D
-
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.
The attitude that more content means a better game is dangerous for games
- Thread starter 7DollarHagane
- Start date
Not that I want this to happen but wouldn't it make more sense just to charge more for content rich games? Games are bigger, more expensive, and cheaper than ever. The fact that these massive games with big single player and multiplayer modes where one spends hundreds of hours playing only cost $60 essentially has killed medium budget games. I want more games like what was standard in the PS2 era. Now my choices are indie or AAA.
EventHorizon
Member
A lot of these types of discussions on enthusiasts' forums come from the perspective of people who will buy more games than the average player and have a much lower threshold for making a purchase. If you are only going to buy a couple of games or less a year then you are likely confronted with many games that you'll enjoy, but will have varying amounts of content. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to pick the games that you'll spend the most time playing. It simply doesn't make any sense in this case to pay $60 for a The Order: 1886 length game.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
The primary difference for me is, in multiplayer-only games, as soon as the community dissipates you cannot play them anymore, they are generally infested with very solid to expert gamers who live and breath that particular game making it nearly impossible for newcomers or there is nothing else to do in them with the servers being taken down. At least with the single player games, you can always go back to a presumable fully functional game years from now and play them. I guess depends on the gamer though. Personally I usually do not like multiplayer-only games. I need either a single player mode or something just incase I get tired of getting decimated online by professionals or want to changes things up a little and play against the AI where I can relax some. Some primarily play single player games and some like the online interactivity of online-only games.
But seriously, how often is this actually a problem? Do people actually think "Jesus, I've only played the game for five years and now they're taking the servers down? What a waste of $60."
I've spent more at a bar or a restaurant in a single night than I have on any game and didn't think twice about it, as I imagine the majority on this forum has as well. Why do some people expect that their $60 investment needs to provide a return of thousands of hours of entertainment when this expectation isn't applied to anything else? Do people cancel their cable or Netflix when they can't watch several hundred hours of TV each month?
MysteryQuesadilla
Member
I've wondered the same. I've definitely left bars with a huge bill after just a few hours but I felt the time spent with people was worth it. Plus, the bartenders ain't working for free.
There are plenty of other games that can do this, and you should be mindful thats how people will ultimately weigh their purchasing dollars. Why people compare games to traditional media is beyond me.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Uhm, what about Titanfall, Star Wars: Battlefront or Evolve? While the servers are still up, the community is mostly non-existant, (edit: at least on PC). They certainly did not last 5 years. And I wonder how the community for Overwatch and maybe even The Division will look like in a year or so.
MysteryQuesadilla
Member
Battlefront still has folks playing on PS4. The lobbies aren't exactly CoD in sustaining the community numbers but it's there.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
I was mostly talking about gamers who are not early adopters on certain games or even dying communities on some more recent games. For example, imagine buying a game several years old and not being able to do much in it because the community is very sparse or completely dead. Let's say, I just bought Tomb Raider for $30 and it was online only. The online community in that game is nearly nonexistent from what I've played and then I mostly likely won't have much to do in it while at least in the 10-15 hour single player campaign, I can enjoy it over and over again to my heart is content. Most FPS's perform adequately for a while then eventually everyone runs back to COD, Battlefield or whatever because that is what their friends migrated to.
Another problem that can possibly arise is the fact, that most people who go into multiplayer-only games especially late into the game's existence generally do not stand a chance solid to great players online unless they are willing to practice consistently, die a lot and learn the game. I am not even going to mention cheaters or hackers. At least in a difficult game like Dark Souls, you can kind of play it at your own pace, grind or even get assistance online. In most multiply games, unless you are relying on team deathmatch, you are probably going to get annihilated unless you are blessed with serious skills and can adapt immediately. That can obviously be a frustrating experience for causal gamers who just want to play casually. How would casual gamers feel if SF5 was multiplayer only with all of the legitimately high tier players roaming around online? Probably a little intimidated.
Uh oh, my internet is down again. I cannot play my $60 game I just purchased. The servers keep going down also and it is kicking me out. SF5 should know about that unfortunately. This generally isn't a significant deal, but is just something else to consider.
