Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

This is not a sarcastic question. I personally believe there is no inherent reason they should, but many people seem to feel they should or ought to cost less -- without any explanation given as to why that should be so.

What, to you, makes a game worth 30 dollars? 60 dollars? More?

 

[thekonamicode]

To encourage even more people to buy them which strengthens the online community, which is all you have in this situation.

 

[tranciful]

They see tacked on multiplayer for other games and think all multiplayer games are a minor development cost etc.

 

[NeoJanissary]

i guess i feel like cost should be related slightly to production cost and effort.

multiplayer only games have say, 10 maps. not a lot of voice work etc etc so less work does go into it, even if there is loads of contents

singleplayer gets potentially huge maps, way more voice, plus actors for them, less generic character designs etc etc

 

[mephixto]

Depends on the set of features. If the game is packed with a lot of content it could justify the price.

 

[Tokubetsu]

I would pay $60 for Call of Duty: Black Ops III if it was multiplayer only as long as it shipped with more maps from the start.

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

Because we are all whiners!

 

[Taco_Human]

Unless it's a really fleshed out multiplayer game, there obvioisly isn't going to be as much content as a single player campaign.

 

[op_ivy]

they shouldnt, so long as its apparent that a 60 dollar games resources went into its development (how ever the hell you measure that...). i welcome a game like titanfall, that drops single player to focus on multi.

 

[BattleMonkey]

People had no problem paying for essentially online only games in the past. Battlefield, Unreal Tournaments, etc.

 

[N30RYU]

What about you'll have a useless game once they shutdown the servers?

 

[Picobrain]

This is not a sarcastic question. I personally believe there is no inherent reason they should, but many people seem to feel they should or ought to cost less -- without any explanation given as to why that should be so.

What, to you, makes a game worth 30 dollars? 60 dollars? More?

I rarely play multiplayer, so if it doesn't have single player that game is not good for me. Yes even COD, I finished campaign multiple times and I have no interest in multiplayer.

 

[Represent.]

To encourage even more people to buy them which strengthens the online community, which is all you have in this situation.

.

 

[Marvel]

Unless it's a really fleshed out multiplayer game, there obvioisly isn't going to be as much content as a single player campaign.

Came to post this. Exactly how I feel.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Because online servers aren't eternal.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

If a game's content and quality justify a full price tag I will willingly and gladly throw my money at a MP only experience. I assume this includes things like more maps, better balance, a better overall experience, and (finger's crossed) mods + player dedis. If they can somehow (metaphorically) double the experience of my favorite type of MP game, my wallet is out. I'll pay even more than a full price tag if it is justified.

 

[bud]

there was a thread yesterday about developers cutting out the multiplayer mode for wii u titles. in that case, the game should be cheaper.

 

[Opiate]

i guess i feel like cost should be related slightly to production cost and effort.

multiplayer only games have say, 10 maps. not a lot of voice work etc etc so less work does go into it, even if there is loads of contents

singleplayer gets potentially huge maps, way more voice, plus actors for them, less generic character designs etc etc

This view seems clearly irrational to me.

Let's take it outside the world games and consider music, just so we can get an outsider's perspective. Let's imagine a record company tries to sell you a new CD for 20 dollars, and their justification for the high price is "well it cost us tons of money to produce this artist."

Your answer would be: "who cares?" Why should I care how much it cost you to make it? The question, from my perspective, is how much enjoyment I will get from listening to it.

Similarly, let's imagine we look at a game like, I don't know, Stranglehold
insisted on a 60 dollar price point not because it was good, but because it cost so darn much to make. Why would that be reasonable? The question should be how fun I find the game, not how much a company paid to make it.

 

[Kinyou]

Because superficially it seems to involve less work. You'll have no expensive cutscenes. Less voice work, less levels and no script events.

The actual work that is put in the game can obviously vary a lot.

 

[Opiate]

Unless it's a really fleshed out multiplayer game, there obvioisly isn't going to be as much content as a single player campaign.

Do you have evidence for this? It has been my overwhelming experience and observation that multiplayer games provide more hours to typical consumers, and that single player games are typically played much less.

