Squirrel Killer
Member
If they cost more, that increases the risk that the multiplayer community is a ghost town and thus the value of the game is $0
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why should multiplayer only games cost less?
- Thread starter Opiate
- Start date
I think you are conflating two different issues:
1. What a consumer is willing to pay (i.e. the value of the item to the consumer).
2. What a consumer thinks something ought to cost.
The question that is the subject of this thread is #2. However many of your arguments in this thread, such as those about marginal utility, are only related to #1.
Say I think a game should cost $40, and its perceived value to me is $10 (maybe I dislike the genre).
You could argue to me that the game has a lot of elements in it that I would likely enjoy. This would raise the perceived value, but would not affect how much I think it should cost.
On the other hand, you could tell me that the game had a particularly large development team and long development cycle. That might raise the amount I think the game should cost, but not increase its perceived value to me.
What people think something ought to cost generally is more likely to be based on what they think the thing costs to produce + a reasonable profit margin. I think people only rarely base it on the value of the item to them, and typically only when they have no idea of what the production costs are.
People only buy things whenever they think the cost is lower than the value. However they only feel like they got a 'good deal' when they buy something at a price that is lower than what they think it ought to cost.
The two things are somewhat independent, but not completely. For instance, if I felt like something was significantly overpriced and I was getting ripped off on a deal, that would cause me negative feelings, which would actually reduce the perceived value of the item (since it now comes with those negative feelings).
I personally don't see a problem with a full priced MP only game.
I know everyone hates COD, but for example I paid $60 for Black Ops 2, played like 60+ hours and felt it was worth every penny to me. I never played the SP, so it was basically like buying a MP only game.
As long as the game has a good amount of maps and game modes, I'm fine with it. I'll play it much more than I'll ever play a SP game.
I know everyone hates COD, but for example I paid $60 for Black Ops 2, played like 60+ hours and felt it was worth every penny to me. I never played the SP, so it was basically like buying a MP only game.
As long as the game has a good amount of maps and game modes, I'm fine with it. I'll play it much more than I'll ever play a SP game.
Single player games are inherently more valuable because, unless you break them, you will always be able to play all of the content they offer.
Multiplayer relies on both the server not going down AND the community being strong. It is a gamble when you buy it and then becomes a game of Russian roulette until the servers inevitably shut down.
Multiplayer relies on both the server not going down AND the community being strong. It is a gamble when you buy it and then becomes a game of Russian roulette until the servers inevitably shut down.
GuitarAtomik
Member
Hate this argument. I will have stopped playing 99% of the single player games I loved before the servers shut down on any multiplayer game I'm playing.
That's one specific game and, though loved it, Shadowrun was not worth $60. Had it more content, it could have been though.
Online-only multiplayer-only games should be cheaper for several reasons:
Smaller market - There's a certain subsection of players that simply won't player online multiplayer games. Likewise, there's a subsection of players that won't play single player games. I'd estimate that the latter is a smaller niche (in the US at least). So, as far as potential players are concerned, a game with both single player and multiplayer has the largest appeal, a game with only-single player has a smaller segment and a multiplayer-only game the least appeal.
More Competition - Because of the nature of multiplayer games, once players find one they enjoy a lot, they tend to stick with it for a long, long while. That, coupled with the smaller market segment, means that it takes a lot more effort to convince people to migrate to a new game. With single-player games, once the campaign is done, players typically move on, so this isn't as much of an issue. With multiplayer games, rather than going head-to-head with other recently-released games, a new multiplayer game is competing with all other multiplayer games that still have a user base.
Inertia - Getting players to migrate away from a game is very difficult. This is made even more difficult by the communal nature of online-multiplayer games. Even if I'm interested in [NEW GAME] and want to move over from [OLD GAME], if all my friends aren't willing to even try [NEW GAME], then there's a good chance that I'm not going to bother with [NEW GAME]. In order to fight inertia, there needs to be as few barriers as possible for new players to migrate into your game. Multiplayer games live and die on the strength of their community. If the game has trouble hitting critical mass and creating a great community, it's extremely likely that it will wither and die.
Risk Aversion - If a single-player game's developer leaves the industry, you've still got a perfectly good game. You can replay it, trade it, give away, and so on. If a multiplayer-game's servers are shut down for good, you won't be able to do anything with that game. This is more an issue on consoles than on PC, but even on PC, a large part of what keeps multiplayer-communities strong is developer support via patches and new content. Without those things, players are likely to migrate to other games.
Statistics - I haven't done tons of reading on the topic, but from what I have read, it seems apparent that a cheap (or even free-to-play model) paired with micro-transactions is more profitable than the "purchase everything upfront" model for many developers. Obviously, this model isn't necessarily viable for all developers. That said, all other things being equal, it seems that if there are two games of equal quality competing with each other, the one that's free-to-play is more likely to draw an audience and build up that critical mass to form a strong community.
