Valkyr1983
Banned
dude your the worst, i literally typed out the entire explanation just above you. Whats wrong with you?
-
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
dude your the worst, i literally typed out the entire explanation just above you. Whats wrong with you?
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
I'd agree with that, but mainly for co-op MP stuff like Destiny. Moot point for MP as MP is all playing content over and over to get better, and have new experiences playing against different teams etc. Honestly, I prefer it when there's not meaningful content to unlock and you're just playing for fun like in Overwatch.
I did, which is why I referenced their earlier posts as the one you quoted wasn't clear on its own.
Agree very much with this. Most devs have limited resources and can't due both MP and SP and excel at both in a single game. With huge budgets like Halo etc., sure, they can do both great as they can have whole teams on each mode. For most other games, I'd rather them just focus on either SP or MP and make the most of it by putting all their efforts into that.
Valkyr1983
Banned
Yes, the whole conversation started in regards to online only games and games featuring an online connection to function.
So if Mario on the NES had that requirement and the servers shut down, It wouldnt be right for me to have to give nintendo that money again to replay it on a modern console VC. The argument being there should never be games that "expire" due to no server or network connectivity, and when i purchased that copy of Mario over 20 years ago, it should function forever or until the disk or NES stops working
It got brought up here because Overwatch requires you to connect to the server even if you want to play the vs bots mode offline
Steve Youngblood
Member
I want to note in advance here that I don't even really agree with Valkyr's viewpoint on titles. Having said that, the reason why multiple people -- a couple of whom aren't even on his side -- are responding to you is that you are simultaneously:
A.) Are being Incredibly obnoxious.
and
B.) Are missing some context that would clarify to you why you're not even correct.
When he says "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," he's not arguing that all future ports of a game should be provided free of charge simply because he owns the original game. He's arguing a scenario where he's worried about having to pay $8 on the Virtual Console port because his original no longer works for reasons that are not in his control. Like his cartridge is still good, his console is still good. Super Mario Bros. boots up, but he can't play the game because the old NES servers are no longer running. The only way to play now is to buy the Virtual Console release.
You're misunderstanding his point.
See all MMOs, CSGO, Dota, League etc. Vote with your wallet but SPOILER ALERT NO ONE GIVES A FUCK. Not everyone "doesn't like people" and plays their black label FF7 game yearly.
MMaRsu
Banned
The industry is bloated af because the publishers made it that way. Thats not on the gamers for wanting bigger and more lavish games.
The fact that games are more expensive to make is also not a problem that should be put on the shoulders of the end user imo.
I don't think this argument holds as much water in the context of Overwatch, where the ability to play against bots already exists. The online-only requirement for bot matches seems completely arbitrary.
nycgamer4ever
Member
Not for nothing but value is very relative. What one person thinks of value can be totally different than another. No one is holding a gun to our heads and telling us, as gamers, to buy anything. It's 100% our choice and it's our hard earned money so we can think anyway we want. It's up to the publishers and developers to sell us their product and make us feel like it's worth the price. There is no unwritten rule that says a game has to be "this" for it to be worth it.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Maybe you should read my post again. Where is your "only the biggest games should be $60" quote coming from? I certainly didn't say it or even imply it.
The $60 price is dangerous for some games like The Order or Ryse. I think those games could have sold even just slightly more had they priced their games at $50 or $40. I'm sure some would disagree but I feel in this day and age where gamers are more fickle with their money, the $60 price should no longer be this sacred standard and any price point less than that is only reserved for indies. It would benefit many developers who don't have the marketing power of the big 3.
So no, my post had nothing to do with this elitist attitude you're talking about. It was about how some developers could benefit and better compete from a lower price point.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
To be fair, the bots modes is limited and pretty lame as the AI isn't very good. It's really just there for people to test out characters without fucking up a real match. Plus it's not like a solo player could do much against a 6 bot AI team anyway (and all the modes are designed as 6v6.
It's not something like the missions in SW: Battlefront that were designed as solo/offline content.
badblue
Gold Member
Just because a game has DLC doesn't mean that content was removed from a game. And unless the dev promised single player, then removed it, single player was never in the game. No one is forcing you to buy these games.
How much content does a game need to have for $60? No one can answer this because it's subjective. More content doesn't make a game better. Less content doesn't make a game worse.