 

[Impeccable]

They should cost more.

We should adopt the time = $ model.

 

[RS4-]

I'm still waiting for say, Battlefield to sell only the MP portion for half the price of the full game, or a sports game that only has the online functions.

I'd be all over that.

 

[Spookie]

As I understand it Multiplayer games can potentially be cheaper to develop than the standard SP/MP combo. No spending thousands on asking this years big actor to voice your main character. No need to spend months developing two sets of features/gimmicks when you only need focus on the MP. I can go on but you no doubt get the idea of where I'm going with this.

Of course there is the element that the cheaper it is the more likely you'll see impulse purchases made by word of mouth sales. For example I bought Payday 2 for £11 and I can see my self investing more time in to that game than most MP components of this years big releases and my list of friends playing that game grew from two to ten in a week.

 

[RedSwirl]

I's mostly a console gamer thing from what I can tell. Franchises like Battlefield and Unreal that charged full price this way were basically PC franchises. Console games have very rarely, if ever done this.

I think a main reason for this is because singleplayer is still seen as the default mode of console gaming. Online multiplayer is still a relatively recent occurrence.

The reason I personally don't like paying $60 for a multiplayer-only game is because I don't have any assurance that I'll be able to play it 100 percent of the time. It's always dependent on whether I have internet, whether I can find anyone nearby willing to play, or whether I can find anyone online. If I want to play a singleplayer game I know I'll always be able to because it just takes one person.

Another reason is because I know the servers will one day be shut down. This is much more of a problem with online console games since the developer or console manufacturer can shut down the servers when they want.

Basically, some people (myself included) don't like the feeling of paying $60 for a disc that they know will one day be no more than a coaster.

 

[Opiate]

Because superficially it seems to involve less work. You'll have no expensive cutscenes. Less voice work, less levels and no script events.

The actual work that is put in the game can obviously vary a lot.

My goodness. This seems to be the most common response, and I'm sort of blown away that this is how people judge the value of a game.

I value products based on how much value they are to me, and not how much they cost the company to make.

If a game costs 100 million dollars to make but would provide me with 5 hours of enjoyment, then it isn't worth very much to me. If a game was made by one guy on a shoestring budget but would provide hundreds of hours of enjoyment, then it is worth considerably more.

Why would you base the value of a product on how much it cost to make?

They should cost more.

We should adopt the time = $ model.

Not quite this simple: spending more time isn't necessarily good if a lot of that time you're not having fun. However, I think it's pretty rare for people to play, I don't know, Team Fortress 2 for hundreds of hours and then feel like they weren't having fun the whole time.

But generally I completely agree. I'm really surprised by people who seem to think that the price of a product should be based on how much it cost to make, and not on how much fun it brings you. It seems like the former view plays right in to the hands of the big publishers, who obviously love to hear that people think big, expensive games are inherently worth more, since they are the ones making the big, expensive games.

 

[Grayman]

Game pricing is quite fluid today so it is less of an issue. Multiplayer only games have been accepted by many since the late 90s.

i guess i feel like cost should be related slightly to production cost and effort.

multiplayer only games have say, 10 maps. not a lot of voice work etc etc so less work does go into it, even if there is loads of contents

singleplayer gets potentially huge maps, way more voice, plus actors for them, less generic character designs etc etc

You pay what things are worth not what they cost.

 

[Loofy]

I dont think it really has anything to do with how much a game is 'worth.' A multiplayer only game is only as good as its community. On one end being cheap or free to play ensures a huge community, and if it isnt huge well at least you didnt pay that much. If its full price... I would wait a few months to see how it works out.

 

[DigitalDevilSummoner]

This view seems clearly irrational to me.

Let's take it outside the world games and consider music, just so we can get an outsider's perspective. Let's imagine a record company tries to sell you a new CD for 20 dollars, and their justification for the high price is "well it cost us tons of money to produce this artist."

Your answer would be: "who cares?" Why should I care how much it cost you to make it? The question, from my perspective, is how much enjoyment I will get from listening to it.

Similarly, let's imagine we look at a game like, I don't know, Stranglehold
insisted on a 60 dollar price point not because it was good, but because it cost so darn much to make. Why would that be reasonable? The question should be how fun I find the game, not how much a company paid to make it.

