If the game costs std $65 price, but does not have a single player campaign or story mode, can it be justifiable?
Exclusion of Single Player Campaign/story mode...is it justifiable?
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, yah. Game developers have every right to decide whether to add single player content or not, and they are under no obligation, nor should they be, to 'justify' themselves.
However, we, as consumers, also maintain the right to tell game developers to go fuck themselves and not give them a dime.
However, we, as consumers, also maintain the right to tell game developers to go fuck themselves and not give them a dime.
Absolutely justified.
If you are making a game with 90% of it's expected player base to be it's multiplayer users, just forget about making a single-player campaign altogether. Seriously, I cannot stand it when a dev half-asses it's single-player gamplay (I'm looking at you Battlefield) any more than when they tack on multiplayer to stuff like X-com.
If you are making a game with 90% of it's expected player base to be it's multiplayer users, just forget about making a single-player campaign altogether. Seriously, I cannot stand it when a dev half-asses it's single-player gamplay (I'm looking at you Battlefield) any more than when they tack on multiplayer to stuff like X-com.
Really depends. Quake III was an expensive tech demo. (No joke - I've read that Id Software considered it a tech demo because it lacked a proper singleplayer mode.) Were MP fans happy with what they got? Sure. Was the game good value for money for people who don't like MP? Not at all.
In the grand scheme of things, making singleplayer requires way more effort. A singleplayer game will be "relevant" forever. One can sit down and play Turok, Turok 2, and Turok 3 and enjoy their singleplayer. Wanna play Turok: Rage Wars? Well, you're gonna need other people to play with unless you wanna play with bots, an exercise of dubious long term "fun." MP-only games are at the mercy of "community" in terms of their long term viability.
edit:
Look at what happens to mod projects such as Goldeneye: Source and Perfect Dark: Source that seek to recreate MP without recreating the all-important SP. They end up stagnant, abandoned, and dead.
In the grand scheme of things, making singleplayer requires way more effort. A singleplayer game will be "relevant" forever. One can sit down and play Turok, Turok 2, and Turok 3 and enjoy their singleplayer. Wanna play Turok: Rage Wars? Well, you're gonna need other people to play with unless you wanna play with bots, an exercise of dubious long term "fun." MP-only games are at the mercy of "community" in terms of their long term viability.
edit:
Look at what happens to mod projects such as Goldeneye: Source and Perfect Dark: Source that seek to recreate MP without recreating the all-important SP. They end up stagnant, abandoned, and dead.
I'm fine with paying full price for a multiplayer only experience. I think its odd that so many people are treating this like its somehow a new thing.
It really just comes down to each particular game. I don't really care if traditionally MP only titles stay MP only, nor would I care if something like Battlefield stopped bothering with single player campaigns that were never really needed in the first place.
The difference between something like that and something like the new Battlefront is that single player or local multiplayer was such a huge part of that game for many people. I for one never went online once in either Battlefront 1 or 2. With Battlefront 2015 it feels like something is missing, but I wouldn't feel like something is missing from Battlefield at all if they removed the campaign.
The biggest problem I have seen with multiplayer only games lately, specifically shooters, is that they are not supported by content, they are supported by the grind. It doesn't feel like developers are relying on grind to promote longevity instead of creating a game players can really sink their teeth into. They feel that they are designed to get players to come back to get that next unlock rather than trying to get them to actually play the game.
Its all about giving player 'choice' and giving them all these 'options', but at the end of the day the choice amounts to nothing as the vast majority of the unlocks are worthless in a practical sense or redundant. A few of the better combinations always float to the top leading to far less 'variety' than the huge number of weapons, attachments, perks, characters/classes, etc would lead you to believe.
Once the grind is over there simply isn't much to do in so many recent multiplayer only games because the grind is the game, without a single player or other lasting content players burn out on the multiplayer and by the time they might feel like revisiting it the game is dead and/or the servers have shut down.
It gets worse when you consider many of these games heavily push pre-orders and microtransactions. Most of which end up being ways to avoid the grind(that the game is designed around), which only makes the player burn out even faster. Great for the publisher who want to get a lot of money and avoid paying for servers in the short term, terrible for the consumer.
