Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

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).

Oh, I see. You're defining "content" differently than I would. I think a good multiplayer game (e.g. Chess) can have virtually unlimited content, since the content is partially, significantly, or even majoratively defined by the community which plays it.

In that case, this is just another way of framing the "single player games cost more to make so their prices should be higher" argument.

 

[Hubb]

Imax/3d is an added feature


Time of day n age is a promotion

Yeah and movies vs games is not a good comparison. You don't come out of a movie owning anything. Cds vs games is a little better and Cds release at varying prices.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

Because that's what people are willing to pay for them.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

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.

I don't believe CoD will go f2p in the US or EU any time soon. They'll continue to make a ton more money off of annual releases than f2p+IAP, although IAP is in fact already a reality for the franchise starting with BO2.

On the other hand, China has a CoD f2p I think (licensed to and developed by a chinese studio IIRC) so I wouldn't say its never going to happen. I just don't think it will happen soon since COD franchises still pull huge numbers.

Sorry for the offtopic ><

 

[double jump]

production value - graphics , vo, cut scenes, atmosphere etc all seem to take a major dive when it comes to mp.

content- the average online portion of a game gives extremely limited options imo when it comes to skins,weapons, maps and player freedom.

network stability - which I think is self explanatory. Your network has to be damn near flawless if you plan to sale me an online only mp product at a premium value.

pay to win, dlc (content to value ratio doesn't feel equal), lack of patches and support ( developers not being able to fix issues because of unjustifiable cost etc) .

None of these issues have seriously been addressed when it comes to the current state of mp. In it's current form these are the reasons I personally feel a stand alone mp product should cost less.

 

[Garryk]

The next-gen consoles have online play behind a paywall (excluding F2P on PS4). Why should I pay $60 for a game that I can only access with an additional $4+/month? If the game came with a one-month voucher for Live/PS+ (like sub-based MMOs) that would be a different story.

 

[DoomGyver]

The only multiplayer only game I've purchased is Warhawk, I think I spent $40 on the disc version. I was satisfied with the price and the amount of content, I also purchased most of the additional DLC.

I would say $40 is the sweet spot for me. 4-6 modes, 20 maps, great multiplayer, and an active user base. Then maybe $12 DLC packs 6-9-12 months down the line to keep things fresh.

 

[RedSwirl]

The next-gen consoles have online play behind a paywall (excluding F2P on PS4). Why should I pay $60 for a game that I can only access with an additional $4+/month? If the game came with a one-month voucher for Live/PS+ (like sub-based MMOs) that would be a different story.

This too.

I don't really agree with the whole production value standpoint because some people get hundreds of hours of fun out of multiplayer. But for me there are other value propositions to consider, specifically the ability to play the game.

The main point is, multiplayer games have a higher functional barrier to entry than singleplayer games. There are more factors potentially stopping you from being able to play them.

 

[NoirVisage]

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.

Both of those have been the main arguments since from the beginning, probably top 5 on everyones list, even those playing devils advocate.. I think the only people who are seriously trying to say there is equivalent value in a multiplayer only experience, are those who play games with both options where the included single player experience is so vapid they don't even pay attention to it.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

In that case, this is just another way of framing the "single player games cost more to make so their prices should be higher" argument.

Not really. It has nothing to do with budget. It has to do with how much stuff comes with the game. I'm not going to pay $60 for a game that's multiplayer only when I can go the next shelf over and get a $60 game that has a multiplayer mode and a single player mode. It's a more varied experience, so I'm willing to pay a larger amount of money for it.

It's the same concept as buying a special edition CD over a regular edition. The special edition is probably going to cost like $5 more, but it's going to come with additional songs. They wouldn't charge the same price for a CD with less tracks, so I don't see why they should charge the same amount of money for a multiplayer only Battlefield game as they would for a Battlefield game with both single and multiplayer. Unless of course the multiplayer only Battlefield game came with more content then your average multiplayer shooter would.

