Support NeoGAF

[-Pyromaniac-]

I think MP only games should be cheaper but I have trouble articulating why. I think it's because like someone said above, programming AI and all that other single player stuff takes a lot of work. Also, a lot of money from MP heavy games like COD and BF is made from DLC so if the game was $40 lets say, they're much more likely to make up that cost in future DLC releases that people will be much more willing to buy. I'm sure there are a lot of people like me that have seen DLC that they kind of wanted to buy but just didn't want to make the investment because games are already expensive enough. That's money I could have put elsewhere. But it would make it easier for me to do it knowing I saved $20 initially or something.

Same with MMOs. I'd likely not buy FF14 if it were 59.99 because that plus a sub kind of sucks. But at 39.99, it makes me want to buy it and at LEAST play it for 2 months which will bring it around the cost of a full game. By then they'd probably have me hooked for more so win win for everybody.

BUT I will say, if it's a MP game that comes PACKED with content. I'm talking notably more than current sp/mp games already do in terms of maps/equipment/guns/characters/cars/etc for whatever type of game it is, then $60 is easily justified. But if it's going to be nothing too different in content then ehhh it kinda sucks.

 

[N2NOther]

Sigh. The difference between a single player game and a multiplayer game is that when the single player development is done everyone moves on to the next project save for DLC. With mp games there is constant maintenance of servers, patches, balancing and so on. Or might have a lower cost up front for development but could cost more over time.

 

[Scoot2005]

So long as there were massive amounts of customization and the option for local offline then there is no excuse. Map editors help also.

 

[Opiate]

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.

You have plenty of other criteria. All consumer decisions are made with imperfect knowledge ahead of time. One can reasonably estimate how much enjoyment they can get out of a game in lots of ways other than "how much did it cost to make?" You can consider what genre it's in (do you like that genre?) who the developer is (do you like that developer?) what reviews say (are they good?) what your friends say (do they like it?) how the game has performed so far (have people who already bought the game played it a lot or did they play for 6 hours and quit?), how the playstyle seems to fit your personal preferences (Do you like very challenging games? Do you want games with lots of story? No story at all? etc).

There are a huge number of variables which one can reasonably use to make a basic approximation of what the value of the game will be to you. Yes, of course, that approximation isn't always right. But the suggestion that there are no criteria other than "how much did it cost to make" strikes me as patently absurd.

Do you just buy any game that has a big budget, then? EA must love you, if so.

 

[KiNeSiS]

They become garbage in a few yrs when the servers are turned off example UFC 3 When less than a yr
Ranked matches were no more. EA sports games when a new one is out the old ones online features are disabled.
EA MMA was 2 years old and they got rid of online.
Sony is cutting the servers on a bunch of games. For example a while back Motorstorm Pacific Rift they cut online and its one of the best racers this gen. If Sony forces online paywalls next gen they damn sure better keep online features running on all games even 3rd party.

I really wanted Anarchy Reigns
but decided against it since it will be a beer coaster in a yr or two and I don't even drink.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

People tend to value multiplayer games less than single player games. Look at the amount of single player games to multiplayer games on any "Greatest Games Ever" list, look what people vote for.

I can't explain it, but that's just how people are.

 

[hamchan]

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.

Battlefield started off as a MP only game, at full price.

 

[Mileena]

Also I'm gonna go ahead and say anyone saying they should cost less have not played Counter-Strike. The best game ever, and no need for a boring ass campaign. Was worth the full price of HL1 back in the day, which I never touched cuz FPS campaigns are meh

 

[Opiate]

Kind of silly to compare game production and music production.

Then what would you like me to compare it to? I'm happy to make any comparison, because the concept applies in virtually all markets. I can even give you the general economic version of this concept: the value of a product is its marginal utility to you, not its marginal cost to the producer. I will repeat that this is basic, well understood economic analysis.

Completely different ecosystems. Also, good and fun are subjective so how do you propose to set pricing based on that?

Generally companies base this by taking marginal utility as a mean and then setting price to maximize profits, recognizing higher prices produce lower sales and lower prices produce higher sales. This can be graphed and calculated with quite a bit of precision, given sufficient prior knowledge of consumer preferences.

 

[crayman]

This started with the 2007 release of Shadowrun for 360. They charged the same price for a MP only game with 9 multiplayer maps, as was being charged for the first Gears of War (8-9 hour single player mode, and 10 multiplayer maps).

With shadowrun, you could see absolutely everything the game had to offer within say a couple of hours of map rotation. With Gears, it'd take you many times that amount before you'd seen everything.

