multiplayer shooter, period. That appeals to a hell of a lot of people as evidenced by the nearly 10 million who played the Beta. Figures aren't out yet but I am sure this game is going to sell great and be supported for years. For those people buying into it for a one time $40/$60 that's a great value. People who can't stand there also isn't a 8 hour campaign, oh well. Not every game is for everyone, or should be.

 

[Parham]

Guess I need to post this again since there are some people who seem to have already forgotten after 2 page. Wow, how the mind slips!

"Allegedly"

Opening admitting to sexually assaulting someone(then banning anyone who called him out for it)

Posting revenge porn with their real full names then another admin(a now jailed pedophile) printed the photos and jacked off over them and sent it to the boyfriend.

You're right, how can we even know if he's guilty or not? HMMMM

Also:

 

[Kill3r7]

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

If Fallout 4's gameplay/gunplay was anywhere near Doom that game would be one for the ages. Personally I have no qualms with Fallout 4 overall. The game scratched an inch. Sure it could have been much better but it is not as bad as some people make it out to be. I think this gets to the crux of the issue with the Internet today, a game is either the greatest of all time, utter shit or a misunderstood gem.

 

[amdb00mer]

I would also argue that too much content in a game can be an issue. I really enjoyed AC: Black Flag, but there really was way too many side quest. The problem is you kind of had to do them in order to upgrade your ship and abilities. It got to a point where I felt I was grinding by doing too many side quest, that let's be honest, felt repetitive. I'm all for content, but if having that extra content hurts the main game or the overall feel then I say leave it out. I also agree we should not be asked to pay $60 for a multiplayer only game. I enjoyed the hell out of Titanfall, but I still felt that the $60 I paid was a bit much for the amount of multiplayer maps and modes. All the expansion DLC really should have been a part of the game. What I would like to see in the future is publishers give consumers a choice on their game experience. Let's use Call of Duty as an example. There are some people that only want to play the campaign of these games, there are some that only want to play multiplayer, and then those that want both. Give a choice.

campaign only version $39.99 - with an upgrade later option to add multiplayer $30.00
multiplayer only version $39.99 - with an upgrade option to add the campaign later $30.00
full experience containing both for $59.99

I think this would be a good way to go and might even garner more overall sales.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

What game was that?

Wticher 3 maybe? That had 3 "maps"

 

[texhnolyze]

And how many of those people would truly like it less if it had a Single Player mode too?

Would Overwatch suck if it had a campaign? Would you be pissed that you got a campaign mode for the same $ you are spending now?

Unless you can answer that having single player would take away from the game, then you don't love "MP only games". You happen to love this particular MP. The fact that it's MP-only is irrelevant. So it really shouldn't bother you when people want more.

Adding single player in a game that's designed for multiplayer only in mind means adding more resources, whether it's cost and development time etc. And when the budget is divided, there'll be sacrifices. The MP portion that should've been great may be downgraded for the sake of single player content development. Because devs won't be able to charge for more than $60.

 

[spineduke]

People are free to criticize companies for whatever reasons they want, be they good or bad. To label it as "dangerous" is just an attempt to silence views you disagree with.

SFV did plenty wrong and the market reacted accordingly. Is there any time where you feel a developer/publisher was at the wrong receiving end because they made a game's value proposition too expensive for some people?

 

[KahooTs]

It's ultimately not for consumer's attitudes to change to reflect development constraints but for developers to find ways within those constraints to satisfy the market.

Personally I'd prefer much more developer resources be spent on quality content rather than quantity in general, but it's quite clear I'm in the minority when games of great imaginative potential like the Assassins Creeds become 50+ hour soul draining collectathons and sell out the arse for it.

 

[2+2=5]

The only dangerous thing in this and other threads(like the many after SF5) is fans of certain games or series trying to convince others to lower their expectations and the value they give to their money only to defend some favorite games or developers, i despise this attitude with all myself, gamers(=consumer) should be protected, not games(=products) or companies.

Any game with lots of content is by definition better than another game with comparable quality but less content.