All they can do is overprice a game. All you can do is decide if what they are offering is worth the $$$. And if you are not sure, or not willing to take a risk, don't buy the game.
I never hear people complain that a cheap game has too much content.
Valkyr1983
Banned
Thank you, worded much better than I did which is kind of embarrasing but thanks nonetheless
flaxknuckles
Member
Rise of The Tomb Raider suffers from this. TR 2013 is a better game to me because it is much more focused but ROTR has way too much content bloat. The crafting, extended upgrading system, lame NPC quests, and ten times the amount of collectibles all just serve to distract and annoy.
StereoVsn
Member
Well, this is correct, but then you can't bitch that a game like SFV doesn't make money and doesn't sell as well as expected because the hardcore audience is not enough to support it.
Battlefront is a bad example in general because not only did it not have SP, even bots, but MP content was very light and "inch deep".
That's totally fair. I'm not so much talking about the quality of the bots as I am about the game's insistence that the player always be connected online, even if the mode they are playing in doesn't necessitate it. While it doesn't affect me personally, I definitely see that as a legitimate criticism.
#8758
StarStabbedMoon
Member
I generally agree that critics over-emphasize content quantity, but I strongly disagree with this point in particular:
Sorry, but some people just don't like competitive multiplayer games. If you want to say that people with such preferences, like myself, are harmful to the industry for simply liking or disliking a certain subset or genre of games, fine. But personally, I consider the attitude that game quality is an objective science and that gamers should all agree about what's good and bad to be far more harmful to the industry than a healthy debate about game content.
Sorry, but some people just don't like competitive multiplayer games. If you want to say that people with such preferences, like myself, are harmful to the industry for simply liking or disliking a certain subset or genre of games, fine. But personally, I consider the attitude that game quality is an objective science and that gamers should all agree about what's good and bad to be far more harmful to the industry than a healthy debate about game content.
I'm saying this problem won't be resolved until games like GTA, Call of Duty, or Witcher cost MORE than $60. Which is to say it will never be resolved because gamers won't accept paying more than $60 unless all games cost more (which doesn't solve the problem). Charging $60 for medium budget games will increase the variety of types of games we get as long as these massive games charge more to establish that they aren't the standard. But again, this will never happen.
Less than $60 is synonymous with less quality. If you ever ask "why is this game $60" one of the answers could be that charging less makes people think the game is worth less. And if this game is a part of a franchise then suddenly the franchise isn't a "premium" franchise any longer and that affects earnings on future games.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I don't feel consumers should just keep their mouths shut, when some companies are skimping on features and modes that always accompanied similar releases.
Sure more content doesn't equal a better game, but cutting content that used to be included isn't beneficial either.
Sure more content doesn't equal a better game, but cutting content that used to be included isn't beneficial either.
It is if that crappy content was removed to focus on making the good content better.
The point is that every game shouldn't be obligated to have X number of modes and features to warrant $60. It's not wrong to skip a game because you don't like competitive multiplayer games.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think anyone has any problems with people not liking certain types of games, be it MP only or whatever. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes, and of course people shouldn't buy or play games/genres that they don't enjoy.
The problem is when people who don't like MP go around whining about how MP only games are a rip off, how every game should have a campaign or some kind of offline mode so they can enjoy the characters or whatever too and so on.
Not every game has to be for everyone. There are tons of genres I can't stand and will never spend a cent on, but I don't go into threads about them saying that they're a rip off and should add X, Y and Z so I'd like the game too. I simply don't buy it and spend my time and money on games I do enjoy.
This internet and social media culture we're in now just seems to promote many to need to share their opinions on everything, and even argue incessantly about mundane stuff like game preferences. No one cares that random person on the internet doesn't feel SFV or Overwatch isn't worth the money, or that they hate MP only games etc. Just don't buy them and spend your time playing and talking about the games you do enjoy.
That's the reason most non-trolls and bitter ass negative people come to sites like this (along with getting news about their hobby)--to discuss games they like with others also playing and enjoying them. Not to argue about games/genres they don't enjoy. Why waste time and negative energy on things in your hobby that you don't enjoy?
Exactly. I like single player more than multi. I'll play multiplayer, but not for long. MKX catered to my desires and expectations and got my money. SFV, Overwatch and the rest didn't, so they didn't.