I primarily play offline, single player games so my perspective on online-only games probably differes significantly from others. Not every game needs a campaign and not every game needs multiplayer and people are free to determine how their money is spent on what's worthwhile to them. If gamers want to play multiplayer only games or single player only games, that is definitely their prerogative. I know my single player/offline games, BluRays, DVD's, etc should work for years. With online only, eventually their time will expire.
Gemüsepizza;204719553 said:
I think that's a different issue. You can find matches in those games still, just not as quickly as one would like. I guess that's why I prioritize multiplayer games over singleplayer games. If I wait the singleplayer game will become cheaper and nothing about it will have changed except patches that will likely make the game better. For multiplayer games you run the risk of there being more downtime in matches than there was near launch.
Regardless, if I play a multiplayer shooter I don't expect to play it forever unless it's designed as a service as any CoD, Battlefield, or Halo will be gearing up for the next sequel. That's why I like SFV's approach that there won't be any paid updates, buy the game once and you can enjoy it for years. Overwatch is taking the same approach.
I'm not wealthy by any means but I've come to a point in my life where money isn't my issue with gaming, it's time. I think with the majority of big budget games I play I don't even touch half of the game because I have limited time so I rather spend it enjoying what the game does best and foregoing the tacked on fluff. I played Uncharted 4 and Doom without touching the multiplayer whereas it's been maybe 5 years since I've touched the single player campaign in a Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Halo game. If I could wave a wand and only pay for the parts I use, I would, but I understand how cheap games are in general so I rarely ever feel ripped off.
If the next blockbuster shooter decided not to charge $60 for the whole package but rather sold it a la carte at $30 for singleplayer and $30 for multiplayer, I'd be happy. In fact, I'd be fine if they sold each for $55 as I'm likely not touching singleplayer and I save $5. The only downside would be that many others don't think like me and this pricing would inevitably lower the online playerbase.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Yeah I was mainly refering to the PC version of Battlefront. To me, buying a MP-only game often feels like playing the lottery, because I usually have no idea if this game will still be "alive" even after a few months. And the 60€ price tag doesn't really help.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I think people need to be given more credit for having the sense to detect poor, or flawed, value propositions. Many do not see games as transitory experiences, or disposable, and I suspect that is where the real objection to a lot of multiplayer-only games originates.
And there's merit to it in that some multiplayer-focused games have been designed as a cheap way to make a game until the next yearly installment. They have no bots, are dependent entirely on having a huge active player base, etc. The interesting part is that Overwatch actually has things like versus AI and even allows players to gain experience and progress when playing bot matches. By comparison, Titanfall was rightly criticized because it became a ghost town on PC quickly and was effectively unplayable, while being priced as a robust retail product.
Because video games as multiplayer-only client has been abused by publishers a lot of people are cynical. There's still a good reason for people to be skeptical of the industry finding ways to charge more money for less product. This does sometimes lead to unfair criticism directed at certain games.
Rocket League is an excellent example of how to make a multiplayer-focused game that is small, lean, yet still feels like a complete game, with lots of options, visual customization, and bot league mode. Of course, it is also $20 compared to a $60 multiplayer title.
And there's merit to it in that some multiplayer-focused games have been designed as a cheap way to make a game until the next yearly installment. They have no bots, are dependent entirely on having a huge active player base, etc. The interesting part is that Overwatch actually has things like versus AI and even allows players to gain experience and progress when playing bot matches. By comparison, Titanfall was rightly criticized because it became a ghost town on PC quickly and was effectively unplayable, while being priced as a robust retail product.
Because video games as multiplayer-only client has been abused by publishers a lot of people are cynical. There's still a good reason for people to be skeptical of the industry finding ways to charge more money for less product. This does sometimes lead to unfair criticism directed at certain games.
Rocket League is an excellent example of how to make a multiplayer-focused game that is small, lean, yet still feels like a complete game, with lots of options, visual customization, and bot league mode. Of course, it is also $20 compared to a $60 multiplayer title.
