Do You Guys Pay $60 Just to Play Multiplayer?

[RedSwirl]

It's increasingly becoming known that a lot of popular games are defined almost entirely by their multiplayer. It's not uncommon to find people who don't care about the singleplayer at all for Battlefield or Call of Duty, but for some reason I still can't justify paying full price without a singleplayer campaign of some kind, even if I'll end up spending the lion's share of my time on multiplayer. How many of you people really do this?

I don't even care that much about the stories in these games, but it's really more about the ability to play multiplayer. There's always the knowledge in the back of my mind that one day I may not be able to play the online multiplayer, especially for console games (double for 360 games). I also have very few hours of the day during which I can play a multiplayer game uninterrupted. Thus, I will need another reason for playing the game to fall back on.

Gears 3 had a great campaign as well as horde mode, and most importantly in my opinion, bots, and I feel like I'll have a reason to come back to that game years after my Gold subscription runs out (not unlike Super Smash Bros. really). Maybe MW3's survival and spec ops modes will prove good enough but I'm still not confident about the campaign. I can still go back and enjoy COD4's campaign today, but none of the COD games since have lived up to it. Battlefield 3 on the other hand I feel like buying next year some time when it's like $30.

Edit: Singleplayer Justification

I'm not going to buy a game if I'm only going to enjoy it for 6 hours, no matter what mode it is. If I buy a game purely for singleplayer, that singleplayer is probably either 30+ hours on its own, or good enough to enjoy multiple times. I've probably spent a total of over 30 hours on COD4's campaign in this way.

 

[questionmark]

Without batting an eyelid.

 

[LowParry]

Yup.

 

[Rygar 8 Bit]

battlefield and tribes all day everyday

 

[pa22word]

This is going to end well....


On topic: I'll personally never fork over any amount of money solely for multiplayer. Especially Xbox live when the majority of games are running on p2p anyways...

 

[Impeccable]

I don't find myself interested in many multi-player games just because for the most part they are heavily focused on shooting. Not really my genre of choice.

I was overly surprised at how much fun I had with the Assassin's Creed Brotherhood multi-player though and was considering getting Revelations at launch just so I didn't have to wait for so long between matches. (I got brotherhood in the spring, MP was already pretty dead.)

Still on the fence whether or not the more active Revelations MP is worth full price, and probably won't bite until a sale or price drop but it has certainly made a launch purchase more attractive.

 

[Ooccoo]

I weep for this generation of gaming. So absurd. And people actually give the thumbs up to developers...sick sad world

 

[LiK]

Nope

 

[Ranger X]

Hell no. But for single player anytime.

 

[R2D4]

Well the whole point of the Battlefield series is multiplayer. They just tacked on the single player to compete with MW3. Which is ironic because the whole point of the COD franchise the past 3 iterations was multiplayer.

 

[SmokyDave]

Nope. I did for the first 4 years of XBL but then one day I didn't renew it and that was that. Slowly but surely most of my friends have joined me online on PC/PS3 so it hasn't really affected me.

Looking back now, the concept is total bollocks. Can't believe I paid in the first place.

As for buying a game solely for multi-player, nope, I don't do that either. L4D / L4D2 on PC are the closest I've come but I didn't pay $60 for either.

 

[Veins]

Yes although I could see a problem with the 360 as you mentioned. Can't imagine having to subscribe for multiplayer.

 

[dragonlife]

I weep for this generation of gaming. So absurd. And people actually give the thumbs up to developers...sick sad world

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Touch]

Pretty much. I always say I will play story mode or co-op but rarely ever do.

 

[Curufinwe]

I payed $5 for three months of Gold earlier this year and that was enough. I'll play Uncharted 3 and AC Revelations on PS3 later this year/early next year, but they are the only console titles I want to play online.

 

[Snkfanatic]

Yes without a doubt, I know for the most part I will spend more time in MP than SP.

 

[Broder Salsa]

Some games yes, although I most of the time buy games for singleplayer. Fifa I nearly always only play with friends and online, playing and trying to exploit the AI is just not fun. Battlefield I always bought just for the multiplayer and it has always been well worth it, already played BF3 for longer than most singleplayer campaigns and had much more fun, although I also tried the campaign a little until realizing that yep, it was pretty boring and generic. Bad Company 2 I didn't even finish the first mission of before jumping to multiplayer.

 

[mxgt]

Yes.

I've already put over 30 hours into BF3 multiplayer, it's fun as hell and can see myself playing it for months down the line.

What a horrible person I am.

 

[EatChildren]

Nope, but I don't own an Xbox 360, and I haven't found a console game to really hook me online yet (Mario Kart Wii is probably the closest). Since I'm primarily a PC user I do 99% of my multiplayer gamer there, which at the moment is split between Team Fortress 2 and Battlefield 3.

