Support NeoGAF

[farisr]

In many cases, less is more.

And in many cases, less is just less.

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.

This is exactly it. It's the reason why I generally tend to prefer liner games over open world, as I tend to find the linear games to have more compelling/entertaining content than open world games do, even though open world games generally have at least 20+ hours worth more content.

SFV got criticized for content because it didn't include standard features that past games and competing games have included, and people found those features to be entertaining. It wasn't just some random arbitrary "content checklist."

 

[Korigama]

As someone who normally has no interest in multiplayer-only games, I believe what's already there with Overwatch would be worthy of purchase, even though I would also appreciate whatever else they feel like adding down the line.

Street Fighter V, however, deserves every bit of criticism for how it's been handled. It's not only lacking in the sort of basic content that comes standard with competing games in its genre on the market right now, but also lacking when compared to its predecessors within its own franchise. The fact that they also failed to have online play working properly from the very beginning, even after extensive beta testing, should also not be excused. If anything, knowing that they've actually admitted to the game needing more polish to address lack of content and server issues says enough.

 

[Meccanical]

And in many cases, less is just less.

And in many cases, more is more!

 

[Valkyr1983]

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.

Well I certainly don't care if the game works once I'm dead, that's silly

But replaying games from my youth is something I do all the time. Why wouldn't I want that to continue?

If I still like to revisit sonic 1 over 20 years later why wouldn't I with my favorite PS4 games in another 20?

I'm not asking for unlimited content, just unlimited replayability.

You keep using Netflix as an analogy but it's a bad one. Netflix is the always online of the movie world

Better analogy would be physical movies. People watch old vhs tapes, dvds etc all the time

If suddenly Sony said all new blu rays required an internet connection to play the movie, you don't think there would be outrage?

 

[MysteryQuesadilla]

Well I certainly don't care if the game works once I'm dead, that's silly

But replaying games from my youth is something I do all the time. Why wouldn't I want that to continue?

If I still like to revisit sonic 1 over 20 years later why wouldn't I with my favorite PS4 games in another 20?

I'm not asking for unlimited content, just unlimited replayability.

You keep using Netflix as an analogy but it's a bad one. Netflix is the always online of the movie world

Better analogy would be physical movies. People watch old vhs tapes, dvds etc all the time

If suddenly Sony said all new blu rays required an internet connection to play the movie, you don't think there would be outrage?

I think other's are critiquing you on seeming to place a concept of value and a corresponding price with the idea that said item should last forever when we're entering an era of digital-centric distribution where the concept of "ownership" is sort of fuzzy.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

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.

Fantastic post. People really need to just buy what they feel is a good value to them (however they define it) and play what they enjoy. There's far too much whining, bitching and complaining from every side of these debates when in truth there's never been a wider variety of games to play with all the genres covered by the major publishers/devs and the indie scene.

There's plenty of room for MP only games, SP only games, games with both and everything in between. Buy and play what you like, and stop worrying so much about what other's are playing, how many copies a game sells etc.

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.

It still just comes down to how one values games personally. Most MP gamers are going to buy at launch, play for a while and then move on to something else. It's not like it's a surprise that most MP games have limited lifespans (outside of the elite few hits that last for ages).

But to a lot of people it's a great value to dump a ton of hours into a $60 MP game over the month or two after launch. To a lot of people spending say 50 hours on an MP game like that is more worth $60 than some single player game they'll take 10-20 hours to beat and never touch again. Others get so much more enjoyment out of single player games that the shorter game is a better value to them. Others will replay the hell out of the SP game and get more than 50 hours out of it.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Valkyr1983]

I think other's are critiquing you on seeming to place a concept of value and a corresponding price with the idea that said item should last forever when we're entering an era of digital-centric distribution where the concept of "ownership" is sort of fuzzy.

I don't buy digital games for the same reason

But yes, I don't spend money on video games that are tied to a service or connection that can be shut off.

If buying a game for 60 bucks back then granted me usage as long as I took care of the product and still played games, I would expect the same of modern games. Why would I keep spending money to lose rights?