It's a competition for money. If the other guy is also giving me an awesome SP experience for the same amount of money then that guy is going to win. And if you're providing less content than ever before at the same price but with micrograms added? Forget it.
TeddyShardik
Banned
Again this wrong notion that it's either short and good or long and boring. There are plenty 40+ hour-games that are of really high quality. Noone forces anyone to invest that time but I can't help but roll my eyes whenever I see someone say they wished a good game was shorter so that it matches their short attention span.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Just to be clear here -- and I know there was more to your post so I don't want to seem like I'm unfairly nitpicking one passage and I mostly (if not entirely) agree with you -- I just want to chime in that I do think there's some discussion to be had. If nothing else, I think it's interesting to attack these things from a business perspective. And by that, just because it's a fresh, recent example, while I don't find it very interesting to see SFV tourney player arguing with bitter "Fuck you Crapcom for shipping an unfinished game!" guy about whether or not SFV should have launched with a $60 MSRP, there's a conversation worth having about SFV. We've got sales data. It underperformed. Saying "vote with your wallet!" and calling it a day will not inform us as to why it underperformed.
Again, I'm not saying your aim was to silence criticism. I just want to be clear that I personally make a distinction between being interested in consumer psychology and bored to tears with every other thing that happens being the new consumer rights scandal that I'm mad about and you should be mad too!!!!
wapplew
Member
Here's the thing, almost every other entertainment have some kind of limit like 90 minutes for a movie, 40 minutes for a tv show but video games don't have that.
It was $60 for few mega byte and $60 for 40 something giga byte now, there is no limit.
It doesn't help that publisher constantly one up each other on that department. They change our expectation on what we can get with our $60 all the time.
Ratchet and Clank used to be $60 and become $40 for many to justify the purchase, many think the last guardian will bomb hard if they don't sell it at $40.
It was $60 for few mega byte and $60 for 40 something giga byte now, there is no limit.
It doesn't help that publisher constantly one up each other on that department. They change our expectation on what we can get with our $60 all the time.
Ratchet and Clank used to be $60 and become $40 for many to justify the purchase, many think the last guardian will bomb hard if they don't sell it at $40.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
100% agree. I was just talking about people bitching about MP only games not being worth it and begging for single player modes in them etc.
Stuff like SFV is a different matter all together as it was as sequel lacking the standard modes for the series/genre.
There's just no usefulness in people bitching that a game isn't worth $60 because it's MP only--especially for a new IP with no expectations/history of having single player content. It's fine if it's not worth it to a person as they aren't that into MP. Don't buy it and go buy and play a game you enjoy while the MP folks get tons of value out of their $60 purchase. Wait for a sale/discount if you think the game is worth $30-40 or whatever.
I'm not going to buy a 10 hour single player game for $60. I'll wait until it's cheaper or just rent it from Redbox. But I'm not going to go in threads discussing the game, it's reviews etc. and bitch that it's overpriced, not worth the money, that I'd buy it if it had a MP mode etc. Why would anyone care to know that?
7DollarHagane
Banned
Yeah. If "not enough content" is the worst thing you can say about a game it must be pretty good or you haven't played it. Judge quality first.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
OP, you're right to a large extent. A game can have 100 hours of gameplay that is mostly padding and a complete waste of my time, or 10 hours of gameplay where every single minute feels like an experience. The latter obviously wins out every single time. That being said, I think the bigger part of the problem has to do with living costs and the fact that money just isn't worth as much as it used to be, so people want to get the most out of their dollar.
Believe it or not games used to be even more expensive back in the SNES/Genesis days (sometimes you could regularly find games going for $80-$90, and some $100 or more.....new). However, the dollar was worth more, and as a whole people had more expendable income and the economy was better, so it wasn't as big of a deal (tho obviously it was still an issue even then). Nowadays you can't even get two small bags of Funyuns for 50 cents, dollar menus are going extinct etc. People are more pressed for their funds and when it comes to games they want as much out of those games as possible.
Of course, some of the fault lies outside of money. People by and large would rather have an easier game that offers a plethora of (equally easy, most of the time) content rather than a difficult game where the majority of their time invested is in continuously failing and not learning to master the game's mechanics.