Which felt more worth $60?

 

[fuzzyreactor]

you only see this argument on message boards filled with entitled gamers. Most people get much greater utility out of online games and have no problem paying full price for it.

 

[kadotsu]

It is risk management. A MP only game is only worth anything if a active enough community exists to play against/with. For that risk alone more MP games should cost less than SP games that are safe from those exogenous factors. There is also the problem of infrastructure for MP games that don't piggyback on platform holders and don't give the costumer dedicated server tools. Again added risk.

I think an argument can be made that all MP only games, that haven't already a big established community, should have a F2P component just to feed paying players with opponents. Trackmania 2 is dead because it doesn't follow this rule.

 

[NeoJanissary]

seems my initial post was taken the wrong way

i did not literally mean cost of production vs cost of final item, i meant it as loosely as can possibly be taken

basically, lets take an up coming multiplayer only game. titanfall. this game which apparently has singleplayer elements to it somehow, ok...

is it gonna be released with more maps then your usual sp/mp game? probably not. is it gonna have all kinds of modes that are interesting and awesome? not likely. is it gonna be full price? damn sure it is. will and new content be free? nope! premium premium premium!

thing is with a normal game, you get 2 experiences, which can both be added to. a sp only game has the effort to write a story and the game world to make you want to keep playing. when you only make multiplayer, its a selection of boxes you replay every 15 minutes. its the game, and the community, that make it. so im agreeing with the fella who said it should be cheaper to get that going. but also, with only 1 experience out of the box, youre expecting additional content otherwise there is no replay. then comes premium dlc.

crayman a few posts above puts a point im trying to make, in much better words then i did

 

[Moral Panic]

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.

It's not irrational. It's very rational to expect savings to be passed on to consumers when a significant expense has been removed. If I buy a PC with no dedicated graphics then I expect to pay less, even though I spend much, much longer on non-gaming activities that require high GPU power. Even if we are purely talking about software Indie games cost less to make so we expect them to be cheaper. Doesn't matter that if it is the game of the century. Doesn't matter if it gives 10000 hours of enjoyment. If it doesn't have a singleplayer component then it should be cheaper.

Why are handheld games cheaper? Why are iOS games cheaper?

 

[Gbraga]

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.

Makes sense, but should they cost more on PC and less on consoles then? His point is valid considering Titanfall is not cheaper on consoles...

 

[Opiate]

It's not irrational.

Yes, it is.

It's very rational to expect savings to be passed on to consumers when a significant expense has been removed.

No, it is not. If it's still exactly as valuable to you as it was before, then why would you object to the price being the same?

If I buy a PC with no dedicated graphics then I expect to pay less, even though I spend much, much longer on non-gaming activities that require high GPU power. Even if we are purely talking about software Indie games cost less to make so we expect them to be cheaper. Doesn't matter that if it is the game of the century. Doesn't matter if it gives 10000 hours of enjoyment. If it doesn't have a singleplayer component then it should be cheaper.

This is, again, irrational. I do not pay high prices for things because they cost lots of money to make. Generally, prices for PC parts come down as their marginal utility is reduced (i.e. the price/performance ratio becomes unbalanced relative to other products on the market providing higher marginal utility at lower prices).

I can also tell you that the big publishers would love your mindset: if only big, expensive-to-make games "deserve" to have high prices, that's fantastic for EA/Activision/Take 2/etc., because only those select few big publishers can afford to make those very expensive games in the first place.

 

[Kinyou]

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)?

I'm actually not necessarily on board with the 'MP games should cost less' crowd. My first post was just meant to show why people usually think that MP games involve less work.

You have plenty of other criteria. All consumer decisions are made with imperfect knowledge ahead of time. One can reasonably estimate how much enjoyment they can get out of a game in lots of ways other than "how much did it cost to make?" You can consider what genre it's in (do you like that genre?) who the developer is (do you like that developer?) what reviews say (are they good?) what your friends say (do they like it?) how the game has performed so far (have people who already bought the game played it a lot or did they play for 6 hours and quit?), how the playstyle seems to fit your personal preferences (Do you like very challenging games? Do you want games with lots of story? No story at all? etc).

There are a huge number of variables which one can reasonably use to make a basic approximation of what the value of the game will be to you. Yes, of course, that approximation isn't always right. But the suggestion that there are no criteria other than "how much did it cost to make" strikes me as patently absurd.

Do you just buy any game that has a big budget, then? EA must love you, if so.