I think anyone that can't see the value in preserving games not only for our personal nostalgic value but for future generations to experience are sad sad people

 

[CosmicQueso]

For example for me, Sunset Overdrive or Ryse is a much bigger incentive to pick up an XB1 now than Titanfall.

But if that were the case, wouldn't the combined sales of games like SO, Ryse, QB, etc, the single player experiences, at least match one big MP game like Titanfall or Battlefront?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I don't buy digital games for the same reason

But yes, I don't spend money on video games that are tied to a service or connection that can be shut off.

If buying a game for 60 bucks back then granted me usage as long as I took care of the product and still played games, I would expect the same of modern games. Why would I keep spending money to lose rights?

I think anyone that can't see the value in preserving games not only for our personal nostalgic value but for future generations to experience are sad sad people

Not really relevant as far as digital games, streaming movies, streaming music etc. go. Digitizing things eases access and makes it easier for future generations to access and experience the content. It's easier now than ever to experience old games via things like the Virtual Console, emulators etc. as one doesn't have to find and buy old hardware. Much less years down the road when pretty every game, movie, song etc. every produced will be easily available digitally as we move into the cloud-centric future.

So your concern is really only applicable to games that require dedicated servers to run, and those just aren't meant to be preserved long term.

 

[ghibli99]

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.

Yeah, nothing against the game itself -- I'm glad it's doing so well and that folks are having fun -- but all of the surrounding lore/story just makes me sad that there isn't a proper campaign to really make these characters and their backstories come to life. Then again, a campaign that involved all of these heroes would be a monumental undertaking, so it doesn't surprise me that it's had to be done outside of the game itself.

 

[Tain]

Given that many of the greatest action games ever made are like 30 minutes long, I agree with the thread's general premise. I get that different people want different kinds of variety, and that, for some people with some types of games, basic numbers like "map count" really can reflect how much enjoyment they'll get, but in most cases I find that surface-level "content counting" doesn't line up with what I value.

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.

Good post, like in the Overwatch thread.

And just like in that thread, I'll emphasize that trying to elevate matters of criticism ("the lack of a campaign and this small map selection mean the game won't be very enjoyable for me") as consumer rights issues, more important than matters of mere taste, is the worst. Unbearable.

 

[ebullientprism]

I have a hard time believing that Overwatch, Titanfall or Battlefront cost the developers the same amount to make as Diablo 3, CoD or BF4 did.

The argument that more subpar content is better than less well made content is fucking stupid because no one is making that argument. Its a strawman people make to dismiss actual criticism of games they like.

I have no issues with MP only games. My problem is launching a MP only game with little content (TF is such a perfect example of this) and then selling more content as Season pass. What happens after that is inevitable. Those games end up dead with no community supporting them.

CS GO is a phenomenal example of how to do it right. Even Rainbow Six Siege.

 

[Valkyr1983]

Not really relevant as far as digital games, streaming movies, streaming music etc. go. Digitizing things eases access and makes it easier for future generations to access and experience the content. It's easier now than ever to experience old games via things like the Virtual Console, emulators etc. as one doesn't have to find and buy old hardware. Much less years down the road when pretty every game, movie, song etc. every produced will be easily available digitally as we move into the cloud-centric future.

So your concern is really only applicable to games that require dedicated servers to run, and those just aren't meant to be preserved long term.

You are free to go the digital route if you want, I think that's great

I just want my physical copies to work

I shouldn't have to buy a PS4 classic download on the PS8 if I still have all my working physical PS4 games

 

[Gravy Boat]

I don't buy digital games for the same reason

But yes, I don't spend money on video games that are tied to a service or connection that can be shut off.

If buying a game for 60 bucks back then granted me usage as long as I took care of the product and still played games, I would expect the same of modern games. Why would I keep spending money to lose rights?

I think anyone that can't see the value in preserving games not only for our personal nostalgic value but for future generations to experience are sad sad people

I don't see how it's sad, but you're being silly if you don't see that digital media is the absolute best way to preserve this stuff for future generations. Physical media is finite, digital is not.

 

[Furyous]

It's not a dangerous attitude at all because the complaints are justifiable customer value complaints. SFV launched in what some people feel is an incomplete form. Customers complained with their wallet and Capcom had to react to those complaints after seeing sales data...

