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've never played Go, so I wouldn't know about how varied of an experience it is, but just looking it up now it launched with 16 maps, 6 game modes and only costs $15. Which sounds like exactly what I was propositioning. It's a low price, for a good amount of multiplayer content with a reasonable amount of modes. They're essentially charging you a reasonable price for a good multiplayer experience. Had it been $60 I don't see how it would have been worth the price, and they probably thought the same, so they released it for a lower price so that more people would see it as a worthwhile purchase.
Also your sentiment of
multiplayer content varies and is typically much broader than single player content. Which is why people play many of them so long.
completely depends on the game and the person playing. It's not such a black and white issue. You might enjoy the content in CS:GO for a much longer amount of time then I would.
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.
I'm speaking from a personal perspective. You and I enjoy things for different amounts of time. Playing the same 10 maps over and over probably doesn't retain the same amount of enjoyability for me as it does for you. You might play the same 10 maps over and over for 40 hours, where as I would get bored of the same experience in about 20 (These are just random numbers, my point is just that we have different amounts of time before we get bored with the same amount of content and the argument of something retaining it's amount of enjoyability constantly shifts depending on who you're talking to and can't really be used as an argument.) A single player mode guarantee me a 6-10 hour addition to the amount of time I'd be entertained by the multiplayer modes.
What about single player only games then? Do you feel they should also be worth less money?
You're not listening. It has nothing to do with a single/multiplayer situation. It has to do with how much entertainment I get out of the game. If a multiplayer only game puts in enough multiplayer content to entertain me for as long as a game that has both single and multiplayer modes will then I don't mind paying the same amount of money for it. Like I said, I'm not paying $60 for a multiplayer game that gives me 10 maps and 5 modes, because I can go get that amount of multiplayer content in any other game that also has a single player game attached to it, which will give me even more game time for my money. But if a multiplayer game comes out at $60 with 15-20 maps and 10 game modes I'd be perfectly willing to consider buying it. I'm going to be playing that game longer then the average multiplayer game because they gave me more things to try.
By the same sentiment I'm not going to pay $60 for a single player game I will finish in 6 hours and has no replayability. But I will gladly pay $60 for a game that will take me 15-20 hours to beat or a 6 hour game that I'd want to beat 2-3 times. So no, not EVERY single player game needs to charge less for me to buy it, just like not EVERY multiplayer game would need to charge less for me to buy it. But if we are talking about splitting up a game like Call Of Duty and they're thinking about charging me $60 each for the single player content and the multiplayer content I can tell you that I would buy neither. Each of those modes individually are not worth $60, but together they provide enough content to warrant a $60 price tag to me. But if you gave me a CoD campaign that lasts 15-20 hours, I'd consider buying it at $60, just as if you gave me more multiplayer game modes and maps I'd consider the $60 price tag.