Gravy Boat
Member
It is, but if I somehow lost access to my copy of Rocket League and the only way to get it back was to pay $60, I'd do it without question because the game is worth it to me.
doctorblurg
Banned
If you think the game is lacking in content that's fine. But for some people it isn't. I think Overwatch is a good investment cause me and pretty much every single one of my friends is playing it and I find it extremely fun.
I also bought Doom and I'm playing that and I couldn't care less about the multiplayer aspect of the game. I'm not going to play Doom for as long as I play Overwatch but I still think the purchases were good choices.
Not every game is going to be made for you. Just play what you feel is worth paying for, but don't shit on people who think otherwise or say the games content is lacking because you don't find the content to price ratio appropriate.
I also bought Doom and I'm playing that and I couldn't care less about the multiplayer aspect of the game. I'm not going to play Doom for as long as I play Overwatch but I still think the purchases were good choices.
Not every game is going to be made for you. Just play what you feel is worth paying for, but don't shit on people who think otherwise or say the games content is lacking because you don't find the content to price ratio appropriate.
MysteryQuesadilla
Member
I guess we can all come back to the premise of "$60 to me may not mean $60 to you"?
I mean, why stuff a game that's focus is multi-player with a single player campaign if it's going to be half-baked? Why include extra modes that cost extra time/money on the dev's part to meet some arbitrary sense of value?
I mean, why stuff a game that's focus is multi-player with a single player campaign if it's going to be half-baked? Why include extra modes that cost extra time/money on the dev's part to meet some arbitrary sense of value?
Valkyr1983
Banned
I can watch several hundred hours of Netflix every month, what's stopping me?
Better yet, I play FFVII on PS1 once every year
When I purchase a game I expect to be able to play it forever, why wouldn't I? I Don't buy games that require always online for that reason
I can watch vhs tapes I've owned for 20 years, should those stop working? It's why I don't rent movies either
OfTheOverflow
Member
As long as the developer intentionally try and get away with a full priced game with as little content as possible I don't mind. Battlefront lost me because, as became apparent but was already obvious, DICE were forced (pun not intended) into releasing it in time for Ep VII. A game like Rainbow Six Siege however is a very tightly focused and curated experience that imo is worth full retail price because of its depth and commitment to all future maps/operators being free.
Did you ask your baker for a refund after you realized you can't eat your cake and have it, too?
Petrae
Member
I am disappointed, but not upset, about Overwatch being MP-only. So much buzz about the game has me curious about it, but I don't play multiplayer games-- so I'd be wasting $60. That said, it's a new IP and expectations are set. If there's a sequel, I won't expect solo play; I'll be pleasantly surprised if there is (and will certainly consider buying it), but I'll have no complaints if there isn't.
Street Fighter V will never be purchased or played by me, and Capcom can fuck off. In a series that started out as an arcade game, that I could always play ladder matches alone, Capcom's shitty decision to minimize solo play and "add features later" in favor of rushing that shit out the door will never be forgiven by me. Street Fighter games, unlike Overwatch, have consistently had solo content in the past. Capcom gets no pass from me, and it will take something extraordinary to get me to ever buy any Capcom game new again.
Not every game *needs* solo play, as long as the IP is new and there's no expectation of having it from the past. However, if a new game in a series that has formerly had solo play suddenly cuts it out because reasons? Yeah, I'm going to openly criticize it.
Street Fighter V will never be purchased or played by me, and Capcom can fuck off. In a series that started out as an arcade game, that I could always play ladder matches alone, Capcom's shitty decision to minimize solo play and "add features later" in favor of rushing that shit out the door will never be forgiven by me. Street Fighter games, unlike Overwatch, have consistently had solo content in the past. Capcom gets no pass from me, and it will take something extraordinary to get me to ever buy any Capcom game new again.
Not every game *needs* solo play, as long as the IP is new and there's no expectation of having it from the past. However, if a new game in a series that has formerly had solo play suddenly cuts it out because reasons? Yeah, I'm going to openly criticize it.
That's fine, I'm not going to spend $60 on it though. I think the generalizations made in the OP are way off because it's quite common for people to wait on a price drop on both single player and multi-player games.