The Titanfall Overwatch complaints are not dangerous either as both try a new model for games in this genre. We're used to all modes in a $60 product not one great mode and lack of others. It's dangerous to expect a story mode in a fighting game in 2016. Decrease the price of the game if the developer/publisher will not include all the modes gamers expect. At the same time decrease the marketing budgets and development resources if that is the case so everything lines up properly in line with expectations.

What's dangerous for everyone is this idea that developers or publishers release products in an incomplete fashion in order to appease investors that want sales to hit x point in x quarter. Releasing an incomplete product at full price with the promise of updates is insulting to me as someone that expects every mode and feature I am accustomed to.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I have a hard time believing that Overwatch, Titanfall or Battlefront cost the developers the same amount to make as Diablo 3, CoD or BF4 did.

I couldn't care less what a game cost to make relative to it's MSRP.

I value games on two things:

1. Quality (how much fun it is, how well made it is etc.).
2. How many hours of enjoyment the game will give me.

Thus assuming equal quality to me I'd rather spend $60 on a great MP game that I'll get hundreds of hours of, rather than a 10-20 hour single player game even if the latter cost 5 times as much to make.

You are free to go the digital route if you want, I think that's great

I just want my physical copies to work

I shouldn't have to buy a PS4 classic download on the PS8 if I still have all my working physical PS4 games

Perfectly reasonable. I was just saying your argument about digital games being bad for preserving things for the future was bunk as digitizing is the best way to preserve media for future generations. There's nothing wrong with preferring physical media---as long as you don't mind being retro only in a decade or so when physical media is largely dead.

 

[Pompadour]

You keep using Netflix as an analogy but it's a bad one. Netflix is the always online of the movie world

Better analogy would be physical movies. People watch old vhs tapes, dvds etc all the time

If suddenly Sony said all new blu rays required an internet connection to play the movie, you don't think there would be outrage?

That depends. People rightfully gave Microsoft shit because they couldn't illustrate what benefit an always online system gave the consumer. That idea was entirely based on a crazy plan to use the Kinect as a way to monitor user's reactions to commercials so Microsoft could use that data to sell to advertisers. They tried to Trojan horse a new business model using their popular gaming platform.

But online games come with the caveat that this experience, by it's very nature, isn't forever. Either the servers will go down or people will no longer want to play this game after a certain period of time. If these games were online just to be online or they were online because of piracy prevention/to push in-game ads then yes, that provides no benefit to the customers.

Again, I'm not against single player games, I am just against this "buffet" style of game development that appeals to people who have to review a checklist of features to justify their purchase. Much like I don't go to a steakhouse to eat chicken, I don't play fighting games to play single player. I'd rather developers focus on making a game do one thing really well as opposed to doing several things passably.

I have a hard time believing that Overwatch, Titanfall or Battlefront cost the developers the same amount to make as Diablo 3, CoD or BF4 did.

But why should that matter? People don't go see the Marvel movies because standard tickets cost the same so they might as well go see the movie that cost the most money to produce.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

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

Ding ding.

The idea that $60 should be the default price for every game that comes out is the real dangerous attitude.

 

[ebullientprism]

I couldn't care less what a game cost to make relative to it's MSRP.

That was aimed at the OP. Not you.

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

 

[Acerac]

Stop lowering the bar and settling for less.

I care more about quality than quantity.

Are people fools for going out for a nice steak when you can get way more food for the same price at Burger King?

 

[Valkyr1983]

I don't see how it's sad, but you're being silly if you don't see that digital media is the absolute best way to preserve this stuff for future generations. Physical media is finite, digital is not.

Im arguing they should both coexist equally

Your ability to rebuy Sonic 1 in 40 years should mean i have to sacrifice my original sega cartridge from working

Why would i want to rebuy a game I already bought 40 years ago, thats a ripoff

 

[Jeronimo Jones]

Interestingly enough, I have played exactly none of the games listed in the OP for various reasons (exclusivity, lack of interest, primarily multiplayer, etc.) but they weren't deliberate choices to take a stand.