That is also irrational. An album takes a handful of people to make. A game takes hundreds.

Another question. Where does the paywall fee come in ?

 

[Senor Kami]

I play a ton of singleplayer only games but I'm cool with it mostly because the games are long and packed to the brim with content. I mostly play RPGs and I'm into mastering the non-RPGs I play so my gameplay requirements are pretty high (I generally expect to get 40+ hours of play from a game I pay $60 for) but as long as that gets met, I'm good whether it be singleplayer only or multiplayer only.

Now, if a game literally felt like someone made Call of Duty, removed the singleplayer and gave you the exact same amount of multiplayer content you usually get, I'd feel a little conned by that. Part of me would feel like they basically need to double the maps, modes, etc to make $60 ok.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

If it comes with mod support, it is worth $60 to me. I have no confidence in devs producing enough content.

 

[Photolysis]

Because usually multiplayer takes up a fraction of the resources and content of the single player. Whenever I've seen comments from devs making a game that has SP and MP, they've repeatedly said that single player is where a lot of the work goes, even when they know MP is where the main draw lies.

Now if the devs are going to invest those resources from SP into MP I'm absolutely prepared to pay full price for it. If I'm going to get 30 maps instead of 10, and a lot of new features I'm all for it. I'd much rather they do this than spend a lot of time on a SP campaign no one cares about (I'm looking at you BF3).

But if they're not going to do this and offer far less content, why should I pay them full price?

 

[JaseC]

People unfamiliar with game development tend to view SP and MP as two halves of a whole and so there's a belief that an MP-only game should be priced within a lower bracket because it, presumably, costs less to make.

Edit: Intrinsically, there's also the element of value proposition. Those who feel that a game's MP isn't "worth it" will question why something not deserving of their time is priced above what they themselves would expect to pay for a more limited experience.

 

[Opiate]

That is also irrational. An album takes a handful of people to make. A game takes hundreds.

I am confident it is not irrational. If you can explain why it is irrational, I'll be glad to listen. This is basic economics: the value of a product is its marginal utility, not marginal (or total) cost.

Another question. Where does the paywall fee come in ?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate further?

 

[Korezo]

Look at socom confrontation, mag, and probably others. Sooner or later the game will be paper weight, servers get shut down. Definitely not worth full price. Single player games work forever multiplayer games don't.
So one has more value than the other .

 

[Naked Lunch]

Multiplayer only games should cost more actually, for value alone. I logged over 500 hours into games like Battlefield 3 and Street Fighter 4 and only paid $60. I feel like I ripped the devs off actually when I put that much time into a game, play it for years, and only pay a one time price.

 

[Sub_Level]

They shouldn't.

But for $60, you need a solid amount of maps, modes, character and weapon customization, cheap/free map packs, and timely balance patches.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

Because it's not as good as single player.

 

[TalesOfWin]

because Single player is what costs money. You're dealing with AI, NPC characters, story, enemy design etc.

 

[GameSeeker]

This is not a sarcastic question. I personally believe there is no inherent reason they should, but many people seem to feel they should or ought to cost less -- without any explanation given as to why that should be so.

What, to you, makes a game worth 30 dollars? 60 dollars? More?

I'm fine with multiplayer games charging whatever they feel the market will pay. There are multiplayer games that are F2P, there are multiplayer games at $0.99, there are multiplayer games at $60 and there are multiplayer games that are $15/month.

There is nothing wrong with any of those pricing models.

But, the question of value is always an important one. I play MMO's when I want to play multiplayer. All other games are strictly single-player or sometimes co-op. Many $60 titles offer both a single player and multiplayer campaign. That currently is the value benchmark. If a games comes out at $60 and only offers multiplayer, it better be the best multiplayer ever seen or the folks who like multiplayer won't buy it. And folks like me who buy for singleplayer content, won't buy a multiplayer only game for even zero dollars.

 

[Tain]

I see nothing wrong with charging 60 for multiplayer-only or singleplayer-only games.

though to be honest I don't really care when they're 80 or 90 either

lol, I guess I'm not the person to answer this question.

