Support NeoGAF

[OldJadedGamer]

I completely agree. I did pay 60 for Warhawk. Whether the price dropped shortly after or not is a different kind of debate, but it is MP only and I did pay 60. And it was

Worth
Every
Cent

Warhawk was available at launch day for $40 bucks. Just because you paid extra and didn't need to doesn't magically make the game a full $60 game. Again, the discounted $40 price on launch day for Warhawk is a prime example that should be set for all MP only games.

 

[J-Rzez]

Absolutely. I have and will continue to do so. MAG has been worth every-single penny to date for me, and I'm ready for some DLC.

I don't need a tacked on bullshit SP. That's wasted resources for the main deal which is the multiplayer. Tacked on SP's as seen in the past SOCOMs, CoDs, BFBC, do not add value to the game when they're insulting to even play. Focus on the multiplayer.

I appreciate a great SP game when I see one, and I'd say don't waste your resources on a tacked-on MP when you can focus more on the SP.

 

[PatzCU]

Most definitely. In fact, I decided just recently that I will only pay full price for multiplayer-centric games. BF: BC2 will likely be the only game that I 'day one' this year (maybe Halo Reach) simply because it will have the most active community when it is just released.

Why pay $60 for a single-player only game? You could wait about 3 months and get it for $30-$40. Sure single-player experiences are great, but once you have played through what it has to offer, it's over. Great multi-player games offer hundreds of hours of playtime that provide a value that single-player only titles can't match.

But at the end of the day, different strokes for different folks. Some people just aren't cut out for interactive, competitive, and communal online gaming.

 

[nyong]

Of course. I more or less did this when purchasing White Knight Chronicles: the single-player is torture I'm willing to endure to play online. Frankly, when I'm playing MMOs I'm ONLY playing MMOs. They're a great value ($/hr), but it gets expensive. Give me a multi-only title with MMOesque features, and without the monthly fee, and I'm all over it.

 

[SolsticeZero]

Warhawk was available at launch day for $40 bucks. Just because you paid extra and didn't need to doesn't magically make the game a full $60 game. Again, the discounted $40 price on launch day for Warhawk is a prime example that should be set for all MP only games.

But then you have to ask yourself why we are willing to pay MORE for an SP only game that we'll probably get less out of. Look at God of War. I love God of War. I'm more than willing to shell out $60 for God of War. However, it's a game I'll beat in one or two sittings. On the flip side, Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, and Unreal Tournament 3 are good example of MP only games (I do NOT count bots as SP) that, in your eyes, I should have to pay less money for.

Why? Why should we pay less money? Are these games worth less? Do they have any less quality? In a lot of cases, a company can spend just as much time making that MP game as the company that made the SP game. In fact, in most cases, they have to do a lot more work because MP games, in general, require a lot more patching than SP games. So I will gladly shell over that $20 for a game that can be equally as good, even though it's only MP. If Warhawk was $60, and $80 with the headset, then I would have been more than willing to give Incognito $80 for it.

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

I wouldn't pay period for a multiplayer only title.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Battlefield 2 would like to have a word with this thread.

 

[ElFly]

But then you have to ask yourself why we are willing to pay MORE for an SP only game that we'll probably get less out of. Look at God of War. I love God of War. I'm more than willing to shell out $60 for God of War. However, it's a game I'll beat in one or two sittings. On the flip side, Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, and Unreal Tournament 3 are good example of MP only games (I do NOT count bots as SP) that, in your eyes, I should have to pay less money for.

I sure as hell paid like, $10, for Team Fortress 2.

 

[RoboPlato]

I've never been the biggest fan of multiplayer so it would be hard for me to justify a full price purchase. I can justify full price for a single player game because I know that it will hold my interest long enough to at least finish it. With multiplayer I pretty much never unlock everything or reach the highest ranks.

 

[SolsticeZero]

I sure as hell paid like, $10, for Team Fortress 2.