I spend money on games, big or small, depending on if the content itself appeals to me, while the amount of content comes into play secondarily. I don't have a problem choosing to skip games that don't fit my preferred play style or see a problem with occasionally criticizing the creators' content decisions.

 

[EventHorizon]

It still just comes down to how one values games personally. Most MP gamers are going to buy at launch, play for a while and then move on to something else. It's not like it's a surprise that most MP games have limited lifespans (outside of the elite few hits that last for ages).

But to a lot of people it's a great value to dump a ton of hours into a $60 MP game over the month or two after launch. To a lot of people spending say 50 hours on an MP game like that is more worth $60 than some single player game they'll take 10-20 hours to beat and never touch again. Others get so much more enjoyment out of single player games that the shorter game is a better value to them. Others will replay the hell out of the SP game and get more than 50 hours out of it.

Different strokes for different folks.

I was not denying that a large group of players find value in multiplayer only games. I was pointing out that such games have more risk because their gameplay requires on a large active gaming population. Without that you can get long wait times or unbalanced matches. If a game has a good hook like being tied to Star Wars or being part of an existing successful franchise/developer then such concerns are minimized. On the other hand, new games should take such risks into account.

On top of that, Sony and Microsoft should also take into account that making exclusive multiplayer only content doesn't build up the console's library as well as single player content does.

Once again I am not saying that multiplayer only content can't work. It most certainly can. I am suggesting that there is a downside too that hasn't been fully accounted for in the past. We've seen a push for multiplayer only or focused content lately that has had its share of failures as well as successes. For example not that Titanfall was a failure, but it is my belief that the XB1 would be in a much stronger position right now if Microsoft had instead focused on creating a single player title will as much backing as Titanfall (think MS's equivalent of Sony's Horizon: Zero Dawn) as well as keeping the Fable franchise a single player RPG instead of trying to make is a co-op online shooter.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Im arguing they should both coexist equally

Your ability to rebuy Sonic 1 in 40 years should mean i have to sacrifice my original sega cartridge from working

Why would i want to rebuy a game I already bought 40 years ago, thats a ripoff

Not everyone is as cheap as you it seems.

 

[Pompadour]

Ding ding.

The idea that $60 should be the default price for every game that comes out is the real dangerous attitude.

But games aren't going to get cheaper and this "only the biggest games should be $60" only hurts the smaller developers who don't have Rockstar, Activision, or EA budgets. These massive games have warped gamers perceptions of what a $60 value should entail because 1) they can offset the low price by selling millions and millions of copies and 2) they'll make it up with DLC.

The whole reason why DLC is as common as it is is because gamers refused to pay more than $60 for a game while simultaneously wanting bigger games with higher graphical fidelity so developers had to offset these massive AAA financial risks with safer streams of income. When people complain that DLC was just chopped off the main game and sold for extra they don't realize that the whole package would be $80-100. And they wouldn't buy that because it's a game that costs more than $60.

 

[Valkyr1983]

That depends. People rightfully gave Microsoft shit because they couldn't illustrate what benefit an always online system gave the consumer. That idea was entirely based on a crazy plan to use the Kinect as a way to monitor user's reactions to commercials so Microsoft could use that data to sell to advertisers. They tried to Trojan horse a new business model using their popular gaming platform.

But online games come with the caveat that this experience, by it's very nature, isn't forever. Either the servers will go down or people will no longer want to play this game after a certain period of time. If these games were online just to be online or they were online because of piracy prevention/to push in-game ads then yes, that provides no benefit to the customers.

Again, I'm not against single player games, I am just against this "buffet" style of game development that appeals to people who have to review a checklist of features to justify their purchase. Much like I don't go to a steakhouse to eat chicken, I don't play fighting games to play single player. I'd rather developers focus on making a game do one thing really well as opposed to doing several things passably.