Smaller market - There's a certain subsection of players that simply won't player online multiplayer games. Likewise, there's a subsection of players that won't play single player games. I'd estimate that the latter is a smaller niche (in the US at least). So, as far as potential players are concerned, a game with both single player and multiplayer has the largest appeal, a game with only-single player has a smaller segment and a multiplayer-only game the least appeal.
More Competition - Because of the nature of multiplayer games, once players find one they enjoy a lot, they tend to stick with it for a long, long while. That, coupled with the smaller market segment, means that it takes a lot more effort to convince people to migrate to a new game. With single-player games, once the campaign is done, players typically move on, so this isn't as much of an issue. With multiplayer games, rather than going head-to-head with other recently-released games, a new multiplayer game is competing with all other multiplayer games that still have a user base.
Inertia - Getting players to migrate away from a game is very difficult. This is made even more difficult by the communal nature of online-multiplayer games. Even if I'm interested in [NEW GAME] and want to move over from [OLD GAME], if all my friends aren't willing to even try [NEW GAME], then there's a good chance that I'm not going to bother with [NEW GAME]. In order to fight inertia, there needs to be as few barriers as possible for new players to migrate into your game. Multiplayer games live and die on the strength of their community. If the game has trouble hitting critical mass and creating a great community, it's extremely likely that it will wither and die.
Risk Aversion - If a single-player game's developer leaves the industry, you've still got a perfectly good game. You can replay it, trade it, give away, and so on. If a multiplayer-game's servers are shut down for good, you won't be able to do anything with that game. This is more an issue on consoles than on PC, but even on PC, a large part of what keeps multiplayer-communities strong is developer support via patches and new content. Without those things, players are likely to migrate to other games.
Statistics - I haven't done tons of reading on the topic, but from what I have read, it seems apparent that a cheap (or even free-to-play model) paired with micro-transactions is more profitable than the "purchase everything upfront" model for many developers. Obviously, this model isn't necessarily viable for all developers. That said, all other things being equal, it seems that if there are two games of equal quality competing with each other, the one that's free-to-play is more likely to draw an audience and build up that critical mass to form a strong community.
I find single player experiences to be a lot less substitutable.
If you want to charge me $60 for a multiplayer shooter, I'm going to walk away unless it's the best damn multiplayer shooter the world has ever seen. It doesn't matter very much that, once I purchase it, I might play it for hundreds of hours. I can buy a different shooter for less, play it for hundreds of hours, and end up having had just as much fun. Plus I've got an extra $30 at the end of it. Or I can go to a different genre entirely. I play multiplayer as something to do with friends, or as something to pass time with. I don't care much about novelty, and I've greatly enjoyed many games that don't cost a thing (League of Legends occupied my office for about a year, for example). The amount of time that I spend on a game doesn't really reflect how much better it is than alternatives, from my perspective, because chances are I would have enjoyed spending just as much time with some other game just as much.
I play single player games for their novelty value. I buy a single player game, play it, and then I'm done with it and need a new single player game. I consume a lot of these, and I often find it difficult to find another interesting game to buy (that I have not yet played), whereas with multiplayer games there's always a huge selection of possible games to mess around with. I'm willing to pay more for single player games/components because they have much less competition for my dollar (in large part because I've already played other single player games that would otherwise compete). They are more valuable because they take less time, and I can plausibly play all single player games that I'm interested in to exhaustion, whereas I really just have to pick and choose with multiplayer games since I can't very well spend hundreds of hours playing all of them.
Edit: To be clear, I don't really feel that games ought to cost less by virtue of being multiplayer only. I'm just a lot less likely to buy them at higher prices if they lack single player modes or if those modes aren't interesting.
Edit2: I should also add that this is more where I was a few years back. Anymore the only games I spend a lot on are 3DS games, albeit mostly single player ones for the reasons given. There's just too much cheap/free stuff around to justify buying games that are anywhere near new, anymore.
If you want to charge me $60 for a multiplayer shooter, I'm going to walk away unless it's the best damn multiplayer shooter the world has ever seen. It doesn't matter very much that, once I purchase it, I might play it for hundreds of hours. I can buy a different shooter for less, play it for hundreds of hours, and end up having had just as much fun. Plus I've got an extra $30 at the end of it. Or I can go to a different genre entirely. I play multiplayer as something to do with friends, or as something to pass time with. I don't care much about novelty, and I've greatly enjoyed many games that don't cost a thing (League of Legends occupied my office for about a year, for example). The amount of time that I spend on a game doesn't really reflect how much better it is than alternatives, from my perspective, because chances are I would have enjoyed spending just as much time with some other game just as much.