Do people play "gameplay" or content? Quantity is one of the many components of quality, good gameplay is useless without content to play on, this has nothing to do with the presence of single player though.

Do you like a MP only game(or anything in general)? Buy it and enjoy it, do no expect everyone to do the same.

 

[7DollarHagane]

People are free to criticize companies for whatever reasons they want, be they good or bad. To label it as "dangerous" is just an attempt to silence views you disagree with.

SFV did plenty wrong and the market reacted accordingly. Is there any time where you feel a developer/publisher was at the wrong receiving end because they made a game's value proposition too expensive for some people?

Not that I can really think of - maybe that new ninja turtles game but its hard to tell because the game itself seems quite bad.

Value proposition doesn't mean anything to me, if the game is good its worth a buy. The only time value proposition comes into play is with stupid collectors edition extras that are never worth the money.

 

[Acerac]

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 don't think it's a concern if the gaming community as a whole worries too much about quality...

If a game is infinitely replayable then I don't care how short it is.

 

[spineduke]

Value proposition doesn't mean anything to me, if the game is good its worth a buy.

thats what I mean by value proposition. everyone has a purchase tipping point where they'll feel the money they spend is worth it.

edit: the turtles game is too expensive for me - not because I can't afford to pay $40, but because I know the time I'll get out of it doesn't justify the $40 spent.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

A multiplayer only game doesn't need a campaign any more than a singleplayer game needs multiplayer.


Take a deep breath and repeat these words "not every game is made for me and that's okay."

 

[Zen_Arcade]

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.

I only own two games listed in the OP (SFV and Battlefront) and the whole reason I don't still play them is that there wasn't enough variety in content to keep me having fun. Had their been more modes in SFV or more multiplayer content in Battlefront I would have spent more time playing them and felt like I got more value out of my purchase.

If you don't see how amount of content can directly relate in how much fun you're having with a game or how long the game is going to keep your interest I don't know what to tell you. But it should be pretty obvious how those things all relate.

 

[Late Flag]

I strongly agree with OP. I would much prefer a game that does one thing really well to a game that does lots of things poorly or that is padded just to provide "more content."

Edit: On reflection, I think my personal best example would have to be BF:BC2. That game launched with something like six maps (maybe not even that many) and SP campaign that I never even finished, but each map was so intricate and well-developed that they easily justified a full-price purchase and then some.

 

[UmbraeCruxis]

Personally, I dont really play games with a big online multiplayer component. It's just never been my thing, so regardless, i probably wouldnt pay full price a game short on single player content. I believe I'm in the minority on that, so it is silly to judge a gane as not having enough content if all of that content is a fun time.

 

[charsace]

The game that got hit hard for this is shadowrun fps. Top 5 game of last gen that got massacred for not having single player.

 

[Auto-Reply]

The game that got hit hard for this is shadowrun fps. Top 5 game of last gen that got massacred for not having single player.

The game got ignored because they put it in the wrong genre, even as a non-Shadowrun fan I was aware that you don't make a competetive online shooter out of a pen&paper game with Elves, Dwarves, Magic and future tech. Fans said "That's not Shadowrun" and everybody else thought "Elves in a shooter? lol"
If they'd tried that in todays gaming landscape it could actually work though!

 

[Valkyr1983]

A middle ground which OW reached

How so?

What can you do with overwatch if your internet is out ?

 

[Falchion]

I'd rather have a great game with less content then one that is bloated with stuff that doesn't add much to the experience. That said, if a game is too bare, even if it's fun I would expect less than full $60 retail.

I would not include Overwatch in the category of too little.

 

[Faiz]

Shocking truth: people have different notions of what a game should consist of, and what value the offered contents provide.

If I were console-only, there's no way in hell I'd pay $60 for Overwatch. But I'll gladly pay $40 for the PC version.

What's WORSE for the industry, IMO, is the strange perception that less expensive games aren't good games.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

The game that got hit hard for this is shadowrun fps. Top 5 game of last gen that got massacred for not having single player.

That game was written off for being "not Shadowrun."