But why should that matter? People don't go see the Marvel movies because standard tickets cost the same so they might as well go see the movie that cost the most money to produce.

and im not here asking devs to cram in full campaigns if that wasnt their vision to do so

as for your fighting game analogy, i dont care if you play fighting games in single player, I DO. SFV should have launched with its online suite AND classic arcade mode, there was no reason not to

Devs are free to make shooters with no offline vs bots but im free to skip the game, i dont get the same value as you do out of a limited life online experience. Never enjoyed interacting with other humans when it came to gaming

I would argue it should take minimal effort to throw in some kind of offline only bot match so the game isnt lost to time for the people who dont want to lose the experience

if Epic games could figure out bots for all its modes in UT99 which came out forever ago, SURELY tech has evolved and talent as increased to make this a reality now

 

[Mediking]

I already fell for this trick with the Division. It won't happen again. Never buying a super focused multiplayer game at $60 ever again.

 

[Valkyr1983]

Not everyone is as cheap as you it seems.

You call it being cheap, i would argue having to rebuy the same games over and over again as being wasteful

so if you want to resort to insults, sure. keep rebuying games sucker.

If i still have my NES mario cartridge i shouldnt have to go give nintendo 8 bucks to play it again digitally via virtual console

unless you work for a game publisher, I cant believe you'd want gamers to have less ownership rights, your stance is a weird one for a place like NeoGAF. Believe indeed.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I was not denying that a large group of players find value in multiplayer only games. I was pointing out that such games have more risk because their gameplay requires on a large active gaming population. Without that you can get long wait times or unbalanced matches. If a game has a good hook like being tied to Star Wars or being part of an existing successful franchise/developer then such concerns are minimized. On the other hand, new games should take such risks into account.

My point was that it's rare, especially from AAA publishers, to run into MP games with no community around launch.

Even things that dropped off quickly like Evolve, were still pretty active for 2-3 months. My friends and I played around 100 hours each of it and all felt we got our $60 worth.

So there's just not that much risk for the MP gamer crowd that buys day 1. Yeah, they don't have the lasting marketability to those who don't buy day 1, but that's not the crowd these publishers are really after. They know most sales will be frontloaded, and those that buy day 1 buy more season passes, dlc etc. than less interested people who may buy it down the road in a sale etc.

 

[Pompadour]

and im not here asking devs to cram in full campaigns if that wasnt their vision to do so

as for your fighting game analogy, i dont care if you play fighting games in single player, I DO. SFV should have launched with its online suite AND classic arcade mode, there was no reason not to

I'll concede that SFV should have had an arcade mode because 1) it couldn't have been too hard to implement and 2) GAF could have done with about 80 fewer SFV threads.

However, I'm against this mentality that every game should be for everyone. Games that try to please everyone run the risk of pleasing no one.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

I cant believe you'd want gamers to have less ownership rights, your stance is a weird one for a place like NeoGAF. Believe indeed.

For myself, I'm longing for the day when all media is in the crowd and I can just pay subscription fees. I don't need to "own" my media if I can pay a reasonable fee and access anything I want. I've already done that with music via Spotify, and can't wait for a day where Netflix or another streaming company has all the movies Netflix disc rental has and when we can just stream our games to apps (like PS Now) instead of buying consoles.

The less gadgets and clutter I have around the better.

 

[kpeezy]

I shouldn't have to buy a PS4 classic download on the PS8 if I still have all my working physical PS4 games

Wow, you are clueless. Tweet Nintendo a picture of your Chrono Trigger SNES cartridge and demand a digital download on the DS.

edit: holy shit, I honestly hoped I was misunderstanding you but no.

If i still have my NES mario cartridge i shouldnt have to go give nintendo 8 bucks to play it again digitally via virtual console

LOL, of course Nintendo didn't spend any money to bring these games to the virtual console, right? So why should you? LOL

 

[PSqueak]

I don't think the problem people have with overwatch is "lack of content" but rather the nature of multiplayer only games living only as long as the community plays, the moment gamers lose interest or the devs stop supporting the game, then you will be literally unable to do anything with the game, its 60 bucks for a game you can no longer play, it has nothing to do with "lack of content" hell, Battleborn, for example, does have a single player campaing, but since the game forces you to be online anyway, it's as if it didn't because the same problem will apply.

People want a single player campaign in Overwatch so they can do something when they can't play online.