If I see a $60 Call Of Duty game with a single player and multiplayer aspect with 10 maps and 5 game modes and then next to it is a Battlefield multiplayer only game with 20 maps and 10 game modes then the decision is going to be a little harder. I'm not going to get tired of those Battlefield maps and modes as quickly because there are more of them and I'd probably be willing to play it longer.

 

[BrainZEROX]

Mostly because, on PC, they are now competing for my attention with free to play games such as Black Light Retribution or Planetside 2. And that'll soon be true for consoles too. I wonder how that'll impact BF4 with its announced 70€ price tag (on consoles).

 

[Photolysis]

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.

Entertainment provided does not equate to the amount of content provided, and you shouldn't confuse the two.

As an analogy, consider a game of chess.

The "content" of chess is very low, as the game only consists of a few rules, and a few material items. A seasoned player might spend thousands of hours playing it, but only because the value is player-created by challenging himself against other players. The makers of the set/game are actually only providing limited value to the player, which is why players don't spend ridiculous money on chess sets; the value of them is very low.

MP games do provide more content, and it's fair for the asking price to reflect that since it requires considerable work from the developers, but it's still a fraction of SP and much of the value is player-created. Singleplayer content has value without any further outside input, and there's far more of it. If this wasn't the case, the question you should be asking is why therefore does SP take so many more resources than MP, if the content level is comparable?

The answer is: because it's not. Sure MP almost always shares a lot of assets from the single player like models and sounds, and at a more basic level, typically stuff like the game engine, but the levels are usually far smaller and much less work goes into them.

 

[nib95]

Oh, I see. You're defining "content" differently than I would. I think a good multiplayer game (e.g. Chess) can have virtually unlimited content, since the content is partially, significantly, or even majoratively defined by the community which plays it.

In that case, this is just another way of framing the "single player games cost more to make so their prices should be higher" argument.

I would argue what you're suggesting is not content, just re playability or variables. Content in a chess game would be more akin to different chess board designs, different pieces, different chess game types, awards, championships, characters, locations, unlocks and so on.

 

[apana]

Perception of cost and worth of a product can change its value to the consumer. A computer animated film, like Pixar produces will sell a lot more than the traditional hand drawn film even if the traditional film has a superior story and art style. People see a computer animated film as more valuable.

In the case of multiplayer only games you are literally taking away the option to play by yourself, that is a big difference. It makes the game feel cheap and incomplete even if all someone wanted to do was play multiplayer and never touch single player. Beyond that companies charge what they can get away with. It is not complicated.

 

[Korigama]

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

This is basically how I look at it. Seeing as I never sell my games, and like going back to older ones, I have no use for a game that's entirely dependent upon server maintenance just to exist.

I can't be bothered with games that can't be played offline at all, but that's my preference. If I were to change my mind, it would have to cost significantly less.

 

[entremet]

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.

Then don't buy the game. I don't see what your argument has to do with cost.

 

[otapnam]

Yeah and movies vs games is not a good comparison. You don't come out of a movie owning anything. Cds vs games is a little better and Cds release at varying prices.

Haha yeah. Its more about how much you enjoy the game/movie/music.

 

[Enkidu]

Not really. It has nothing to do with budget. It has to do with how much stuff comes with the game. I'm not going to pay $60 for a game that's multiplayer only when I can go the next shelf over and get a $60 game that has a multiplayer mode and a single player mode. It's a more varied experience, so I'm willing to pay a larger amount of money for it.

What about single player only games then? Do you feel they should also be worth less money?

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Mostly because, on PC, they are now competing for my attention with free to play games such as Black Light Retribution or Planetside 2. And that'll soon be true for consoles too. I wonder how that'll impact BF4 with its announced 70€ price tag (on consoles).