So long story short I would say a the exclusion of a single player campaign is justifiable, but full price multiplayer that is only held up by a skinner box is not.
It really just comes down to each particular game. I don't really care if traditionally MP only titles stay MP only, nor would I care if something like Battlefield stopped bothering with single player campaigns that were never really needed in the first place.
The difference between something like that and something like the new Battlefront is that single player or local multiplayer was such a huge part of that game for many people. I for one never went online once in either Battlefront 1 or 2. With Battlefront 2015 it feels like something is missing, but I wouldn't feel like something is missing from Battlefield at all if they removed the campaign.
The biggest problem I have seen with multiplayer only games lately, specifically shooters, is that they are not supported by content, they are supported by the grind. It doesn't feel like developers are relying on grind to promote longevity instead of creating a game players can really sink their teeth into. They feel that they are designed to get players to come back to get that next unlock rather than trying to get them to actually play the game.
Its all about giving player 'choice' and giving them all these 'options', but at the end of the day the choice amounts to nothing as the vast majority of the unlocks are worthless in a practical sense or redundant. A few of the better combinations always float to the top leading to far less 'variety' than the huge number of weapons, attachments, perks, characters/classes, etc would lead you to believe.
Once the grind is over there simply isn't much to do in so many recent multiplayer only games because the grind is the game, without a single player or other lasting content players burn out on the multiplayer and by the time they might feel like revisiting it the game is dead and/or the servers have shut down.
It gets worse when you consider many of these games heavily push pre-orders and microtransactions. Most of which end up being ways to avoid the grind(that the game is designed around), which only makes the player burn out even faster. Great for the publisher who want to get a lot of money and avoid paying for servers in the short term, terrible for the consumer.
So long story short I would say a the exclusion of a single player campaign is justifiable, but full price multiplayer that is only held up by a skinner box is not.
I think its a great idea. Your development team can put all of its effort into making the best possible multiplayer it can that way instead of dividing their attention between the campaign and the multiplayer. If you are worried about nobody making singleplayer games anymore, dont be. There will always be a market for people with reflexes or skills not good enough for competative multiplayer who still enjoy playing games and if theres a demand then a hole in the market wont last for long before somebody steps up.
Just as long as they actually deliver on enough content for their price(and a multiplayer game can be good enough for the full price) and dont think they can get away with nothing but a handful of maps and a few weapons.
Just as long as they actually deliver on enough content for their price(and a multiplayer game can be good enough for the full price) and dont think they can get away with nothing but a handful of maps and a few weapons.
Yep, don't have a problem with it at all.
In the end, it depends on what you base a games worth on. I've got favourite games across both sides of the fence (SP exclusive & MP exclusive) , and would rather a great MP exclusive game opposed to a MP centric game with a tacked on SP campaign that detracted dev time from the MP side of things (and vice versa).
In the end, it depends on what you base a games worth on. I've got favourite games across both sides of the fence (SP exclusive & MP exclusive) , and would rather a great MP exclusive game opposed to a MP centric game with a tacked on SP campaign that detracted dev time from the MP side of things (and vice versa).
With enough content, yes. What else can I add to this?
I've bought full priced multi-player games before (including for crap), and paid monthly for a couple of years to an MMO, so I'm not against it at all. It's just, EA are complete assholes.
I've bought full priced multi-player games before (including for crap), and paid monthly for a couple of years to an MMO, so I'm not against it at all. It's just, EA are complete assholes.
Is it justified? Well of course, people put more money into multiplayer only mmo for years now than that much, so obviously there exists plenty of precedent for pay for multiplayer only games. I'd say the problem arises when the games are either bastardizations of series or blatantly chopped down cashgrabs, which have both been issues to worry about, but which are both issues not exclusive to paying for multiplayer alone either.
In the end, provided the game is solid and it is marketed as what it is as a multiplayer only game, companies are perfectly justified in charging what they like for it. As a consumer, all I ask is to be properly informed about the product and what it actually is, and that it maintain a quality that warrants the price tag.