 

[Mik317]

people simply need to realize that worth isn't something that is universal. SFV will be worth the 60 bucks to the guy or gal who just wants to play online (well server fucks up aside ....lol) whereas the guy or gal who is into fighting games for single player content mainly...it won't be.

my issue is this need for everything to appeal to all. Its not feasible or even fair to devs really. SFV has no excuse to be as bare bones due to its history but Overwatch is a new IP that the idea was to be a multiplayer focused game. Having a single player mode would be neat (hell it is the one thing keeping me from jumping in actually so I get it) but it obviously wasn't in the plans, nor does it need to be. Then the question becomes is the 12 maps/ 3 modes enough? It may not be for some...but for others they have already put oodles of hours in and probably got their money's worth and more. Plus if Blizzard delivers on their promise of more content (for free IIRC) later it will continue to be worth it for them. Yes in an ideal world it would hav 8000 maps and modes, an award winning story mode and bake you cookies but thats not feasible. People really do not have a good grasp on the work that goes into making games, budgets and deadlines. Overwatch will probably be Blizzards money maker for a good while so I don't think support will be an issue anyway.

So it basically comes down to if it isnt worth it to you now, either wait until it is via a price drop or new content or keep it moving. "Its just criticism bro" doesn't change a damn thing. No one cares really and all you are doing is now trying to rain on the parades of those who are enjoying it for what it is by belittling them passive aggressively.

There are a shitton of games out there...i am sure you can find something that appeals to your tastes. Not everything is going to be for you. You gotta deal with that.

 

[Valkyr1983]

Wow, you are clueless. Tweet Nintendo a picture of your Chrono Trigger SNES cartridge and demand a digital download on the DS.

you are clueless. are you even following the conversation? I never argued i should get free downloads of games I already own. I argued that digital is great unless it comes at the cost of physical ownership rights

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Wow, you are clueless. Tweet Nintendo a picture of your Chrono Trigger SNES cartridge and demand a digital download on the DS.

edit: holy shit, I honestly hoped I was misunderstanding you but no.



LOL, of course Nintendo didn't spend any money to bring these games to the virtual console, right? So why should you? LOL

I don't think that was what they were implying. They just want the option to play their current physical games on their original hardware rather than having no other option than to rebuy digitally on current hardware. They mentioned in an earlier post being able to buy a used PS4 of ebay/craigslist if their PS4 died in 20 years or whatever.

I don't think the problem people have with overwatch is "lack of content" but rather the nature of multiplayer only games living only as long as the community plays, the moment gamers lose interest or the devs stop supporting the game, then you will be literally unable to do anything with the game, its 60 bucks for a game you can no longer play, it has nothing to do with "lack of content" hell, Battleborn, for example, does have a single player campaing, but since the game forces you to be online anyway, it's as if it didn't because the same problem will apply.

People want a single player campaign in Overwatch so they can do something when they can't play online.

The thing is that this is just a loud, vocal minority of hardcore gamers on sites like this. Most gamers aren't replaying single player games, and couldn't care less about the community of MP games dying off as they've already long since moved onto the next CoD or whatever the new/current it MP game is.

 

[Valkyr1983]

I don't think that was what they were implying. They just want the option to play their current physical games on their original hardware rather than having no other option than to rebuy digitally on current hardware. They mentioned in an earlier post being able to buy a used PS4 of ebay/craigslist if their PS4 died in 20 years or whatever.

precisely

dont know what the dude is going on about, jesus christ

 

[-Amon-]

The problem of lack of content is present when a game is made to let you play the same content ( maps, missions, etc etc ) over and over and over again just to get some gear.

That's lack of content, because developers wants you to play a game let's say for 100 hours, but gives you missions for 2 hours, and let you replay the same scenario endlessly just by changing the price you get by completing the mission.

I find that approach nauseating, is shows lack of respect for the customer.

 

[El Sloth]

Totally agree, OP. It's just not a good way to measure to quality.

It reminds me of the attitude people had towards the rise of indies and "short" games in general.