 

[Fbh]

I buy games based on my taste.

I'm not a big competitive multiplayer person , so a game that only has competitive multiplayer is not worth the $60 TO ME.

I didn't get Battlefront at launch nor will I get Overwatch at launch. If, however, both of these games had a good single player or co-op the chances of me liking them and buying them for full price would be much higher.

Am I mad about it? Nah, I understand not every game is made for everyone. But if you ask me if I love overwatch and think that it's one of the best games this gen and a must buy title that everyone should own? my answer will be no, chances are it won't even make my personal top 20
But if you ask me if it's a good game for people that love team based online shooters my answer will be yes, it's currently one of the best

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Saying Titanfall, Overwatch, SFV etc. are bad because they don't have any Singleplayer is stupid. You can however point out that other games like Call of Duty or Mortal Kombat feature Singleplayer, Mulitplayer and sometimes even more for the same price. That doesn't mean those games are automatically better just as pointing this out doesn't mean OW, TF etc aren't automatically worse.

 

[charsace]

The game got ignored because they put it in the wrong genre, even as a non-Shadowrun fan I was aware that you don't make a competetive online shooter out of a pen&paper game with Elves, Dwarves, Magic and future tech. Fans said "That's not Shadowrun" and everybody else thought "Elves in a shooter? lol"
If they'd tried that in todays gaming landscape it could actually work though!

That game was written off for being "not Shadowrun."

Read reviews for the game. It lost points for not having enough "content" for $60. No one dinged it for game play.

 

[Raw64life]

This mindset has slowly beaten the completionist out of me. When I was a kid I always wanted to 100% games. Now I could care less. I make up in my head what I consider completing the game and I don't care about getting all the trophies or removing every last marker off the world map.

 

[Nanashrew]

My opinion on too much content is that it creates unwanted bloat for you to chase and sometimes begins putting some of that bloat within the main story which creates filler to extend the game and bogs many things down like the story and pacing. Those are not uncommon things though. It's been happening since the early days of games and some companies not liking their games being taken back to the store so early to trade in for another. Their solution was to add more content and extend the game. For the time is was okay, but they kept going bigger and more and now it's not the 80's and 90's anymore and it's 2016 still using the same tactics and it's getting kinda frustrating for me to be honest.

I feel like shorter and content less games to be more fun these days. They often have a greater focus on the gameplay and/or story elements without having so much of their attention split to huge amounts of content while polishing up and maintain quality of those other aspects. I don't need everything and the kitchen sink in a game. There is such a thing as too much and there are quite a few games that go too far and make it overwhelming.


There's a balancing act imo. Something I don't think many talk about but go to two opposite extremes instead. However, MP only games are fine. While many will say the content is bare bones, the companies do have plans laid out for future content so you won't be stuck with what you're given. I haven't played Overwatch, but what I gather is that there is a strong fun factor there, there is still content in what is there and more is coming. Things are planned and laid out giving some transparency in what they're doing.

The debates of lacking content in many other threads also remind me of old Splatoon threads too but going as far to say that GB size is important which is incredibly silly. It does often feel that many do play or are super "concerned" for content than the game itself.

 

[gelf]

I'm fine with multiplayer only games existing. I likely just won't ever play them and that's fine. I'm sympathetic with the argument as well that loads of content does not nessasarily make a great game too. Some games would be a lot better if they cut off the fat.

I don't apply this to SFV though as it's missing a mode every single fighting game in history was able to provide no matter how low it's budget was. I can't excuse that and am voting with my wallet until it changes. Other lacking content concerns about the game I may find overboard though, I think the number of fighters at launch was fine for example, it's a lot of work adding every new character in a decent Fighter.

 

[choodi]

I rather have people expect more. The "I don't have time for this hobby, make short games!" argument is much more damaging imo.

It's more like, "I don't have time for your bloated, poorly executed, poorly scripted, poorly paced 40 hour game. Do some fucking editing and make games more engaging."

40 hour games that don't engage me for more than 20 minutes are the most damaging to the industry. What's the point of expending all this development time and money to make a game that most players will never bother finishing because it has bored them to the point of moving on to something else?