Well, when I imagine that games from now on get priced for the amount of fun the developer thinks you're getting out of it, then I imagine games like Skyrim, Starcraft, Battlefield all being priced around $180. Now what it would do is to force me to trust in the developers confidence that their games are really worth that much. Of course can I, like you said, get other references but in the end it's still a risk.

Now what I want is that I'm taking this risk because the game actually happened to cost that much and not because someone thought that Super Meatboy is worth $60.


Of course do I not buy every EA game, because like you said, there are other criteria (and like I said, high-budget isn't a guarantee for quality), but if I'd buy an EA game i probably wouldn't feel as ripped off because I can see where the $60 went. I have to blame me for buying the wrong game. If i'd buy a shitty game that's obviously low budget but also priced at $60 then I'd also feel a little anger at the developer who assumed that every gamer would get $60 worth of fun out of it.

Edit: I do admit that I'm arguing a bit in circles, but I just can't really see a "pay for the amount of fun" economy work.

 

[legacyzero]

So long as the CONTENT = THE PRICE, I'm fine with whatever they charge.

 

[Opiate]

Makes sense, but should they cost more on PC and less on consoles then? His point is valid considering Titanfall is not cheaper on consoles...

There is definitely a strong argument for that. It will not happen, but at the moment we're having a normative rather than positive debate.

 

[Opiate]

Of course do I not buy every EA game, because like you said, there are other criteria (and like I said, high-budget isn't a guarantee for quality), but if I'd buy an EA game i probably wouldn't feel as ripped off because I can see where the $60 went. I have to blame me for buying the wrong game. If i'd buy a shitty game that's obviously low budget but also priced at $60 then I'd also feel a little anger at the developer who assumed that every gamer would get $60 worth of fun out of it.

Again, this doesn't strike me as rational. If I buy a bad, big budget EA game, I don't think to myself, "I guess it's kind of okay, since at least I know they blew all the money I gave them on this terrible game."

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I agree with this. If the default maps your get are more than 10-12 maps, a good amount of guns and features sets, I would pay $60. But if it's multi-player only and comes with just 6 maps, 4 classes of guns with 7 each and 4 different feature sets, I'm not paying $60 for that. The most I would pay is $40.


However if it's multi-player only, it should be less because it will open the gateways to starting a big community from the start without alienating any one. I think there's a huge pay off to that.

 

[Opiate]

So far, the explanation that multiplayer servers can be shut down and your game may eventually be a coaster strikes me as easily the most rational consideration. As kadotsu said, price is one of the ways we handle risk management.

I want to point this out so that it's clear that I'm paying attention to what people are posting, and I'm not just automatically nay-saying everything. I appreciate the input.

 

[Ryuuga]

I determine what price is best for me before purchase. Being exclusively MP/SP has no bearings. While I'll gladly pay $60 for an MMO without a monthly subscription or even a MP-exclusive Battlefield (which the series was up to Bad Company) that's where I'd draw the line. I wouldn't settle on that price for essentially a set of map packs that could be sold as DLC to an otherwise much more content-filled package. Now, you're probably wondering (..but Battlefield..) Battlefield in particular has been doing amazing things with it's multiplayer since it's inception to warrant it's current market price (to me) and that's without the 'tacked-on singleplayer'. The reason for it's inclusion of SP? Value perception? How can they afford to sell a $60 MP-exclusive title when their strongest competitor is offering both at the same price? How can anyone nowadays? Perception. You may not get a solid answer and that's because of perception.

 

[Huevos de Oro]

If the costs of producing a multiplayer only game are on the same ballpark of a traditional single player one, I would have a hard time justifying the multiplayer game being sold at a lower pricepoint.

That doesn't mean said pricepoint would need to be $60, mind you. I think a more flexible approach to pricing could be considered for both single player and multiplayer games alike, although that is probably a subject of discussion for another thread.

 

[Kinyou]

Again, this doesn't strike me as rational. If I buy a bad, big budget EA game, I don't think to myself, "I guess it's kind of okay, since at least I know they blew all the money I gave them on this terrible game."

I admit, it's more of a psychological thing, that I don't want to these guys to profit as much of something that I didn't like.

 

[Opiate]

I admit, it's more of a psychological thing, that I don't want to these guys to profit as much of something that I didn't like.

I can understand that viewpoint, but if we're just going to be going off impulse, then I could just as easily adopt the opposite instinct: I'd prefer the terrible games cost very little to make so that there is still a chance that some of the money I gave them goes towards the development of another, potentially better game that wouldn't even exist if all the money had already been been blown on the crappy game I bought.

 

[Chittagong]

The $60 game model is dying.

I can bet almost anything that next gen will bring us F2P mainline CoD MP with IAP for double-XP, golden guns and character customization.