 

[Kinyou]

My goodness. This seems to be the most common response, and I'm sort of blown away that this is how people judge the value of a game.

I value products based on how much value they are to me, and not how much they cost the company to make.

If a game costs 100 million dollars to make but would provide me with 5 hours of enjoyment, then it isn't worth very much to me. If a game was made by one guy on a shoestring budget but would provide hundreds of hours of enjoyment, then it is worth considerably more.

Why would you base the value of a product on how much it cost to make?

But beforehand I'm not really going to know how much fun I'll have. After finishing a game I might say "oh boy, I would have paid a $100 for this", or I'll go "that wouldn't even be worth $5"
So beforehand I rather try getting a fair price and the only criteria I have available for that is the amount of work put into the game. I doesn't guarantee quality, but it shows me that I'm not overpaying for a product I might not even like.

 

[Mithos]

Because online servers aren't eternal.

This indeed.

 

[ShroudOfFate]

The only reason I can think of is because now people see a multiplayer-only game as half a game. Games need to have a singleplayer and a multiplayer to be considered a full game worth $60. If it only has one or the other then it's worth less somehow.

I don't agree with it, but that's the reasoning I see behind it.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

But beforehand I'm not really going to know how much fun I'll have. After finishing a game I might say "oh boy, I would have paid a $100 for this", or I'll go "that wouldn't even be worth $5"
So beforehand I rather try getting a fair price and the only criteria I have available for that is the amount of work put into the game. I doesn't guarantee quality, but it shows me that I'm not overpaying for a product I might not even like.

I feel like that is always a risk you will take. Is there a reason you feel like the risk is reduced in a singleplayer game (with or without a MP component)?

 

[Zemm]

I don't play fps on consoles but out of principle I'd never pay full price for any fps game that didn't have dedicated servers.

 

[Scrooged]

The production costs of a quality single player experience are more than straight up multiplayer. Scripting, voice acting, set pieces, story, etc.

 

[Moon_frogger]

This view seems clearly irrational to me.

Let's take it outside the world games and consider music, just so we can get an outsider's perspective. Let's imagine a record company tries to sell you a new CD for 20 dollars, and their justification for the high price is "well it cost us tons of money to produce this artist."

Your answer would be: "who cares?" Why should I care how much it cost you to make it? The question, from my perspective, is how much enjoyment I will get from listening to it.

Similarly, let's imagine we look at a game like, I don't know, Stranglehold
insisted on a 60 dollar price point not because it was good, but because it cost so darn much to make. Why would that be reasonable? The question should be how fun I find the game, not how much a company paid to make it.

Kind of silly to compare game production and music production. Completely different ecosystems. Also, good and fun are subjective so how do you propose to set pricing based on that? I suppose we could just pay what we think its worth. In that case, I want my 60 dollars back for uncharted 2 and I owe nintendo another couple hundred for animal crossing new leaf.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I think the first reply is the best argument for why a multiplayer only game should be as affordable as possible. You do have to build a player base or the game is dead.

Though on the side, it seems a lot of the responses so far indicate people have gotten into the mindset of, basically, paying for production values and not the experience of playing the game.

For example, on the comparison of an album to a game: an album takes a few people to make. A game should cost a lot more, right? If it has fancy cut scenes and... stuff.

But a motion picture also takes a lot of people to make. Throw in a bunch of visual effects and fancy shooting requirements, and it can take a cast and crew of hundreds and cost more than any one video game has ever been budgeted. Are movie tickets $60? Are normal blu-ray editions of expensive to make films $60? Nope.

I get the impression consumers of other media never got it into their head they should pay for the production costs of the product.

 

[JaseC]

Because online servers aren't eternal.

This is a rather myopic perspective, though. Consider the PC, where dedicated servers are the norm and so the life of a product is practically dependent upon only the existence of a player base: look at Valve and the original Counter-Strike, for instance.

 

[Mileena]

Because it's not as good as single player.

lol

It most certainly is in most FPS games. I'm no fan of Battlefield's kinda shitty multiplayer but I'd play it all day over that "campaign"