 

[KingBroly]

Not that I can really think of - maybe that new ninja turtles game but its hard to tell because the game itself seems quite bad.

Value proposition doesn't mean anything to me, if the game is good its worth a buy. The only time value proposition comes into play is with stupid collectors edition extras that are never worth the money.

All you really have to do with TMNT is compare it to Revengeance. While both are short, the quality of one versus the other is leaps and bounds better.

If COD or Battlefield dumped SP just for MP and still charged $60 while keeping the Season Pass and Cosmetic purchases, there'd be a lot of backlash. With Overwatch there is a $40 option, but only on one platform, exclusive to Blizzard's service. While you can spend the extra $20, it's not worth it. Lowering expectations is never a good thing. You see people do it time and time again, and it just leads to more and more things being taken away.

 

[CyanideFuse]

When I buy into a multiplayer only game e.g. Titanfall or Overwatch I know I am going to average hours-upon-hours worth of time playing them. I played the beta for both games and knew I would most probably send a lot of time with them on full release.

Single player games rarely get anywhere close to these numbers. The Witcher 3 is the only game that could possibly compete in terms of hours as it was so well fleshed out.

So many games have way too much filler that adds nothing to the game and just prey upon OCD tendancies such as collecting everything and working through and ticking off a giant checklist of map icons. That isn't value to me.

Edit: BF3 & BF4 had a campaign and both were awful and added no value to that package. They were, to all-intents-and-purposes, online only games for me.

 

[Auto-Reply]

Read reviews for the game. It lost points for not having enough "content" for $60. No one dinged it for game play.

Of course not because the gameplay was considered fine/good (afaik). That doesn't really help you when nobody wants your game though. Modern Warfare took the MP world by storm the same year.
What you had with Shadowrun was:
People didn't like the premise.
Fans hated that is was a shooter.
and then on top of that you have not enough content.

I think even a lengthy singleplayer campaign wouldn't have saved the game because nobody wanted what it was.

 

[Glass Shark]

Totally agree. It's the reason why so many games are going open world with boring filler content. They can say the map is so many kilometers or there are so many side missions, but how much of that is really worth seeing?

 

[Gunstar Ikari]

I can't dictate to people how much their $60 should be worth to them, but the idea that X number of boxes must be checked to justify a full-priced game is something that's completely lost on me. Sonic Generations was 3 hours (with padding!) and was a better purchase than a number of bloatfests that I've played.

And as far as I'm concerned, fighting games don't need single-player (aside from training mode) any more than Mega Man needs multiplayer. It's nice to have, but it's not a deal-breaker.

 

[Oogedei]

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.

I don't need a campaign in every game and I don't think that it should be something every game has to include. However, I think the lack of content in recent games is indeed a big problem. I think the most important aspect of these games is the fun you have while playing. Is content always the determinating factor for this? No. But let's have a look at Battlefront (you listed it as an example). It was a dull game and had a serious lack of content imo. I couldn't play it for more than a week and lost interest and I'm not the only one. So many others had the exact same feeling, because fun and longetivity suffered due to a serious lack of content.

There are fun games out there with little content, but usually they're not full priced and/ or they don't force you to buy overpriced season passes. I have no problem buying games with little content as long as it's a unique gaming experience with awesome gameplay mechanics and other stuff which increases the longetitivty, but to be honest most games don't deliver these things. I'm not going to pay 130$ for a game with little content, average gameplay, no innovation just to have fun for 5 hours.

I don't see your concerns here OP. I think games like Battlefront (games designed as empty structures with little content + little longetivity and 60$ season passes) are far more "dangerous" and especially far more common than innovative games flopping due to their lack of content.
This could be easily solved by selling those games for like 40$ instead of full priced + season pass, but some devs try to hide their little content behind 60$ season passes and I do think people have a right to complain about these things.