True, but I would have GLADLY shelled over $60 for it. I've gotten so much fun out of that game that I don't feel it really deserves any less.

 

[speedpop]

Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2, CoD4, TF2.... It's nothing new for me.

Never touched CoD4 SP because I outgrew Infinity Ward's scripted FPS mechanics halfway through CoD2. As for the Orange Box, well, I played Portal a tiny bit and I'm not a huge Half Life fan which results in too many hours spent on TF2.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

I guess it depends on what you value in a game. Afterall, I could easily get 60-100 hours out of a full priced game like MAG, but I have to admit, for some reason i do think it's a bit over-priced. I guess we're conditioned into thinking 'online only' titles are only "half a game."

 

[Alex]

Have for a decade plus now, although I steer pretty far away from most multiplayer titles and shooters in general lately.

 

[legend166]

Not on a console. I know there's PS3 games that have dedicated servers, but the way the experience is controlled so tightly means I wouldn't be interested in it.

But on a PC, you better believe it. Dedicated servers close to me (important living in Australia), mods, usually dev support, etc means that the experience is meaty enough to warrant it.

 

[Slavik81]

Absolutely.

Or rather, for a similar price as I pay for single-player games. I buy a lot of games, but very few of them for more than $40.

 

[elfinke]

I picked up MAG plus the Sony Bluetooth headset for $98AUS today. Even if I didn't get the headset for 'free', I'd have happily paid full retail (which is $109.95) for MAG.

I paid full price for TF2 and got an infinite amount of more enjoyment out of it than I ever got out of numerous single player only games.

So yes, I happily pay a similar RRP for MP only games.

Also, I like the OP's "we pay full RRP for SP games only, so why not for MP?" statement.

 

[Instro]

On PC maybe, and only if it ships with full mod support, a huge factor in this case. That said its really hard to justify paying full price for a multiplayer only game, when Counter Strike, Team Fortress 2, and a few other games are much cheaper and much better.

 

[flyinpiranha]

Nope. I go up and down with my MP gaming though ... some months I'll do a ton of it, others I won't get online at all.

I might on the PC but never on the console. I tried Warhawk and that was a joke, made me angry they scrapped the SP and what could have been. SOCOM I passed on, and now MAG I will pass.

As with any MP game I've played in the past (CS, UT, Quake, SOCOM II, MW, Halo, etc ...) I've always found 1 or 2 maps with 1 or 2 play styles that I really like. Even if they come "feature packed" with epic clan support and lists and stats and a website I can upload pictures and video to it's not something I'm really into as much as I use to be (if I ever really was at all). With how many different games I like to play I really don't want to pay $50/60 for a game that I will only enjoy maybe a couple things out of.

It's a tough call, but I answer with my wallet. As much as I think MAG looks like fun I'd probably purchase it for $30-40 and play it off and on for the next few months, I won't because of the high price and how committed you have to be to online games on the consoles these days (and on the PC for some games).

Stat tracking, leaderboards, all that shit ruins it to me.

 

[Sora_N]

I was interested in MAG but I admit that being online-only put me off a bit. I like stuff with single player so I can get used to it first, although for MW2 I just jumped in since the story was so lame in the beginning which led to me dying like a noob so much online. :lol

In general I won't really pay full price for games usually nowadays...

 

[OldJadedGamer]

But then you have to ask yourself why we are willing to pay MORE for an SP only game that we'll probably get less out of. Look at God of War. I love God of War. I'm more than willing to shell out $60 for God of War. However, it's a game I'll beat in one or two sittings. On the flip side, Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, and Unreal Tournament 3 are good example of MP only games (I do NOT count bots as SP) that, in your eyes, I should have to pay less money for.

Why? Why should we pay less money? Are these games worth less? Do they have any less quality? In a lot of cases, a company can spend just as much time making that MP game as the company that made the SP game. In fact, in most cases, they have to do a lot more work because MP games, in general, require a lot more patching than SP games. So I will gladly shell over that $20 for a game that can be equally as good, even though it's only MP. If Warhawk was $60, and $80 with the headset, then I would have been more than willing to give Incognito $80 for it.