CoD will become a service like WoW and Dota are.

 

[gutter_trash]

Online only means your game is a coaster if there is nobody online playing

hence why I believe they are worth less

 

[Vodh]

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?

Most multiplayer games are quite heavily reliant on an active community. In most of the cases, the community is at it's most active shortly after release and then declines. The experience is also affected by how good and familiar with the game the people you're playing with are.

A single player game is pretty much the same no matter when you buy it. Multiplayer games die and the experience changes a lot during their lifespan.

And to me most games aren't really worth $60, not compared to the few that are really amazing and still cost just $60. So basically, In some cases I would easily say a game is worth $30 to me at launch, with an active community of players who aren't hardcore, experienced fans of the game that will just destroy me. But if that game was priced at $60, by the time it costs $30 it's already started to decline in popularity, and most of the people I'd find online are way ahead of me in terms of skill, so I won't have as good of a time and as smooth of a learning curve if I jump in now. So the game is worth $20 to me now. And by the time it's $20, a dozen newer games in the genre have been released and one or two of them are really good and have active communities that will stay active for years to come.

tl;dr: the answer is, to make more money.

 

[MercuryLS]

A really well done, content rich MP only game is appealing to me. I hope Titanfall is great and does well at $60. If you're really into the MP of a game, it is a better bang for your buck than a SP game.

 

[nib95]

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

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

These are good answers. But yea, multiplayer has to be seriously comprehensive, diverse, content rich, narrative based and feature heavy for me to even consider paying full retail for a multiplayer only game.

 

[Opiate]

I definitely think this "active community" problem is more significant on consoles than it is on PC, and that might explain the disparity here. PC gamers seem to have less concern about full price multiplayer titles, and this disparity could be explained by different valuations of risk.

 

[i HeaR MusiC]

They shouldn't cost less.. However they should have more content because of the focus on MP.

 

[Nags]

It's my money. I'll use it however rationally or irrationally as I please.
What makes a game worth it for me is a compelling experience. Value is subject to the individual.

 

[Tan]

Genuinely surprised at most of the answers here. I have no problem with a $60 multiplayer-only game. And of course if I'm paying $60 I expect a fair amount of content (characters, weapons, maps, etc.) but that expectation is not exclusive to multiplayer-only games.

I loved Battlefield 2, I love fighting games (and definitely not for their single player), and I've had no problem buying them for $60.

 

[Dion Blaster]

It may seem irrational but in a multiplayer game my entertainment is dependent on others playing the game, a single player game relies solely on the game the developers created. What single player provides is simply worth more to me because of the inherent long term value of it always being able to played at its optimum fun level. No servers down or empty in a few years.

I also just value the craftsmanship of a well-made single player game more.

 

[Hubb]

Again, this doesn't strike me as rational. If I buy a bad, big budget EA game, I don't think to myself, "I guess it's kind of okay, since at least I know they blew all the money I gave them on this terrible game."

I understand what you are getting at about the value of games, but I feel the whole conversation has been about AAA games and nothing else. I have played F2P games and enjoyed them more than games I have paid $60 for. Indies as well cost a lot less and have some real hidden gems. Should they up their game to $60. Getting back on topic...

I could go look at some Steam games that are multiplayer only and not want to pay anything for them. Why? They have no community at this point, or never did. Mulitplayer only games can have everything going for them, but they are slaves to the userbase. Could some games that are multiplayer only actually be better off releasing at a lower price and/or doing free updates to keep their userbase big and happy?

Why don't I buy multiplayer only games at full price? Too much risk. I never know where they are going to end up, hacked? No support? No userbase? Crappy netcode? Sooner than later I feel most multiplayer only games will go the F2P route.

 

[Ryuuga]

Value is subject to the individual.

 

[RedSwirl]

Another problem for me personally is that I just don't have as much time where I'm able to play multiplayer games uninterrupted. I have to pause singleplayer games frequently and can't do that for multiplayer. I can only find time to play maybe an hour or two of multiplayer games per week.

Because of this, despite owning Team Fortress 2 since it first came out back in 2007, I only have about 20 hours logged on the game. I think I have less than 10 hours logged on each of the Left 4 Dead games, which made me feel bad about paying full price for L4D1, and caused me to wait till L4D2 was $30. Other than possibly COD4 I don't think I've ever spent more than 10 hours on each COD game's multiplayer. I probably have so many other games where I never even touched the multiplayer.

In the case of something like Titanfall, I just don't think I'll actually play multiplayer enough for it to be worth the $60 alone.

