Exclusion of Single Player Campaign/story mode...is it justifiable?

[Rebel_Raven]

I'm big on developer freedom, though I may never know how much of it is actual freedom, and how much is people over developers interfering. That said, they're free to leave out a single player campaign, and depending on the game, I may wish they wouldn't, but if they do, or don't, clearly I don't have to get the game if I don't like the choice, and if I don't like the choice, I may or may not get vocal on the decision, but they still have the freedom.

I.E. MGSPP Online lacking bots, and/or co-op? I don't think I ever want to play online again, but if they don't wanna do it, then I can't make them.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Sure. And I'm fully justified in not buying it because multiplayer only games can go die in a fire.

 

[Sarge034]

MP-only games are at the mercy of "community" in terms of their long term viability.

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.

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.

You missed a key point, they kept the servers up. If TF2 or CS ever start costing Valve money because people get tired of buying hats and gun skins you can bet your ass they'll go away. That's the real problem with MP only games, they're only relevant so long as they're supported. So I'd say no. A game is not worth a full game's price if an external force can make all of the game useless.

 

[distortedreality]

MP-only games are at the mercy of "community" in terms of their long term viability.

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.

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.

You missed a key point, they kept the servers up. If TF2 or CS ever start costing Valve money because people get tired of buying hats and gun skins you can bet your ass they'll go away. That's the real problem with MP only games, they're only relevant so long as they're supported. So I'd say no. A game is not worth a full game's price if an external force can make all of the game useless.

No, if the servers are publicly owned and community based (which they are for most, if not all, Valve MP games), then Valve theoretically couldn't kill the game if they tried.

You're right in that MP games where the servers are owned and operated by a dev/publisher can be switched off, but there are ways around that as well.

As far as community support goes, if you get your product right and don't give the community reasons to leave, chances are they'll stick with the game long after its profitable for a dev to continue working on it, especially if it's easily moddable.

 

[Sarge034]

No, if the servers are publicly owned and community based (which they are for most, if not all, Valve MP games), then Valve theoretically couldn't kill the game if they tried.

You're right in that MP games where the servers are owned and operated by a dev/publisher can be switched off, but there are ways around that as well.

As far as community support goes, if you get your product right and don't give the community reasons to leave, chances are they'll stick with the game long after its profitable for a dev to continue working on it, especially if it's easily moddable.

Sure Valve could and no there aren't ways around that. One acronym, DRM. Do you know it's still illegal to bypass SecurRom and the like? Yes they're discontinued, yes they're no longer serviced, yes it is physically impossible to validate the key to play, but because of copyright laws it is illegal to crack the game so you can play it. Steam is one big piece of DRM. Steam games check in with Valve servers to validate your games every time you boot up Steam AND when you launch the game. My point stands, if you lose official support for a MP only game it dies.

 

[baddude1337]

Developers can do what they want. Though I find it hard to justify buying a game full price (£50) when it's online multiplayer only. At the very least a multiplayer only game should have bot support so that it's playable even when the community dies. This has kept age old games like Quake and Battlefield 2 playable for me, thanks to their bot support (and mods).

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

I've never really been a fan of a multiplayer-driven title without a single player campaign being $60.

Depending on the IP or quality, it should really run for about $30-$40, especially if we are talking about annual releases that contain little to no extra DLC. On the other hand, it seems that some developers will include a half-baked, unpolished, and easily forgettable single player campaign to justify the $60, which, at best, is a little devious.

Developers should just be honest with what they are creating and consumers should be aware of it as well; no one buys COD titles for the single player campaign, the story, or the characters associated with that particular yearly release title. They pre-order, wait in line at the midnight launch, get home as fast as they can, and play the purest incarnation of the multiplayer until the sun comes up or the developers patch all the fun out of it.

I'm sure that if these games were price more moderately, people could easily dismiss the lack of a single player campaign.

 

[distortedreality]

No, if the servers are publicly owned and community based (which they are for most, if not all, Valve MP games), then Valve theoretically couldn't kill the game if they tried.

You're right in that MP games where the servers are owned and operated by a dev/publisher can be switched off, but there are ways around that as well.

As far as community support goes, if you get your product right and don't give the community reasons to leave, chances are they'll stick with the game long after its profitable for a dev to continue working on it, especially if it's easily moddable.