I play single player games for their novelty value. I buy a single player game, play it, and then I'm done with it and need a new single player game. I consume a lot of these, and I often find it difficult to find another interesting game to buy (that I have not yet played), whereas with multiplayer games there's always a huge selection of possible games to mess around with. I'm willing to pay more for single player games/components because they have much less competition for my dollar (in large part because I've already played other single player games that would otherwise compete). They are more valuable because they take less time, and I can plausibly play all single player games that I'm interested in to exhaustion, whereas I really just have to pick and choose with multiplayer games since I can't very well spend hundreds of hours playing all of them.
Edit: To be clear, I don't really feel that games ought to cost less by virtue of being multiplayer only. I'm just a lot less likely to buy them at higher prices if they lack single player modes or if those modes aren't interesting.
Edit2: I should also add that this is more where I was a few years back. Anymore the only games I spend a lot on are 3DS games, albeit mostly single player ones for the reasons given. There's just too much cheap/free stuff around to justify buying games that are anywhere near new, anymore.
Actually, I heavily favour single-player as well; I just also think I understand and empathise with the other mindset.
Which is kind of my point: The prospects these games offer is not *aimed* at you, primarily. People who feel the prices should be lower are arguing from the standpoint of "How they should be priced to appeal to me"; certainly a valid opinion, but I think it crowds out the bigger picture, here: You're not the *audience* for these titles, at least at launch, possibly ever - and there's nothing wrong with that.
Now, there's certainly a POV that they're targetting an audience that is too small, and opening things up to F2P is a way of alleviating that. That's not without merit; but that's a different argument to 'there's not enough content'.
shiftplusone
Member
I paid 0 dollars for dota 2 and i've put in over 220 hours
if i'm paying 60 bucks for a multiplayer only game it better be amazing
if i'm paying 60 bucks for a multiplayer only game it better be amazing
It'll be interesting to see how Titanfall does on PC. It's EA published so will be Origin exclusive likely, it's going to cost £40 (£10-£15 more than what a normal PC game goes for on release), there's so much competition for multiplayer time via free to play games (dota, LoL, TF2 etc) and cheaper fps games (CS GO). I don't think it's going to end up doing well.
ChorusLindarr
Banned
I think MP only games are worth less than gams that include a carefully crafted single-player game, simply because of what they offer to me in terms of entertainment value.
In a single-player game I glean enjoyment from the game's mechanics as well as its world, narrative, characters etc etc. To me they're analogous to movies in that they are a finely crafted experience or world that I can become immersed in to escape reality for a short time.
MP only games on the other hand are very different. They are in most cases just sandboxes wherein i pay an admission fee, and my enjoyment of the games is essentially directly proportional to my level of mastery of the mechanics and mechanical gameplay rules, as well as the quality of the behaviour of the other people I am forced to play with.
MP games are more of a gamble, because in any given play session I could end up having a great time on a great team, competing and garnering a small list of victories, or I could end up wasting an entire session frustrated with my teammates through shitty matchmaking, griefers and cheaters. Thus MP games carry more enjoyment risk to me.
SP player games are on average far less risky. In that in a given session I am almost always guaranteed to enjoy a sense of real progression and a brand new experience through reaching either a new part of the game or encountering some new mechanic or feature.
SP games simply contain way more content, and in many cases in my opinion, the quality of said content is just far more attractive. MP only games are more than often all about competition, and whilst that's nice on occasion, it's not always what you want in a gaming session to help you to relax after a long day and wind down.
In a single-player game I glean enjoyment from the game's mechanics as well as its world, narrative, characters etc etc. To me they're analogous to movies in that they are a finely crafted experience or world that I can become immersed in to escape reality for a short time.
MP only games on the other hand are very different. They are in most cases just sandboxes wherein i pay an admission fee, and my enjoyment of the games is essentially directly proportional to my level of mastery of the mechanics and mechanical gameplay rules, as well as the quality of the behaviour of the other people I am forced to play with.
MP games are more of a gamble, because in any given play session I could end up having a great time on a great team, competing and garnering a small list of victories, or I could end up wasting an entire session frustrated with my teammates through shitty matchmaking, griefers and cheaters. Thus MP games carry more enjoyment risk to me.
SP player games are on average far less risky. In that in a given session I am almost always guaranteed to enjoy a sense of real progression and a brand new experience through reaching either a new part of the game or encountering some new mechanic or feature.
SP games simply contain way more content, and in many cases in my opinion, the quality of said content is just far more attractive. MP only games are more than often all about competition, and whilst that's nice on occasion, it's not always what you want in a gaming session to help you to relax after a long day and wind down.