 

[kpeezy]

you are clueless. are you even following the conversation? I never argued i should get free downloads of games I already own. I argued that digital is great unless it comes at the cost of physical ownership rights

I don't think that was what they were implying. They just want the option to play their current physical games on their original hardware rather than having no other option than to rebuy digitally on current hardware. They mentioned in an earlier post being able to buy a used PS4 of ebay/craigslist if their PS4 died in 20 years or whatever.

Did you even read the post I quoted?

"i shouldnt have to go give nintendo 8 bucks to play it again"

"I shouldn't have to buy a PS4 classic download on the PS8"

You don't have to you fucking loon, UNLESS YOU WANT TO PLAY IT ON THE NEW PLATFORM. Otherwise WTF is your point.

 

[Gravy Boat]

You call it being cheap, i would argue having to rebuy the same games over and over again as being wasteful

so if you want to resort to insults, sure. keep rebuying games sucker.

If i still have my NES mario cartridge i shouldnt have to go give nintendo 8 bucks to play it again digitally via virtual console

unless you work for a game publisher, I cant believe you'd want gamers to have less ownership rights, your stance is a weird one for a place like NeoGAF. Believe indeed.

Not so much an insult as an observation. What would you call it when someone refuses to spend $5 to repurchase something from 40 years ago?

And I don't think my stance is weird at all. I love physical media but I'm not going to deny myself enjoyment out of some fear that a game may no longer work in 40 years time. As long as I get my money's worth when I buy it that's all I really care about. There will always be ways to revisit games in the future if I want to, probably for cheaper too.

 

[Pompadour]

So is there anyone here who would be willing to admit they hate tacked on multiplayer but want single player afterthought modes added to multiplayer games? I always thought the former, like myself, were against developers diluting their focus but now I'm starting to think there's just a contingent of gamers that have no use for multiplayer and any multiplayer only game that gets released may as well be a console exclusive to a console they don't own. Half-assed singleplayer campaign begging feels like the new port begging.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Did you even read the post I quoted?

"i shouldnt have to go give nintendo 8 bucks to play it again"

"I shouldn't have to buy a PS4 classic download on the PS8"

You don't have to you fucking loon, UNLESS YOU WANT TO PLAY IT ON THE NEW PLATFORM. Otherwise WTF is your point.

His point is imagine a world where Chrono Trigger needed to phone into a server in order to work. Imagine that that server has been dead for years, and the only way to play now was some sort of re-release that made it work on modern architecture with modern servers. That's his concern with always-online games.

 

[Minustephen]

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 think part of the issue he's getting at is that people are STILL buying the games and STILL complaining, creating hazardous communities.

I really like this post because I agree completely. Amazing games that deserve attention are getting skipped by consumers because of this notion about "huge games" and "content I" Friend of mine missed out on over 2 days' worth of amazing game-time in the Division because "the world wasn't big enough" for him. And people I know aren't playing Overwatch because there's "no campaign." But what about what's there?

I think the insidious notion here is that we're sliding into this era where consumers are judging games based on their own perceptions, and not accepting great new concepts based on their own merits.

 

[Valkyr1983]

Did you even read the post I quoted?

"i shouldnt have to go give nintendo 8 bucks to play it again"

"I shouldn't have to buy a PS4 classic download on the PS8"

You don't have to you fucking loon, UNLESS YOU WANT TO PLAY IT ON THE NEW PLATFORM. Otherwise WTF is your point.

ugh, cant believe I have to spell this out. The whole damn converstation started because I argued games requiring an online connection are BS, as essentially once the service is shut down, you CANT play those games anymore. This is especially difficult when you want to replay games 20 years from now, like i do with a bunch of old games like Sonic, Mario, etc.

People started telling me that digital is the way to go anyways as its easier to not have to keep old gear around, let new people experience old games without having to buy old hardware, etc. My argument against that was its no solution... If i have a working copy of Uncharted 4 today, it should work for as long as the game disc and system hold up. It shouldnt be tied to online services that can be shut off. I dont give a crap if they release Uncharted 4 as a PS4 classic on the PS8 console... I shouldnt have to pay money for that as long as my original PS4 and game are in working order

Again, if you had actually followed the conversation from the beginning instead of hopping in and taking a statement out of context this wouldnt be an issue

 

[Minustephen]

So is there anyone here who would be willing to admit they hate tacked on multiplayer but want single player afterthought modes added to multiplayer games? I always thought the former, like myself, were against developers diluting their focus but now I'm starting to think there's just a contingent of gamers that have no use for multiplayer and any multiplayer only game that gets released may as well be a console exclusive to a console they don't own. Half-assed singleplayer campaign begging feels like the new port begging.