Good point. I didn't realize it would be priced that high for consoles and they are in fact competing with some f2ps on the next gen platform. However, BF4 is coming out new when the consoles drop and are competiting against titles that have been on the market for, in some cases, longer than a year (BLR released feb/apr 2012 for example). Do you think these ports are going to have a lasting following on ps4?

 

[Opiate]

Not really. It has nothing to do with budget. It has to do with how much stuff comes with the game. I'm not going to pay $60 for a game that's multiplayer only when I can go the next shelf over and get a $60 game that has a multiplayer mode and a single player mode. It's a more varied experience, so I'm willing to pay a larger amount of money for it.

It doesn't necessarily have a more varied experience. Surely you can see that? Go provides a more varied experience than any game released in the last decade that I ca think of.

It's the same concept as buying a special edition CD over a regular edition. The special edition is probably going to cost like $5 more, but it's going to come with additional songs.

Absolutely, if it's just MP content vs. the exact same MP content and also SP content, then I completely agree. But multiplayer content varies and is typically much broader than single player content. Which is why people play many of them so long.

Go and Chess constantly have new content that no one has ever played before, for example.

 

[Exploding8]

Probably just echoing what other people have said, but I think of it like this.

A singleplayer game never dies, and its core components are all designed by the devs. You can finish a singleplayer game, wait 20 years, and go back and play the exact same game.
A multiplayer game dies when people stop playing it, since multiplayer is the core component of the game, and devs can only do so much to manipulate that.

A F2P MMO works out because it allows a ton of people to play their game, fleshing out that core component. And because a lot of people are playing the game, it encourages even more people to play because the game doesn't look totally dead. And because so many people are playing the game, even if only a small percent of those people are buying things on the shop, they'll be able to make money.

So basically, free players bring in more players which increases the chances that players willing to buy on the shop will start playing.

Extra Credits did an episode explaining all this a while back. I can't remember which one it was or I'd post it.

 

[mclem]

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.

I'm with Opiate on this; why does that actually matter? If the game retains enjoyability for that period of time, what's the problem? Why on earth is 'quantity of assets' something that means, well, anything at all?

Products are priced according to percieved demand, *not* cost of creation. That's one of the very first things I learnt in Business Studies.

 

[VeryGooster]

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.

I think this is where it mostly stems from, because aside from the current popular/highly active MP titles, some are becoming used to multiplayer (at least on consoles) sold as a corporate-driven excuse to not sell your game as opposed to being an alternate meaningful community-driven experience. This is why posts like "Just spend those resources on a meaningful SP!" surface often.

 

[entremet]

Also a big part of the reason I'm sure Titanfall is MP only is because of the analytics they got on achievement data in SP completion. It's probably dirt poor and they can track such stats as MP time, where a the majority of game time is spent and they can track that easily.

 

[NotoriousPUG]

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?




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.

You say the value is more, but look at games and how they are priced. There are amazing indie games worth 1000 hours of entertainment, but are sold between $5-$20 and mass budget AAA games with 15 hours of content are $60. Gamers are told that a game's (monetary) value is tied to its budget.

 

[Vodh]

It doesn't necessarily have a more varied experience. Surely you can see that? Go provides a more varied experience than any game released in the last decade that I ca think of.



Absolutely, if it's just MP content vs. the exact same MP content and also SP content, then I completely agree. But multiplayer content varies and is typically much broader than single player content. Which is why people play many of them so long.

Go and Chess constantly have new content that no one has ever played before, for example.

Let's not confuse depth and content. Content of Go is a bunch of white and black stones and a wooden board.

 

[SymbolicGamer]

Because the game's longevity depends entirely on how active the game's players are, and how long the developers are willing to support it. A single player campaign can be played long after the community has moved on, thus adding more value.

 

[Ateron]

Because the game's longevity depends entirely on how active the game's players are, and how long the developers are willing to support it. A single player campaign can be played long after the community has moved on, thus adding more value.

Was just about to post something along these lines.