Again, as noted eariler... there are things like Socom where it was straight broken on launch day and was pretty much unplayable. Didn't have trophies, and it was a straight mess at launch that they fixed slowly over time but on the official launch day, it was a broken mess. Are there problems with SP games... sure, a few that need a patch here and there but nothing to the extent of MP games being broken upon release.

Also, as noted earlier. MP games can have their servers shut down at any time. Look on the back of your box for Warhawk and you'll see this in bold: "SCEA reserves the right to retire the online portion of this game with 90 days notice." For a Mulitplayer only game, that means your disc is worthless at that point. I can still play a single player game from 20 years ago. Those are just a few things. I'm not saying I don't own any multiplayer only games but IMO if the games I buy are going to have limitations on them then I'm not willing to spend full price on it.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I have no interest in a game without a single player mode. Something like Phantom Dust gets a pass even though it was obviously built around multiplayer because the single player mode is actually pretty good.

Local multiplayer is a lot of fun, but online play always feels like time completely wasted to me, even if I'm having fun.

EDIT: Also, what he said ^

 

[bdouble]

I think some of them are well worth the price and even more valuable than most single player games. Thing is its a lot harder to make a MP game of this quality so its rare for it to happen but a multiplayer only game better do a good job and bring something to the table.

 

[NinjaMouse]

I am not joking when I say I would pay ONE HUNDRED US AMERICAN DOLLARS for a proper Battlefield 3.

in addition to the $100...I'd go deep in debt buying a new fancy PC to play it on. I really, really got into BF2 and 2142.

 

[Barberetti]

When I buy a game, it's because I want to play it now. I don't think about whether or not I'd like to play it 10 years down the line. Most single player games I've bought over the years, I've played once. For me, if I buy a multiplayer only game that builds a community around it that only lasts a year, then has the servers shut down, I'd still get hundreds more hours of enjoyment out of it than most single player games, so the multiplayer game gives me far more value for my money overall.

And that's if the game doesn't have dedicated server support. The whole having the servers shut down arguement is moot for games that do.

 

[Agnates]

Depends on the game, as with anything else. So, yes, if it seemed to hold enough value in quality, content, variety, etc, I don't see why not. I wouldn't pay full price for Shattered Horizon of MAG but I would pay full price for something that appealed to me personally, like Battlefield 3 as others mentioned.

I'm sure almost anyone would, if a game that appealed to them enough came along, even if they claim they would never do that in this thread.

 

[MrPliskin]

Again, as noted eariler... there are things like Socom where it was straight broken on launch day and was pretty much unplayable. Didn't have trophies, and it was a straight mess at launch that they fixed slowly over time but on the official launch day, it was a broken mess. Are there problems with SP games... sure, a few that need a patch here and there but nothing to the extent of MP games being broken upon release.

Also, as noted earlier. MP games can have their servers shut down at any time. Look on the back of your box for Warhawk and you'll see this in bold: "SCEA reserves the right to retire the online portion of this game with 90 days notice." For a Mulitplayer only game, that means your disc is worthless at that point. I can still play a single player game from 20 years ago. Those are just a few things. I'm not saying I don't own any multiplayer only games but IMO if the games I buy are going to have limitations on them then I'm not willing to spend full price on it.

So in other words, you value something that you can maybe get a handful of playthroughs over a span of time, vs someone who prefers a game that they can play for hundreds of hours within the span of 2 years.

You don't think it's a bit silly to say a product should be cheaper, even if it offers considerably more replay value? Regardless of server time, players can get significantly more playtime out of a multiplayer title than a single player title nine times out of ten. RPG's are the exception, but how many people will replay an RPG over and over again?