Along those lines, trying to assign a dollar value to game time doesn't make sense to me. Overwatch is crazy fun, I sunk a lot of time in the beta and have spent at least an hour a day since launch in games. That doesn't stop me from feeling like the $50 I paid was $20 too much.
Can you elaborate why you think cake is a good analogy for video game software?
Along those lines, trying to assign a dollar value to game time doesn't make sense to me. Overwatch is crazy fun, I sunk a lot of time in the beta and have spent at least an hour a day since launch in games. That doesn't stop me from feeling like the $50 I paid was $20 too much.
Can you elaborate why you think cake is a good analogy for video game software?
Or maybe they have different priorities? I'm neither broke, nor cheap, but there are so many quality offerings across multiple hobbies that are competing for my dollar that maybe the equation is different for the two of us. So yes, the goal posts do change... And will vary from person to person greatly.
And I really have no way of knowing I'm going to put 100 hours into Multiplayer on any game. I played a couple hours of Overwatch during open beta weekend, and I'm sure I'm going to enjoy playing it in release, but also would not be surprised if we only picked it up for a few hours every other weekend for a few months and get tired of it.
WrenchNinja
Member
I don't think having a versus cpu is dangerous for games
Valkyr1983
Banned
Gemüsepizza;204719553 said:
Evolve and battlefront might not be robust but there is some kind of offline content available so they don't become useless when servers go offline
That's the core issue.
This is an incredibly bold claim to make considering the number of games you listed. For example, do you really mean to claim that Overwatch was just as expensive/time consuming to develop as Vanilla WoW? And that Titanfall had the same budget and cost of a Call of Duty?
So franchises can't change what they are? Is Super Mario 64 horse shit because it wasn't a multiplayer game like every previous Mario game? Clearly it's omission was Nintendo's desire to cut corners and gouge customers.
I'm wary of defending SFV because the game has issues currently that affect me (matchmaking) so my heart isn't in it but the only reason I wish arcade mode was in SFV is because I'm tired of reading these complaints. Sure, it's always been there but it's not what made Street Fighter the game it is. Street Fighter II didn't define the genre and earn billions in quarters because of single player. If it did, why didn't Street Fighter I take off like a rocket?
The more I read these complaints the more I feel it's less that these people who want single player modes in games are disappointed that it didn't happen but rather singleplayer fans vs. multiplayer is quickly becoming the new console wars of this generation. For whatever reason, there's a lot of single player games that won't play multiplayer games at all so every multiplayer only game might as well he an "exclusive" for the opposing side.
Sheriff_Battlesnake
Banned
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Yep. And I very rarely replay single player games as well, and sell/trade after beating as I'm not a collector. So that's all moot to me. I'd rather play the latest and greatest games than replay old ones.
Pretty much agree with this. So many topics are made here trying to put a spotlight on "concerns" where the topic creator completely ignores the fact that it's possible for people to have different perspectives and values. The gaming market isn't a monolithic entity and a lot of enthusiasts here shouldn't be trying to speak for the larger market while regularly admitting they don't understand why x blockbuster sells so well.
Hell, as an enthusiast I think we should best understand the marketplace landscape and know well that certain games have more content that others. Why is it so hard to understand that more content can be an appealing aspect, in terms of money and entertainment, to some people?
Steve Youngblood
Member
I have a couple of different reactions here. I think customers have every right to decide how to spend their money. If a game presents you with an unsatisfactory value proposition, I think you have every right to pass and explain why. If sales are less than expected/needed, this kind of feedback is important so that devs and publishers can understand why more of the potential audience didn't jump in.
But at the same time, I start to grow bored of the egocentric attitude of some wherein if the game isn't properly targeted at them then the developer can fuck right off. Oh, and anyone who is content with what's there and is willing to pay full price (or close to it) is obviously a rube who doesn't care about this great hobby as much as I do. They're drinking the kool-aid and it makes me sick that they're willing to be bent over a barrel every time Big Publisher shows something shiny and new!
Not everything is made for you. It's okay if something comes out that isn't in your wheelhouse. That doesn't automatically mean that it's a scam or that they need to go back to the drawing board to make a game that appeases you personally.