If I were asked to pay, I probably wouldn't. There would have to be some good shit on offer for me to pay a subscription fee.

EDIT: Oh, you're not specifically referring to subscription fees. Well, I can't say I've ever paid full price for multiplayer only. Battlefield 3 was a gift, and Team Fortress 2 was part of the Orange Box. To be fair though I've paid full, ludicrous retail price (and this is Australia we're talking about) for short single player games, which might as well be the same thing.

 

[Enkidu]

I weep for this generation of gaming. So absurd. And people actually give the thumbs up to developers...sick sad world

I assume you weep because developers need to include unnecessary singleplayer modes when they didn't before, right?

 

[Bear]

I paid $50 for Battlefield 3 only for the multiplayer, but that's the only example I can think of where I paid (near) full price only for MP. I very, very rarely even play MP and am primarily a single player guy, but Battlefield is one of my few exceptions since it has been my favourite multiplayer game since BF2.

 

[r@v3n]

No chance!

 

[ace3skoot]

i sort do enjoy cod single player, but if i was given the MP for half the price, id buy that instead in a heart beat, id rather they took the budget for single player nd plow it into more maps and dev time, same for Battlefield

 

[Negator]

People pay $60 to play single player games. I don't think its a big deal at all to do the same for multiplayer focused games.

 

[Rygar 8 Bit]

I weep for this generation of gaming. So absurd. And people actually give the thumbs up to developers...sick sad world

been going on longer then this generation BF1942 and tribes like i mentioned above came out long ago and had no single player campaigns

 

[Weenerz]

You are telling me these games have single player? WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE?

 

[ElNino]

Nope, but I don't own an Xbox 360, and I haven't found a console game to really hook me online yet (Mario Kart Wii is probably the closest). Since I'm primarily a PC user I do 99% of my multiplayer gamer there, which at the moment is split between Team Fortress 2 and Battlefield 3.

If I were asked to pay, I probably wouldn't. There would have to be some good shit on offer for me to pay a subscription fee.

I don't think the OP was referring to paying for Live. I think he/she is referring to paying full price ($60) for a game that is only played for it's multiplayer component.

 

[DietRob]

Usually I don't but I knew going in that Battlefield 3 was going to be one of those types of games and I gladly plunked down 60 to play it. It's paying off so far I have 20 hours of playtime only about an hour of that is SP and CoOp play the rest multiplayer.

So for this example so far I've spent 3 bucks an hour for entertainment. That cost per hour will be mere pennies by the end of the year I'm sure.

 

[Yen]

I'll probably only renew my Gold account if someone buys me BF3 for Christmas. I rarely play MP anyway.

 

[Broder Salsa]

I weep for this generation of gaming. So absurd. And people actually give the thumbs up to developers...sick sad world

This generation? I hope you do realize that there has been lots of mtuliplayer only games before that too and I don't see what is wrong with all the old Battlefield games that didn't even have a campaign, thumbs up for the devs that would still dare to not include a unnecessary campaign like DICE did with BF3.

 

[Sydle]

Yep. I go through a campaign once, but I spend soooo many hours on MP I could justify $60 on it alone.

 

[Seth Balmore]

Not $60 since I find cheaper offers, but unfortunately I do it just to play Gears of War. I feel dirty every time I pay up.

EDIT: Oh damn, I completely misunderstood what the thread is about. However my answer is still a valid example; don't get me wrong, I love Gears' single player and was very excited for 2 and 3's campaigns, but the reason I paid full price for the Gears games was definitely the endless hours of online multiplayer. I logged 500 hours in Gears 2 so I'd say I got my money's worth.

In fact, lately the burning question seems to be if people are willing to pay $60 for single player content only. Not that I have a problem with that, either - I value a solid and memorable single player experiences waaaaaay above multiplayer.

 

[RedSwirl]

Nope. I did for the first 4 years of XBL but then one day I didn't renew it and that was that. Slowly but surely most of my friends have joined me online on PC/PS3 so it hasn't really affected me.

Looking back now, the concept is total bollocks. Can't believe I paid in the first place.

As for buying a game solely for multi-player, nope, I don't do that either. L4D / L4D2 on PC are the closest I've come but I didn't pay $60 for either.

Same for me. I begrudgingly paid $50 for L4D1, and ended up playing through almost the entire game in singleplayer because none of my friends were online during hours when I could play. It's looking like I'll be doing the same for L4D2 eventually.

 

[Massa]

$60 games are getting more and more competitive. Offering both SP and MP is not enough anymore, you also have to offer some kind of coop or horde mode to be competitive in the market.

edit: to clarify, this is not how I feel about it. I still buy $60 games only for the SP or only for the MP.