Now if you want to talk business sense or past experiences with such ideas as charging money for multiplayer only, well, you can find examples good and bad across the board to argue that for a long time.
In the end, provided the game is solid and it is marketed as what it is as a multiplayer only game, companies are perfectly justified in charging what they like for it. As a consumer, all I ask is to be properly informed about the product and what it actually is, and that it maintain a quality that warrants the price tag.
Now if you want to talk business sense or past experiences with such ideas as charging money for multiplayer only, well, you can find examples good and bad across the board to argue that for a long time.
Sure, I prefer there to be a campaign even if it's short to get into the game and use to the controls but it's hardly necessary. You can easily have multiplier game with enough content to be worth full price.
Or...who just like single player. People don't just play single player because they're shit at gameing.Fieldy409 said:
I agree with that. But if you do right by your community (i.e make the first release solid and engaging, and allow for continuing content through DLC, or mods), they will stick by you.Ambient_Malice said:
Look at Valve as a prime example of a company that treats their MP community right. From CS through to TF2, they've consistently offered a solid MP experience with ever expanding content. With the amount of time i've put into - and the enjoyment i've gotten out of - the majority of their MP only games, i'd quite happily pay full price any of them.
captcha - charlie bit me. I'll just have to knife his ass.
As others have said here, as long as there is content to support the game then it really doesn't matter whether it is a single player or multiplayer only game.
I do hope, though, that they release info a little bit quicker especially since they push pre-orders so much. By the time they announce a game I'm pretty sure they already know if it's solely a multiplayer game or not. That way people can decide whether they will preorder or not ( yes I suggest against preordering, but the reality is people do it) . I mean, I just found out a couple of days ago that Rainbow Six was multiplayer only, so that would have influenced my decision to preorder greatly ( as an example).
As someone also said, while it is their prerogative to charge whatever they want for their product it is up to us whether we want to purchase it or not.
PS - I do hate it though when a franchise that started off as a single player campaign transitions into an exclusive multiplayer one, but that's progress for you.
I do hope, though, that they release info a little bit quicker especially since they push pre-orders so much. By the time they announce a game I'm pretty sure they already know if it's solely a multiplayer game or not. That way people can decide whether they will preorder or not ( yes I suggest against preordering, but the reality is people do it) . I mean, I just found out a couple of days ago that Rainbow Six was multiplayer only, so that would have influenced my decision to preorder greatly ( as an example).
As someone also said, while it is their prerogative to charge whatever they want for their product it is up to us whether we want to purchase it or not.
PS - I do hate it though when a franchise that started off as a single player campaign transitions into an exclusive multiplayer one, but that's progress for you.
One of my (hardest to test) standards for purchase is whether or not it will be worth playing again in 3 years or more. Even though they've been out for over a decade, I know that games like Max Payne or Gauntlet: Dark Legacy will still be entertaining for me. If it's online multiplayer only, especially the big group games, the game will definitely be less fun as the interested players dwindle in number, and probably unplayable further on. If they were sold at a lower price than standard AAA, than maybe it could be justified, but not at $60+.
It does not always have to be a campaign. Some form of single player offline mode with the option to play co-op, such as black ops zombies, is always nice. It's just that only having competitive multiplayer modes gets boring much faster than having competitive MP, co-op, and SP.
I think it really depends on the game and how well it's made. Are there a wide variety of maps, weapons, and game modes available? Is the gameplay really well done? If the answer to those is yes and the game is primarily geared towards multiplayer then I would say it's justified.
While I do say that they would be justified in excluding a campaign, I do think some form of offline play like split-screen being offered as well would be ideal. Generally I'm someone who almost exclusively plays single player but I'm much more likely to buy a purely multiplayer game if it also offers local multiplayer. I used to have a blast playing against my brother or sister.
While I do say that they would be justified in excluding a campaign, I do think some form of offline play like split-screen being offered as well would be ideal. Generally I'm someone who almost exclusively plays single player but I'm much more likely to buy a purely multiplayer game if it also offers local multiplayer. I used to have a blast playing against my brother or sister.