Having said that, the other thing I'll note is that sometimes I think people get too caught up in the reactions that they miss that there are other things at play here. Titanfall and Battlefront sold well. The former is at 10 million+ copies despite not existing on the PS4. Battlefront's at 14 million+. Despite the metacommentary about missing content, they've been quite successful. It's too early to tell with Overwatch, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it sells quite well.
What does that signal? There is a market for multi-player focused games even if there are vocal critics of games that lack compelling single player content. So when a multi-player game doesn't sell, I think it's disingenuous to surmise that it must be due to short-sighted whiners who demand single-player content even if a game wasn't designed for it and arguably doesn't need it. But based on how several titles are performing, I don't think that there's a takeaway that you absolutely can't get by without a single player campaign and/or other significant single player content.
But at the same time, I start to grow bored of the egocentric attitude of some wherein if the game isn't properly targeted at them then the developer can fuck right off. Oh, and anyone who is content with what's there and is willing to pay full price (or close to it) is obviously a rube who doesn't care about this great hobby as much as I do. They're drinking the kool-aid and it makes me sick that they're willing to be bent over a barrel every time Big Publisher shows something shiny and new!
Not everything is made for you. It's okay if something comes out that isn't in your wheelhouse. That doesn't automatically mean that it's a scam or that they need to go back to the drawing board to make a game that appeases you personally.
Having said that, the other thing I'll note is that sometimes I think people get too caught up in the reactions that they miss that there are other things at play here. Titanfall and Battlefront sold well. The former is at 10 million+ copies despite not existing on the PS4. Battlefront's at 14 million+. Despite the metacommentary about missing content, they've been quite successful. It's too early to tell with Overwatch, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it sells quite well.
What does that signal? There is a market for multi-player focused games even if there are vocal critics of games that lack compelling single player content. So when a multi-player game doesn't sell, I think it's disingenuous to surmise that it must be due to short-sighted whiners who demand single-player content even if a game wasn't designed for it and arguably doesn't need it. But based on how several titles are performing, I don't think that there's a takeaway that you absolutely can't get by without a single player campaign and/or other significant single player content.
Valkyr1983
Banned
Gravy Boat
Member
Physical media doesn't last forever, no mattter how much you want to pretend it will.
So you'd rather they spend time developing some offline component, even if it's not fun, then spend all their time making a good online component just so you don't feel ripped off in 10 years time?
Valkyr1983
Banned
OK well... so far so good?
I don't own anything older than Genesis but they still work fine
My original black label copy of ffvii plays perfect each year when I bring it out
I've heard of disc rot and stuff but have yet to experience it. Even with my PS1 collection at 150+ I have yet to find a game that still doesn't work to this day
Gravy Boat
Member
So because they're working now it's ok? Will you feel ripped off when they eventually do stop working? Which they will. Hell, your console might even die one day and you may not have the time or money to replace it.
It's weird that you'll only pay for things that you think will last forever. I don't get that. It's an odd mentality.
Memorabilia
Member
"Dangerous"? Methinks not.
That's a loaded word in this context. It's not "dangerous" for people to like games that offer full SP and MP experiences instead of one or the other. It's just common sense to maximize value in consumer purchases.
That some people have been *convinced* it's somehow "bad" to want more for their money, now, that could be considered an unfortunate (if not dangerous) turn of events in the industry....
That's a loaded word in this context. It's not "dangerous" for people to like games that offer full SP and MP experiences instead of one or the other. It's just common sense to maximize value in consumer purchases.
That some people have been *convinced* it's somehow "bad" to want more for their money, now, that could be considered an unfortunate (if not dangerous) turn of events in the industry....
Valkyr1983
Banned
I don't really give a shit what they do, if they make it online only I'm free to not buy it and I won't
But yeah, considering I only ever played evolve offline with bots and never even attempted online, vs AI modes work well for me. I don't like playing other humans to begin with
This whole topic is loaded. "attitude" and "dangerous" "concern" all it's missing is "entitled". Seeing who the OP is, I'm not surprised. Dude can't even recognize that street fighter v was badly handled, even capcom recognizes and acknowledges it.