This is exactly what I mean by in my last post: if we would judge what's there instead of what's not we'd get better games because developers/publishers might not feel the need to always "tack on" crap to hit sales numbers. Time spent on a tacked on single player to an amazing multiplayer component just dilutes the amazing thing that's there due to lost time and resources.

 

[kpeezy]

His point is imagine a world where Chrono Trigger needed to phone into a server in order to work. Imagine that that server has been dead for years, and the only way to play now was some sort of re-release that made it work on modern architecture with modern servers. That's his concern with always-online games.

I see that argument but that wasn't what he was saying. LOL, why do people keep responding to me defending this guy.

"If i still have my NES mario cartridge i shouldnt have to go give nintendo 8 bucks to play it again digitally via virtual console"

Also, the idea that it costs nothing for the Console makers and game devs to bring these old games to modern consoles is stupid as fuck. Yeah, so you bought a license to play Overwatch 2 on the PS5, it's not free to port that game to the PS6+. So would you rather they just never port old games to new consoles or would you rather STFU and let other people who have a reasonable mind support the franchises and companies they like in a very reasonable manner.

ugh, cant believe I have to spell this out. The whole damn converstation started because I argued games requiring an online connection are BS, as essentially once the service is shut down, you CANT play those games anymore. This is especially difficult when you want to replay games 20 years from now, like i do with a bunch of old games like Sonic, Mario, etc.

People started telling me that digital is the way to go anyways as its easier to not have to keep old gear around, let new people experience old games without having to buy old hardware, etc. My argument against that was its no solution... If i have a working copy of Uncharted 4 today, it should work for as long as the game disc and system hold up. It shouldnt be tied to online services that can be shut off. I dont give a crap if they release Uncharted 4 as a PS4 classic on the PS8 console... I shouldnt have to pay money for that as long as my original PS4 and game are in working order

Again, if you had actually followed the conversation from the beginning instead of hopping in and taking a statement out of context this wouldnt be an issue

You literally said "If i still have my NES mario cartridge i shouldnt have to go give nintendo 8 bucks to play it again digitally via virtual console". You're a naive man child, I get it.

 

[Valkyr1983]

So is there anyone here who would be willing to admit they hate tacked on multiplayer but want single player afterthought modes added to multiplayer games? I always thought the former, like myself, were against developers diluting their focus but now I'm starting to think there's just a contingent of gamers that have no use for multiplayer and any multiplayer only game that gets released may as well be a console exclusive to a console they don't own. Half-assed singleplayer campaign begging feels like the new port begging.

no i dont want tacked on anything

I absolutely stand by Blizzard if this was their vision for overwatch. I dont want it to have a campaign mode.

I DO think they should have enabled the vs bots mode to be playable without a server connection, as i cant think of any technical reason the server requirement exists. That I wont budge on

 

[Parham]

I see that argument but that wasn't what he was saying. LOL, why do people keep responding to me defending this guy.

"If i still have my NES mario cartridge i shouldnt have to go give nintendo 8 bucks to play it again digitally via virtual console"

Also, the idea that it costs nothing for the Console makers and game devs to bring these old games to modern consoles is stupid as fuck. Yeah, so you bought a license to play Overwatch 2 on the PS5, it's not free to port that game to the PS6+. So would you rather they just never port old games to new consoles or would you rather STFU and let other people who have a reasonable mind support the franchises and companies they like in a very reasonable manner.

You are completely misinterpreting what he's been saying. This has already been established several times by other posters.

 

[MMaRsu]

If you sell your game at $40, $30, sure I don't care about less content. If you are using the $60 price tag, then I need enough content to justify it.

Why? If the content there is enough to keep you playing a long ass time.