I don't think it's necessary to bolt a single-player game (aside from maybe a tutorial) onto a multi-player focused game. Or vice-versa, for that matter.
Exclusion of Single Player Campaign/story mode...is it justifiable?
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Thats not the end of anything. What features would a multiplayet only game have to have in order for it to be worth it in your opinion?undeadsuitor said:
OT: it can be. I pay 70$ to play only the multiplayer every once in a while.
I like fighting games. Sometimes i ignore the single player aspect of the game completely and just play multiplayer. For a fighting game, i personally would be perfectly happy with only a training mode, and offline vs mode and an online mode. If the game is good enough that's all I'll ever need.
I would also like to add, i would like to see publishers sell 3 different versions of the games at varying prices.
Single+multiplayer 70$
Single player only 40$
Multiplayer only 30$.
And give the option to "upgrade" if you wish later. That way if anyone prefer the single player or multiplayer they can buy just that, or both.Anyone think this could work?
Single+multiplayer 70$
Single player only 40$
Multiplayer only 30$.
And give the option to "upgrade" if you wish later. That way if anyone prefer the single player or multiplayer they can buy just that, or both.Anyone think this could work?
I've thought for a long time that the best quality games are usually either singleplayer only or multiplayer only. If the developers can focus all their time and resources on that one mode, they can get the best results. In many games that try to do both, one mode ends up feeling tacked on and pointless, and there's the sense that the main mode could have been improved.
Its up to the player to decide what they think the best value purchase price is.
Its up to the player to decide what they think the best value purchase price is.
Depends if it has enough staying power. I'm not buying a 60 dollar game if the community around it will be dead in six months.
Fair call! I was a bit tired when I wrote that. And I didnt really mean shit at gaming, just that they might be better at tactical or turn based games than reflex stuff and cant keep up with the mountain dew fuelled twelvies who can headshot you effortlessly.DementedSheep said:
Well yes if it's a multiplayer game. If anything the lack of a SP/campaign mode would indicate that the entire focus of that game was for making a really, really, really goof multiplayer experience. I wouldn't buy a MP game for that price but depending on what it is it would probably sell.
A game is worth what the audience is willing to pay for it, and I say that as someone who plays exclusively single player/campaign. If the multi-player feels like it's worth the $60ish price tag to someone, then it is.sgy0003 said:
Of course, it goes without saying that the dev probably wants to make money on the game, so it needs to worth it to enough people to turn a profit.
It's a fair bit more complicated than that. Take the Battlefield series. Battlefield 4 in particular. The multiplayer and singleplayer are made by different sub-teams. Different artists, different lead developers, different engineers, the whole works. Do you really think the lead designer of Max Payne 2 and Alan Wake wants to work on a competitive multiplayer game? No, he obviously wants to make a campaign where men shout brave, manly things while trapped in a sinking car as TOTAL ECLIPSE OF THE HEART plays in the background. Same goes for Battlefield: Hardline. The MP team and SP team have some pretty clear demographic splits. SP designers largely have a history in SP design, and the MP designers largely have a history in MP design. At its most basic, Dead Space MP designers worked on Hardline's MP and Dead Space SP designers worked on the campaign.Shoggoth2588 said:
This is admittedly a bit off topic. I think it's fair enough to charge money for an MP only experience that has basically no worthwhile of interesting content. Game devs can do whatever they want. "Make your own fun" and all that business. But games such as Battlefield have campaigns because the developers involved WANT TO MAKE THEM. Suppose you joined DICE to work on Mirror's edge or one of their other singleplayer games back in the day. Let's say you get assigned to the Battlefield team, because you have to so SOMETHING. You likely don't give a crap about competitive multiplayer. So why wouldn't you want to work on a singleplayer mode for Battlefield? Suppose you joined Visceral because you played Hardline and wanted to make another stealth-oriented FPS just like that one? (I'm sure people joined Visceral over the years wanting to make horror games just like Dead Space 1.) Imagine how dismayed you'd be if the publisher forced you to abandon singleplayer and work on shooty-shooty-bang-bang competitive MP instead? How must the SP-oriented designers at DICE feel knowing that they're not allowed to make the Star Wars campaign they want to make?
I'm not saying that you were right and that all people that enjoy single player gaming are shit (and I'm not even saying that's what you said, cause you didn't) at games, but for me I've felt it very true in the last few years.Fieldy409 said:
I can't keep up with shooters like I did with Halo 2 which I played competitively. CS 1.6 and Halo 2 I was pretty much king of the mountain, literally cropping some serious cream.
These days I play CS:Go and just get fucking murdered cause I'm not fast enough, I make the same moves and strategies I did back then, but I just can't aim as quickly with high accuracy as I used to. I think there's a lot of truth in what you said, from what I've seen at least.
I'd find it hard to buy a ONLY multiplayer game nowdays cause it would just frustrate me getting raped by teens who are as good at this game as I used to be at halo.
That said, on the topic at hand. Yes it is completely justifiable. Counterstrike, DoTA2 (mods of single players I know but still), already mentioned was Quake3 Arena. You can easily justify multiplayer only games, especially when you pour all of your effort into that and not bother with a half-assed story.
Not sure whether or not I'll like the direction battlefront is going (considering that's the game that has sparked a lot of these types of threads), since that's one of the games I played a lot when younger, and I didn't take it online much back then at all, because of horrific lag that made Darth Maul ridiculous (glitching and flying around the screen cutting people up then lagging behind you). The more I hear about it the less excited I am, but my friend played the beta and he said it was sick so I'll see how justifiable it is for that game soon at least.
Does a game NEED singleplayer? No. The success of things like Team Fortress 2 and AFAIK every MOBA clearly shows that it's not necessary.
I don't particularly enjoy multiplayer though so I refuse to buy anything without a dedicated singleplayer mode. Which sucks because Titanfall looked like a lot of fun when the Hype train was building it up. but the fact of no single player campaign killed all my interest.
My gaming experience shouldn't have to take other people into account.
I don't particularly enjoy multiplayer though so I refuse to buy anything without a dedicated singleplayer mode. Which sucks because Titanfall looked like a lot of fun when the Hype train was building it up. but the fact of no single player campaign killed all my interest.
My gaming experience shouldn't have to take other people into account.
No. There are very few series where the multiplayer population is large enough and long-lasting enough to justify a full-priced game. I suppose I might have paid $65 for only Halo 3 multiplayer as long as all the maps were included, but I spent 6 years and hundreds of hours playing it. The problem is, unless you make a specific type of game, people act like magpies and move on to the next new shiny toy as soon as it comes out, turning the servers into ghost towns. I'm not going to pay full price to in effect rent part of a game.
Yes, but remember that all of those games were released for like $20 or less. They didn't advertise themselves as full games, so it didn't really matter that they lacked a single player component.darkcalling said:
Yeah, there are plenty of times where I wish they'd just focus their resources on the primary part of the game.Pyrian said:
I mean, that doesn't guarantee a good game. Titanfall comes to mind, but I think throwing in a SP story to Titanfall would have just made two mediocre parts instead of one. And there are plenty of bad SP only games. But really, if you're going to make one, don't just slap on the other--that seems less justified and the worse bang for our buck.