I find with games it really, really fluctuates. I'm fine with OW's content, but some games that are longer feel the need to pad themselves out on top of already stretched out gameplay.
Take, the later Persona games, not the longest in the world, but still substantially longer than most, and the content is fulfilling, the sidequests you do with the characters add to the world and the length is justified.
On the other hand, you have Digimon Cyber Sleuth. A good game in most regards, but despite being substantially shorter... is filled with a ton of filler, terrible content with mandatory cases having less effort than optional content in the Persona games. This includes story important quests being given by nameless NPC's that don't even get unique models, VA, or even a unique location.
Take, the later Persona games, not the longest in the world, but still substantially longer than most, and the content is fulfilling, the sidequests you do with the characters add to the world and the length is justified.
On the other hand, you have Digimon Cyber Sleuth. A good game in most regards, but despite being substantially shorter... is filled with a ton of filler, terrible content with mandatory cases having less effort than optional content in the Persona games. This includes story important quests being given by nameless NPC's that don't even get unique models, VA, or even a unique location.
Valkyr1983
Banned
The day they stop working I will be upset. If that happens in my lifetime (I'm 32 already).
If my PS4 dies in 40 years there's a 100% chance there will be a bunch all over eBay and Craigslist, and I can still play all my games on the new one
Especially with blu ray discs, I'm sure by now things like disc rot are minimized
Do you really think my copy of uncharted 4 won't work in 50 years?
SillyEskimo
Member
Stop lowering the bar and settling for less.
Everything is perishable. Those discs won't last forever. You will die one day. Even if your copy of Final Fantasy 7 magically resists entropy you won't be able to play after the heat death of the universe.
By the way, you commented about how there's nothing stopping you from watching Netflix for hundreds of hours each month but you did not actually say that's something you do. Which ties into my main point: people want these content stuffed games not because they're actually going to play everything a game has to offer but they like the "idea" that there's so much bang for their buck. Much like how one could watch Netflix until their eyes bleed for $10 a month but they don't actually do that because they're not insane.
When people renew Netflix, they ask themselves if the amount they use it justifies the price they pay, not that they can potentially watch 744 hours of Netflix for $10 as long as the sleep deprivation doesn't kill them. Most people also apply that same thought process to games or any other product.
More_Badass
Member
What does that mean? Less content or less quality?
Gravy Boat
Member
I'm not saying it won't but there's certainly a chance for a number of reasons. I just think it's werid to only buy something that's going to last you forever.
Gunstar Ikari
Unconfirmed Member
In many cases, less is more.
EventHorizon
Member
My take on this is that there is definitely a market for multi-player only games but that such games are a high risk/high reward gamble. A multiplayer only game that fails to quickly reach a critical mass of active players will have an additional strike against it that single player content would not have. For platform owners I also think that exclusive single player content has a much longer life in promoting the platform. For example for me, Sunset Overdrive or Ryse is a much bigger incentive to pick up an XB1 now than Titanfall.
So yes a multiplayer focused game is viable, but I think that unless it is tied to a successful franchise it will be increasingly seen as a short term high risk bet. Adding more single player content is a way to mitigate that risk.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
The games you listed have a lot in common though for me, I haven't played any of them since launch due to lack of content
Now compare that to something like Uncharted which I haven't even started playing MP yet but I'm in my second play through.
It goes a long way and it's not just about throwing in loads of content, it's playability and entertainment for the player, giving them entertaining things to do with your product.
Those games you mentioned how zero entertainment for the player, you can entertain yourself in the maps they've supplied you with with other player's.
But outside the general gameplay features that every game has the game is not keeping you playing, it's an empty play ground with nothing in it until your mates join in.
Now compare that to something like Uncharted which I haven't even started playing MP yet but I'm in my second play through.
It goes a long way and it's not just about throwing in loads of content, it's playability and entertainment for the player, giving them entertaining things to do with your product.
Those games you mentioned how zero entertainment for the player, you can entertain yourself in the maps they've supplied you with with other player's.
But outside the general gameplay features that every game has the game is not keeping you playing, it's an empty play ground with nothing in it until your mates join in.