Also, to one of your earlier points, I don't think Warhawk is a prime example of how online only games should be priced. The problem was the game had to "set the tone" so to speak, of acceptance on PS3 for online only titles, and charging $60 would have sent it to die. It was worth $60, and buying it for less was a steal.

 

[Str0ngStyle]

I never pay full price for any games, but as long as multiplayer is good, I can see the game being worth full price. The tricky part is that the game is highly dependent on the community that develops around the game, and how long it lasts.

I think this is an interesting comment because I just had an issue recently where I wanted to Play some Red Faction Guerrilla on my 360 and the community is for the most part nonexistent. IF this was a multiplayer only game I would be screwed. If people want multiplayer games to stay relevant, there needs to be a way to keep the community alive.

Something I would love for Live or PSN to do would be to somehow send out invites to people that owned a specific game. For example, a guy is starting up a Red Faction Game. I could sign up for a notification to show me that someone is trying to get a game together. We could Opt-In on a game by game basis based on what we own and if we accepted the "invite" it would secure our spot in the game while we went over to the shelf to get the game. Now that Microsoft has dropped Xbox 1 Support, maybe this is something they need to get cracking on (hint).

 

[Frostburn]

I would certainly pay full price for an online only game as long as the gameplay is good and I feel there will be a good online community around it. I've played Counter-Strike and CS: Source for more hours then I care to know.

Online portions of games that have a single player portion can also justify a purchase for me. Of course having a full package like Modern Warfare 2 is nice but a great single player or multiplayer only game would also warrant a full purchase price from me as long as it is a quality product.

 

[SolsticeZero]

So in other words, you value something that you can maybe get a handful of playthroughs over a span of time, vs someone who prefers a game that they can play for hundreds of hours within the span of 2 years.

You don't think it's a bit silly to say a product should be cheaper, even if it offers considerably more replay value? Regardless of server time, players can get significantly more playtime out of a multiplayer title than a single player title nine times out of ten. RPG's are the exception, but how many people will replay an RPG over and over again?

Also, to one of your earlier points, I don't think Warhawk is a prime example of how online only games should be priced. The problem was the game had to "set the tone" so to speak, of acceptance on PS3 for online only titles, and charging $60 would have sent it to die. It was worth $60, and buying it for less was a steal.

Well, I came in to say just this, so thank you for saving me typing. Also the nice thing about Warhawk is that, since the players can make their own dedicated servers, the game should be active as long as the PSN is active.

 

[JetSetRadio]

I already did this about 4 times in the CoD franchise.
I 'd prefer a MP only version for 2/3 or 1/2 full price though.

As for MP only games, why not? Most of those games would be a pain anyway to play in SP with crappy AI or infinite respawn issues.

 

[mhayze]

I think a presumption that many nay-sayers are making is that every MP-only game is going to be missing content (story content) compared to a 'full' release with both a single player campaign and multi player content.

I don't see why that has to be the case. If a AAA MP-only game has story modes that run at least the usual 7-12 hours of content that we see in most of today's AAA single player games, but only in co-op (with optional bots?) or squad modes, in addition to other less story-structured, more open 8+ player modes, I would consider that a "full" MP game, and therefore quite worth full price. I think L4D2 falls short of the above description, but if its bot modes were comparable to - say the original HL2, AND it had all the multi-player modes in L4D2, I would certainly not hesitate to purchase it at full price (hint, hint Valve).

In an RPG style game (that is sub-MMO, i.e. no monthly fees), I think there should be no problem making missions, quests and dungeons available for the times when we don't feel like partying up, in addition to more party-suited content. The failed Hellgate was pretty close to this model, IIRC.

 

[Desi]

If I can use bots to fill in empty spaces, hell yes! I find it strange when fps games don't have bots to fill in spots.

I bought Battle Arena Toshiden 3 and it was just wack away at the computer and vs mode. Diablo III coming out and I am will not play single player. No real reason too since you can get the same story mode online and kick/boot/lock the room any time you want.