 

[RedSwirl]

Most multiplayer games are quite heavily reliant on an active community. In most of the cases, the community is at it's most active shortly after release and then declines. The experience is also affected by how good and familiar with the game the people you're playing with are.

A single player game is pretty much the same no matter when you buy it. Multiplayer games die and the experience changes a lot during their lifespan.

And to me most games aren't really worth $60, not compared to the few that are really amazing and still cost just $60. So basically, In some cases I would easily say a game is worth $30 to me at launch, with an active community of players who aren't hardcore, experienced fans of the game that will just destroy me. But if that game was priced at $60, by the time it costs $30 it's already started to decline in popularity, and most of the people I'd find online are way ahead of me in terms of skill, so I won't have as good of a time and as smooth of a learning curve if I jump in now. So the game is worth $20 to me now. And by the time it's $20, a dozen newer games in the genre have been released and one or two of them are really good and have active communities that will stay active for years to come.

tl;dr: the answer is, to make more money.

I agree with this too.

 

[model13]

I don't understand the mentality either. I don't go to the movie theater and demand a discount on lower budget movies because it cost less to make.

I really hope the group of people who feel this way are not the same group of people who constantly criticize the budgets of AAA games. Titanfall is a perfect example of a studio trying to provide the experience the large percentage of their target audience will enjoy while keeping their budget as low as possible, so of our course people criticize them for it.

 

[otapnam]

Should u pay less for a movie that Cost 100k to make and more for a 200m blockbuster?

 

[LordBaztion]

they don't need to spend (or at least spend less) in writters, cutscene directors, talented voice acotrs,extensive audio recording sessions, CGI artists and overall presentation stuff.

 

[Opiate]

I don't understand the mentality either. I don't go to the movie theater and demand a discount on lower budget movies because it cost less to make.

I really hope the group of people who feel this way are not the same group of people who constantly criticize the budgets of AAA games. Titanfall is a perfect example of a studio trying to provide the experience the large percentage of their target audience will enjoy while keeping their budget as low as possible, so of our course people criticize them for it.

I do think the people who worry about a game's community have a legitimate concern of risk, and this may also explain why the problem is more noticeable on consoles than on PC. Not that PC communities always flourish forever, but they seem to have more longevity than do most console multiplayer games.

As such there is lower risk when buying them, and higher prices can be demanded. This is a completely separate, more reasonable argument than "well single player games cost a ton to make."

 

[Duxxy3]

Because they are cheaper to make.

 

[Kintaro]

Why should they be? They shouldn't be but gamer's price expectations have become severely out of whack. Look around this forum when it comes to MMOs. I bet 90% of people think that a MMO must be F2P for them to even think about playing it when the amount of man hours that goes into MMOs far exceeds almost any other type of game. But you want those for free? Why aren't you demanding everything else to be free too? Why not single player games too?

The price perception is quite out of whack now IMO.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

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.

It's still less content. You're just playing the same content over and over for more hours. Just because you'd play that amount of content for a longer amount of time doesn't mean that content costs even more to produce. You're still getting less actual content then a game that also has a single player aspect to it.

Of course they could change all that if it was a multiplayer game that takes the money it would have used for a single player campaign and uses it to make an even larger multiplayer aspect (more game modes/maps/ect then the average multiplayer game).

I don't understand the mentality either. I don't go to the movie theater and demand a discount on lower budget movies because it cost less to make.

I really hope the group of people who feel this way are not the same group of people who constantly criticize the budgets of AAA games. Titanfall is a perfect example of a studio trying to provide the experience the large percentage of their target audience will enjoy while keeping their budget as low as possible, so of our course people criticize them for it.

I don't think this is really an apt analogy. It's not about how much money it costs to make, it's about the amount of content that comes with the package. A multiplayer only game would be more like going to see a short film and still getting charged $12 like you usually would for a two hour movie. Unless like I said above they would make a multiplayer only game that is even larger in content then your average multiplayer game.

 

[Hubb]

I don't understand the mentality either. I don't go to the movie theater and demand a discount on lower budget movies because it cost less to make.

You do pay more for Imax/3d movies though. You also spend more depending on the time of day or how old you are.

 

[otapnam]

You do pay more for Imax/3d movies though. You also spend more depending on the time of day or how old you are.

Imax/3d is an added feature


Time of day n age is a promotion

 

[Vashetti]

We are accustomed to the majority of multiplayer experiences being tacked-on additions forced by executives, as opposed to something organic that was always part of the game's conception.

That's where your negative attitudes towards multiplayer and its pricing comes from.