 

[patapuf]

From what I have read about Overwatch, it seems that they scraped their original vision ("Titan") very late into development, and basically created a new game after that with some of the assets. I assume this is where a big part of their budget went. While I do understand that they have been in a bad situation with this game, I'm not sure if customers should be the one to make up for the troubled development by paying 60€ for a game, which probably could have been cheaper.

Edit: And it makes me wonder about a possible Overwatch 2. Will the game be more ambitious, like their original vision, with a similar budget? Or will they now only use a limited budget from the start, after they have seen that they can get away with a game which has a smaller scope?

Overwatch 2 will not come out anytime soon, if ever.

 

[Bergerac]

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.

Movies are generally accepted to be an unspoken average 1.5hrs in length. There is an inherent measure of value there but it's not spoken of because studios aren't pushing 30 minute films for relatively high prices.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

It's more like, "I don't have time for your bloated, poorly executed, poorly scripted, poorly paced 40 hour game. Do some fucking editing and make games more engaging."

40 hour games that don't engage me for more than 20 minutes are the most damaging to the industry. What's the point of expending all this development time and money to make a game that most players will never bother finishing because it has bored them to the point of moving on to something else?

You are basically saying "Don't make a bad game".

 

[MysteryQuesadilla]

This is a such a weird re-occurring topic that only seems relevant to games. People have such a weird sense of "value" to justify spending $60 on a game and the goal post to meet that threshold always seems to change. I'm not exactly Mr. Moneybags, but griping about a perceived lack of content in a $60 game where someone may spend 100 hours in multi-player comes off as being broke, cheap, or both.

 

[Pompadour]

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.

I mean, there's nothing we can do about consumers speaking with their wallets but people throw blame to consumers buying DLC as why games now are so DLC heavy. It works both ways.

Regardless, I think it's very dumb paying $60 for a game means it has to have a certain level of content or the developers are clearly trying to rip off the gaming public. $60 is a very low price for a game when you consider that games used to cost much, much more and that games used to cost much, much less to make. Certain games like CoD and GTAV can only have so much content because they're massive blockbusters. Yet people look at those games and think "These huge games were only $60 so why would I pay $60 for a game with a third of the content?"

The problem with that thinking leads to few, AAA games that are homogenized because being different is risky. The medium budget game has been effectively killed by AAA games because people won't pay full price for a game that had a quarter of a Halo game's budget.

If these games were forced to sell an equal amount of copies to a smaller budget game they'd have to charge $200+ to recoup their costs. This is why Call of Duty can throw in a campaign and other modes when the majority only play multiplayer. They sell so many copies it's worth it to spend development funds on other modes just to grab that segment of the market that only plays single player. My Dad is one of those people whereas I haven't touched CoD or Halo singleplayer in a decade.


Frankly, I wish these modes were just separate games with separate budgets. I really despise this Swiss army knife approach to game development where people buy games not based on what they actyally want out of them but rather if there's enough features on the checklist to justify not feeling scammed when you buy the game.

I mean, if games were priced as to what I got out of them then the Orange Box would have gotten like $5000 from me just for TF2 alone as I played that for 6 years, let alone the other great games in there. Something like Uncharted 4, which I really enjoyed, would be comparatively worth much less as I was done with it in a week. That doesn't mean I think it should be a sub-$60 game because it didn't have Witcher 3 levels of content.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

It's more like, "I don't have time for your bloated, poorly executed, poorly scripted, poorly paced 40 hour game. Do some fucking editing and make games more engaging."

40 hour games that don't engage me for more than 20 minutes are the most damaging to the industry. What's the point of expending all this development time and money to make a game that most players will never bother finishing because it has bored them to the point of moving on to something else?

Long games aren't automatically "bloated, poorly executed, poorly scripted, poorly paced"

 

[More_Badass]

Games that are low on content should have their entry lowered with profit made up elsewhere. I have trouble paying $60 along with a $30 season pass for a game with 3 maps.

That's pretty reductive. The depth and complexity of the gameplay matters more than the number of maps. A game with 1 map but such complex and refined gameplay that it could support strategies and skill levels and match-ups of all kinds of permutations is a better game than one with poor gameplay but 20 maps