 

[mclem]

Because the game's longevity depends entirely on how active the game's players are, and how long the developers are willing to support it. A single player campaign can be played long after the community has moved on, thus adding more value.

Should that not be reflected not in the original purchase price, but in the rate at which prices depreciate?

 

[ihearthawthats]

they shouldn't, but imo they should be f2p. f2p doesn't necessarily mean "costs less". just make sure it's not pay2win.

 

[bishopcruz]

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?

For me, it's simply because it is worth less. I do play multiplayer, but rarely for more than a few weeks at a time for any particular game. I just have other games I want to play and the like, hell I'm even more likely to want to replay the single-player portion years later than go back to the multiplayer. That and while I completely respect the amount of fine-tuning and balancing that has to go into a good MP, there is a lot less content technically speaking in most MP only games. That and competitive multiplayer just doesn't call to me as a good Single Player game does.

MMOs make up for this to me by at least having a ridiculous amount of content (well, the good ones) and the ability to play at my own pace. Even then I rarely stay on them for more than a few months.

 

[nabe_shogun]

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.

That's basically my thinking. However, if the game also supported local multiplayer so I could play with my friends even if there are no servers, I would be perfectly fine with that.

I just don't want to pay for a game in general that I can only get a limited use out of.

 

[NoirVisage]

It doesn't necessarily have a more varied experience. Surely you can see that? Go provides a more varied experience than any game released in the last decade that I ca think of.



Absolutely, if it's just MP content vs. the exact same MP content and also SP content, then I completely agree. But multiplayer content varies and is typically much broader than single player content. Which is why people play many of them so long.

Go and Chess constantly have new content that no one has ever played before, for example.

I call bs on this, care to give some examples

 

[Orayn]

Because the game's longevity depends entirely on how active the game's players are, and how long the developers are willing to support it. A single player campaign can be played long after the community has moved on, thus adding more value.

Not necessarily. If a game has dedicated servers, you can still start it up and play regardless of how old it is.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Because they never come with mod support anymore, and half of the maps are sold seperately.
it's like an elaborate demo

 

[Latvian Hitman]

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

First reply nails it again.

 

[NoirVisage]

Not necessarily. If a game has dedicated servers, you can still start it up and play regardless of how old it is.

if the game isn't as popular at that point, that means little, playing in a ghost town is rarely fun, that's the essence of MP gaming, its value depends on a lot more than initial purchase.

 

[Orayn]

if the game isn't as popular, that means little, playing in a ghost town is rarely fun, that's the essence of MP gaming, its value depends a lot more than initial purchase.

Right, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that long-term MP sustainability depends on how many people are interested.

That said, truly great multiplayer games like Counter-Strike, Starcraft, etc. can sustain a community for a very long time after their release.

 

[ihearthawthats]

I just don't want to pay for a game in general that I can only get a limited use out of.

there's a lot of things we do/consume that don't last forever though. especially physical objects that degrade in quality or situational events like concerts, theme parks or vacations. mp games can offer 1000+ hours over 10 years, vs a sp game offering 500- hours over 50 years. the value is still there.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Because they never come with mod support anymore, and half of the maps are sold seperately.
it's like an elaborate demo

I don't mind the fractured payment model such as addon maps... as long as the quality/value is there. I do not like paying full price to perhaps get a decent value if I continue to purchase content (if that makes any sense). In other words, it also has to have its own longevity without the addon content.

But you sound like you want something like Rekoil (I think its going to release around 15 dollars with full mod support + player dedicated servers). They recently announced a port for a console (I think current gen, maybe next gen as well) and they have promised to release the best community made content (via contest/award) on the consoles. I think that is pretty nifty for a indie game to do.

 

[SymbolicGamer]

Should that not be reflected not in the original purchase price, but in the rate at which prices depreciate?

No. What good is it reducing the price on a multiplayer only game, after it's dead?

Spend $20 to stare at a matchmaking lobby screen for 2 hours. What a bargain!