This isn't a new thing; that shift in mentality started happening arguably some time during the 16-bit era, but started to really flourish w/ the 32-bit gen w/ cinematic games on the PS1, or collectathons like BK and DK on the N64. Combine that with the instant gratification era we live in, and it's not hard to see why it's turned out this way.
Believe it or not games used to be even more expensive back in the SNES/Genesis days (sometimes you could regularly find games going for $80-$90, and some $100 or more.....new). However, the dollar was worth more, and as a whole people had more expendable income and the economy was better, so it wasn't as big of a deal (tho obviously it was still an issue even then). Nowadays you can't even get two small bags of Funyuns for 50 cents, dollar menus are going extinct etc. People are more pressed for their funds and when it comes to games they want as much out of those games as possible.
Of course, some of the fault lies outside of money. People by and large would rather have an easier game that offers a plethora of (equally easy, most of the time) content rather than a difficult game where the majority of their time invested is in continuously failing and not learning to master the game's mechanics.
This isn't a new thing; that shift in mentality started happening arguably some time during the 16-bit era, but started to really flourish w/ the 32-bit gen w/ cinematic games on the PS1, or collectathons like BK and DK on the N64. Combine that with the instant gratification era we live in, and it's not hard to see why it's turned out this way.
I've always been a more quality over quantity kind of person when it comes to video game content, but the value of that quality is always relative.
The MP-only vs SP-only argument I think comes from two opposed views of how people see value in video games. On one side which seems to be more prevalent in the console space, games are still identified with the discs they're printed on, and seen as a product you own. These people value video games the same way one would value a book or a vinyl album. On the other side people seem to simply identify video games with the data that comprises them and the services that data provides, which seems to mainly prevail in PC gaming or have come from it. In this view, a video game is more like a place you go, or a piece of software you use.
The video game industry (and really software development overall) seems to be headed in a direction favoring the latter view, and it's really upsetting people who want to maintain the former view. They don't like video games relying on attachments to anything that's not already on the original physical media because that is the only thing they feel they tangibly own. A game that relies entirely on online servers is the antithesis of that view.
In my opinion the real problem with these MP-only games is that none of them allow private servers or local MP anymore. Original Counter-Strike does and that's a big reason why you can still play it after 15 years.
The MP-only vs SP-only argument I think comes from two opposed views of how people see value in video games. On one side which seems to be more prevalent in the console space, games are still identified with the discs they're printed on, and seen as a product you own. These people value video games the same way one would value a book or a vinyl album. On the other side people seem to simply identify video games with the data that comprises them and the services that data provides, which seems to mainly prevail in PC gaming or have come from it. In this view, a video game is more like a place you go, or a piece of software you use.
The video game industry (and really software development overall) seems to be headed in a direction favoring the latter view, and it's really upsetting people who want to maintain the former view. They don't like video games relying on attachments to anything that's not already on the original physical media because that is the only thing they feel they tangibly own. A game that relies entirely on online servers is the antithesis of that view.
In my opinion the real problem with these MP-only games is that none of them allow private servers or local MP anymore. Original Counter-Strike does and that's a big reason why you can still play it after 15 years.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Quantity is relative too though. A 10 hour game at $60 is a much easier purchase for someone with the means to buy a bunch of games a year than it is to someone on a very limited budget that only can afford a handful of games a year. A 50+ hour RPG or endlessly replayable MP game or whatever longer game type they like is a better investment of their money as it will fill more of their hobby time for the buck. Especially assuming their comparing a short and long game they view as of equal quality.
The content debate in multiplayer games is weird since unlike single player games you can't just look at the number of levels, average completion time, number of collectibles, etc to guage it's worth. People apply the same metrics to multiplayer games and just decide that if a game has a small amount of maps or modes that it is light on content, but if those maps, modes, and characters are dynamic enough that every match is unique then the game arguably has an inexhaustible amount of content.
People have been enjoying soccer forever and that game has one damn map
People have been enjoying soccer forever and that game has one damn map
The problem is that quality and "how fun the game" is, is all non-quantifiable.
How do you compare game qualities when different people may have different opinions on those content qualities, where there may or may not be less to compare?
The thing is that you can see the content of a game more easily compared to another game because it's content, you can see how much one game has vs the other.
I'm not using this argument with no singleplayer, no multiplayer and all that.