 

[Adamm]

I always play the single player first.
But if they released a COD/Battlefield without a single player, then I would probably still buy it.

 

[V_Arnold]

With fighting games and Blizzard games? YES.

I would pay even more, if it were neccessary.

 

[zlatko]

The MP is the reason I purchase just about anything these days, and I find that the SP content is just added goodies. Good SP alone needs to be lengthy as hell for my tastes to purchase just for offline fun.

Witcher 2 and Skyrim are examples of games I have no qualms over paying full $60.00 just for the SP, because I'll get 50+ hours easily. It's RARE as hell I drop $60.00 on 20 hours or less. One game I can think of next year that will be one of these rare games is Bioshock Infinite. That has more to do with supporting Ken Levine than it does not just being fine with renting it.

As for MP focused games with SP I still expect there to be some level of quality in them. BF3 is an example of what not to do with a SP for a MP focused game. CoD is a much better approach, at least the IW attempts. Gears of War 3 this year had a fantastic SP offering because of its replay value and co-op offerings.

I bought Uncharted 2 because of the premise of MP and had enjoyed the beta, and needed something to fill the Gears of War 2 backlash void. Uncharted 3 however I don't want a thing to do with its MP component after beta and having had my fill of Gears 3, so that just leaves an 8 hour campaign. I respect everything Naughty Dog is doing with it, but 8 hours just is not enough for me when I can rent that and complete it one evening.

I'd gladly pay $60.00 for just CoD MP if I knew I'd get hundreds of hours of play from it.

 

[leng jai]

This logic has no merit at all. I usually play good multiplayer shooters for 100+ hours which is at least 10 times longer than any singleplayer campaign.

 

[famousmortimer]

Not sure why everyone is all "this gen lol sigh." Multiplayer only games aren't just a product of this gen. Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, Battlefield 1942, Socom (had single player that's WORSE than BF3), Tribes.... the list goes on.



And to answer the question, hell yeah I do. I will put anywhere from 100 to 500 hours into battlefield 3 before all is said and done. Batman, on the other hand, will be shy of 20. Why are we questioning whether BF3 is worth it? It should be the other way around.

 

[Kyoufu]

Yes.

Call of Duty, Monster Hunter, fighting games, MMOs etc.

 

[LowEndTorque]

"Do you guys pay $60 just to play multiplayer?"

You phrase it as if this is a rip-off or bad value proposition.

If anything, multiplayer is precisely what makes a game worth $60 for many people.

 

[mxgt]

People that buy $60 games with <10 hour campaigns and not much else are worse than people that buy games only for the MP and spend 100+ hours playing them.

 

[Khezu]

1 guy buys CoD and only plays the 6 hour campaign.
The other guy buys CoD and never plays the campaign, but plays 100 hours of multiplayer.

Who got there moneys worth?

That said, I wouldn't because I don't like shooters(cause I'm bad at em), so it would be silly for me to do it.

 

[fanboi]

Why is it more "ok" to pay 60$ for SP only then MP only?

 

[Dedication Through Light]

Considering multiplayer can easily generate hundreds of hours of gametime, $60 is actually low cost for entertainment. That being said, I never skip out on a games single player mode, usually its the defining part of the game and gives me a greater appreciation of the locales and characters selected for MP.

 

[Brobzoid]

yup. love me some fighting games. day one, etc.

 

[erpg]

Yes. I'll pay 60$ for things I enjoy.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Not sure why everyone is all "this gen lol sigh." Multiplayer only games aren't just a product of this gen. Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, Battlefield 1942, Socom (had single player that's WORSE than BF3), Tribes.... the list goes on.



And to answer the question, hell yeah I do. I will put anywhere from 100 to 500 hours into battlefield 3 before all is said and done. Batman, on the other hand, will be shy of 20. Why are we questioning whether BF3 is worth it? It should be the other way around.

And most of those games were amazing to play so it makes even less sense.

 

[zephervack]

Dont have a problem with people that do, in the end everyone has a choice of what to do with their hard earned money.

Saying that though... I have always personally been against it, Im already paying $80 for broadband, there comes a point where its just too much money just to play online.

I tried Xbox live and I didnt find the product worth my money, Im happy with PSN and PC online gaming, all of my friends are pretty used to using Skype or Teamspeak, and now with Smartphones it is easier than ever to have "party chat", even outside of games, I dont miss nor need any of Xbox live's features.

 

[kai3345]

I like how people are shocked that people would drop 60 bucks for only multiplayer when the majority of the time the multiplayer ends up giving more playtime than the single player