 

[Hyun Sai]

Well, several reasons :

- Increase multiplayer community.

- When they shut down servers or when the game becomes a ghost town, you can do nothing with it.

- If the multiplayer ends being garbage or not to the taste of the player, there is no solo mode to make up for.

I will never buy a MP only game full price, and even at low price I won't bother if there is no trial/demo to test it.

 

[Off-Kilter]

A singleplayer or single+multiplayer game at least retains some value over time. A multiplayer only game's longevity (and in this case, value) is entirely dependent upon a healthy playerbase, which can deteriorate rapidly once the next big game comes out, and on functioning servers, which will all inevitably shut down. The lower price is merely a security buffer.

EDIT: And also, a lower price provides incentive for more people to pick it up and add to the playerbase.

 

[NoirVisage]

Right, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that long-term MP sustainability depends on how many people are interested.

That said, truly great multiplayer games like Counter-Strike, Starcraft, etc. can sustain a community for a very long time after their release.

oh, got ya, I should have caught it from the start before commenting.

 

[BigDug13]

Story, voice actors, lore, quests and side quests, enemy AI, pathing, enemy building, variety, boss creation, it seems like so much more goes into a single player campaign. Multiplayer is great, but honestly simple deathmatch and team vs team games seem to be missing so much about what truly shows what this medium is capable in delivering compelling content.

I don't feel like a pure multiplayer game should cost so much when it seems to lack so much. Especially if it becomes completely worthless if the community moves on and/or the dedicated servers shut down. A game that becomes worthless because it has no compelling single player or co-OP campaign multi is not worth $60 to me.

 

[duckroll]

I feel that multiplayer-only games benefit from costing less because it lowers the barrier to entry. I don't think production values rarely have a direct impact on the price of any given product. There are games which are cheaper to make but cost more simply because they have a more narrow audience base, and there are games which cost more to make which charge more simply because they can - not because of the production cost.

The thing about multiplayer-only games though, is that the objective of the developer and publisher should be to get as large a player base as possible, to keep the community alive, because that is what drives multiplayer gaming. If no one is playing the game, then the odds of more people buying it in future are slim. On the other hand, if there is a very active userbase, the long term sales aspects for the title is much better, and it is also healthier for the brand and useful for building sequels, expansions, or even other types of games in the franchise.

So it's not so much that they -should- cost less, but that these types of games in particular benefit much more from a low barrier to entry in terms of price. They're not games you buy once, but are rather closer to services which which make money over a longer period of time.

 

[Corto]

My biased opinion is because I rarely play them, but thinking a bit outside of my personal case, maybe it's easier to monetize a multiplayer game post-launch and on a multiplayer game the size and activity level of the community is paramount to its success so the price of entry could be a bit lower to incentivize the adoption by players.

 

[NullPointer]

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

This is my take as well.

A game that comes out today is going to be set against today's expectations, and full-priced multiplayer games are kind of a rarity. To get audiences to consider a multiplayer game on its own merits the game has to show real value or something truly unique. Otherwise it'll get compared to other full price games that most likely have multiple modes including single player and maybe co-op as well.

There are two simple ways to compete with these full package (single/multi/co-op), full-priced games - either reduce the price, or provide more value. So put your multiplayer only game out for $30-40 or include a LOT of maps and content at release.

 

[patapuf]

It would be interesting to know if those who argue against "full price" actually play a lot of multiplayer.

Obviously if you don't value good multiplayer as much as good single player you are willing to pay less.

From what i see on GAF, it's still very single player focused.

 

[Str0ngStyle]

Personally, I would take 5 well designed and balanced maps, 5 or so well balanced weapons, and DM/Team DM only for about $50-60. To me balance is way more important than checking off numbers on the back of the box.

Of course, you would need a demo first to prove this. Sharpen the experience to cutting edge perfection and I don't think it would be a problem to charge $60