But I can understand your argument:
Let's take a game where there's both. For me, I can't play CoD anymore. It's just not fun, because the content is basically the same. The quality may still be the same quality as it was in the past but I don't see the difference, just a few cool gadgets and guns, but that's just me. I can also say the same for assassins creed, I myself can't get myself motivated to play the series. There is a lot more content, that I'm sure of, but it doesn't necessarily make them better games that their predecessors.
I'm saying that for some games, whether it's only single player, multiplayer, or both, I feel the some games with more content can make a better game. Yes, I'll be limiting my argument to a few examples, but these examples are from my experiences:
Let's take this recent singleplayer game: Fallout 4. Mods make the game absolutely amazing and in a way, it adds content. But let's forget the mods.
The game itself was pretty fun, but one thing I did not like was the settler system. I wish it was more fleshed out with more content. I felt that, that would've made a better game if that system had more content and was done properly. Sure, I'm including some qualitative changes but at the same time, it felt like the same thing over and over which each settlement. There was a certain pattern to follow to be successful with the system.
Let's take a MMOs for example, which are multiplayer only. I'm not going to enjoy an MMO where there is nothing to do at the end after you've accomplished all the quests to get to that point. Once I finish the story line, what's the point of playing the MMO anymore? That's why content is released that may increase the level cap, add new dungeons and quests. This makes the game better as you can play longer in a game you invested a lot of time in. Else you're stuck repeating the same quests, fighting the same end-level monsters. Sure, some people don't want to play the MMO longer, and they usually leave when the content is sucked dry until there is more.
How do you compare game qualities when different people may have different opinions on those content qualities, where there may or may not be less to compare?
The thing is that you can see the content of a game more easily compared to another game because it's content, you can see how much one game has vs the other.
I'm not using this argument with no singleplayer, no multiplayer and all that.
But I can understand your argument:
Let's take a game where there's both. For me, I can't play CoD anymore. It's just not fun, because the content is basically the same. The quality may still be the same quality as it was in the past but I don't see the difference, just a few cool gadgets and guns, but that's just me. I can also say the same for assassins creed, I myself can't get myself motivated to play the series. There is a lot more content, that I'm sure of, but it doesn't necessarily make them better games that their predecessors.
I'm saying that for some games, whether it's only single player, multiplayer, or both, I feel the some games with more content can make a better game. Yes, I'll be limiting my argument to a few examples, but these examples are from my experiences:
Let's take this recent singleplayer game: Fallout 4. Mods make the game absolutely amazing and in a way, it adds content. But let's forget the mods.
The game itself was pretty fun, but one thing I did not like was the settler system. I wish it was more fleshed out with more content. I felt that, that would've made a better game if that system had more content and was done properly. Sure, I'm including some qualitative changes but at the same time, it felt like the same thing over and over which each settlement. There was a certain pattern to follow to be successful with the system.
Let's take a MMOs for example, which are multiplayer only. I'm not going to enjoy an MMO where there is nothing to do at the end after you've accomplished all the quests to get to that point. Once I finish the story line, what's the point of playing the MMO anymore? That's why content is released that may increase the level cap, add new dungeons and quests. This makes the game better as you can play longer in a game you invested a lot of time in. Else you're stuck repeating the same quests, fighting the same end-level monsters. Sure, some people don't want to play the MMO longer, and they usually leave when the content is sucked dry until there is more.
I'd say you hit the nail on the head there, man.
tareqsalah1
Member
I understand but here is what i ment. If blizzard wants to make overwatch multiplayer online focused only and charge 60? Ok then u better release it with 25 to 30 characters. Same with street fighter. Street dont give me this 10 character and we will keep releasing the rest as dlc every month bullshit. Just give me the full game. 50 characters and move on to your next project.
Incendiary
Banned
Funny, I thought OP was gonna go in a different way: I was expecting an argument against open-world games or the Ubisoft checklist games where "more content" = better game. That I totally agree with being damaging for games - padding extra stuff for 100% completion just to add to your hours of gameplay total is an awful practice. I'd rather play a streamlined game like Uncharted 4 than have to climb every outpost tower to fill a meaningless XP bar.
As for the ACTUAL OP, I think some of the games listed are fine on content - I don't think anybody expected an SP for Overwatch. I think what it boils down to is if the game feels undercooked or incomplete, people are more likely to complain about not having enough content. Street Fighter V is a good example where the game had a rough launch and it was clear the product that we got on launch day was not polished and complete. Games like Overwatch or Titanfall shipped feeling complete, which I think makes a huge difference in these types of games. Battlefront was kind of inbetween - it was a polished product but was bare bones on content and wasn't really supported that well post-launch (if I remember correctly).
As for the ACTUAL OP, I think some of the games listed are fine on content - I don't think anybody expected an SP for Overwatch. I think what it boils down to is if the game feels undercooked or incomplete, people are more likely to complain about not having enough content. Street Fighter V is a good example where the game had a rough launch and it was clear the product that we got on launch day was not polished and complete. Games like Overwatch or Titanfall shipped feeling complete, which I think makes a huge difference in these types of games. Battlefront was kind of inbetween - it was a polished product but was bare bones on content and wasn't really supported that well post-launch (if I remember correctly).
shiftplusone
Member
They can go play the new doom, it's great!
Or literally any of the other thousands of games that have single player content
Over watch is an online game
The Lone Courier
Member
Yeah thats pretty much how I feel about it.
The problem I see with Overwatch though OP is that people know that Blizzard could've charge $40 for the game because it IS $40 on PC so the jump to $60 on the consoles with the content it has with nothing extra to back it up is a little concerning. This just means devs are allowed to crank prices up without justification for the actual game content they are selling.
That 10 hours isn't absolute though. It could have a high degree of built-in playability. It could be so good some people want to keep playing it after the credits have rolled for the first time. There are people who read the same book annually. There are also people who replay A Link to the Past or Super Metroid annually.
TitanFall.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Of course. Another example of how quantity is just as subjective as quality.
True. But largely because Sony and MS charge royalties.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Well, the justification for selling a cheaper version on Battle.net is that it's their platform and 100% of the revenue goes to them. Whereas when I buy the console copy from Amazon (for instance), Sony and Amazon get a cut there. I mean, I get the argument for charging the same price across all platforms, but the fact is that it should be cheaper on PC. The fact that the Origins edition also costs $60 on PC signals to me that if you want price parity, getting rid of the $40 PC version option was far more likely than the alternative of charging $40 for the console versions to match the cheaper PC version price.
JustSomeone
Member
Blizzard can't be expected to pay the sony/MS tax for people that choose to play the game on a console. The people who chose to play the game on a console should pay it.
If anything, Blizzard is doing the gaming community a favour by encouraging people to get the better version of the game.
Son Of Sparda
Member
I haven't played any of the other titles that are listed in the OP, but in the case of SFV the game absolutely deserved all of the criticism that it got.
They didn't market SFV as an essentially always online title, they didn't say anything about lack of the modes that almost every other fighter have had since ages ago, (even the most simplest stuff like Vs CPU is missing) but still charged $60 for it.
If they wanted to release a F2P game then they should have done that. If they wanted to release the title in different seasons then they should have marketed it that way and priced it accordingly (like Killer Instinct). But they didn't do any of those. They charged $60 for a very very barebone title and one that is essentially multiplayer only, while they never advertised it as that. (I for one have a very shitty internet connection when it comes to online gaming, so if they were honest about what the game actually is then I definitely wouldn't have bought it)
So yeah, SFV got a lot of criticism for its lack of content and it deserved every last bit of it.
They didn't market SFV as an essentially always online title, they didn't say anything about lack of the modes that almost every other fighter have had since ages ago, (even the most simplest stuff like Vs CPU is missing) but still charged $60 for it.
If they wanted to release a F2P game then they should have done that. If they wanted to release the title in different seasons then they should have marketed it that way and priced it accordingly (like Killer Instinct). But they didn't do any of those. They charged $60 for a very very barebone title and one that is essentially multiplayer only, while they never advertised it as that. (I for one have a very shitty internet connection when it comes to online gaming, so if they were honest about what the game actually is then I definitely wouldn't have bought it)
So yeah, SFV got a lot of criticism for its lack of content and it deserved every last bit of it.
Yes. Even though i was fine with SFV, the communication and marketing pre-release was poor and people basically didn't know what they were getting beyond the online mode until the game was out.