Sure Valve could and no there aren't ways around that. One acronym, DRM. Do you know it's still illegal to bypass SecurRom and the like? Yes they're discontinued, yes they're no longer serviced, yes it is physically impossible to validate the key to play, but because of copyright laws it is illegal to crack the game so you can play it. Steam is one big piece of DRM. Steam games check in with Valve servers to validate your games every time you boot up Steam AND when you launch the game. My point stands, if you lose official support for a MP only game it dies.

I'm aware of what Steam is. If you think that people haven't been circumventing Steam for years, you're a little delusional mate. That tangent is kind of besides the point though.

Well, actually, it reinforces the viewpoint of an MP only game being justifiable. If your sole reason for saying that an MP only game isn't justifiable is the possibility of the publisher pulling the plug and rendering the game unplayable, how is that any different to the multitude of SP games whose greatness is locked behind unbreakable (yet broken) DRM, or software/hardware incompatibility?

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

to your title question, yes, it is justifiable. I'm full for dev's doing what they "want".

that said, I pretty much play single player games in 90% of my time, so multiplayer games can pretty much go die in a fire for all I care, hence me not giving a shit about the new battlefront.

dev's just need to be honest and charge ~30-40 bucks for a multiplayer only game, just like they are charging less for taking the single player out of Blops 3 for the older generation of consoles, I wish they would do the reverse and simply sell the single player portion seperate from the multiplayer portion, it'd be interesting to see how many people buy which version when it comes to games that feature both.

 

[1981]

Heck yeah. It means I don't have to even consider buying it.

There are things that make the development of multiplayer games more difficult than single-player games, such as network latency. I don't think six months is too short of a lifespan. Few single-player games last that long even if you play them only a few hours a week.

 

[the_dramatica]

if there was just that much content i the multiplayer, maybe.

Thing is, 65$ doesn't really reflect the amount of money that the devs get for making the game, it needs to be multiplied by sales, which are erratic.

Although a lot of devs opt for a 30-40 dollar release price if it's only multi or single player just to get that perspection across.

 

[Scarim Coral]

It depends on how much the game need multiplayers and how much contents without the singleplayer.

I mean does Destiny work as an offline only (haven't played it but isn't it sorta like reaching story cheakpoint in an online map) or does Titanfall need other people in the story as oppose to a single player fps story like COD etc?

 

[xX_Pixels_Xx]

I honestly believe you're talking about Battlefront, in which case, the campaign would suck.
And yes, in some games I could do away with singleplayer, such as Call of Duty MW3 and Hearthstone.

 

[Flames66]

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.

I agree.

However, we, as consumers

Don't insult me, everyone else here, and yourself.

OT: I don't see any problem with a multiplayer game not gluing on a pointless story mode. However, if you have micro transaction item shops or anything similar, the game needs to be entirely free. An entry fee AND a cash shop is inexcusable (with certain exceptions).

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Developers should just be honest with what they are creating and consumers should be aware of it as well; no one buys COD titles for the single player campaign, the story, or the characters associated with that particular yearly release title.

This is completely untrue, though, and Treyarch have noted as much with their "death of campaign is the death of society" hyperbole. The "nobody buys this for the campaign" squabbling has been going on since GoldenEye, the game with its literally tacked on multiplayer that for some baffling reason helped label the N64 as a "multiplayer machine". Speaking for myself, I buy CoD for the campaign. I have zero interest in MP. I buy Battlefield for the MP. Hardline was the best singleplayer FPS of the past few years, IMO. These games are not churned out. They are in development for years. Their campaigns are usually designed by a separate team to the multiplayer. Are they obscenely overpriced? Yes, and the price gouging for 2-3 year old games by Activision is disgusting.

I mean, do people play Naughty Dog games for the campaign? Do people play Halo games for the campaign? Do people play Assassin's Creed games for the singleplayer? Do people play Assassin's Creed games for the controversial modern day sequences? Do people play Half Life for the singleplayer? Of course they do. Multiplayer fanbases have a history of being "noisy", but that doesn't mean SP fanbases don't exist.

 

[Sarge034]

I'm aware of what Steam is. If you think that people haven't been circumventing Steam for years, you're a little delusional mate. That tangent is kind of besides the point though.

Well, actually, it reinforces the viewpoint of an MP only game being justifiable. If your sole reason for saying that an MP only game isn't justifiable is the possibility of the publisher pulling the plug and rendering the game unplayable, how is that any different to the multitude of SP games whose greatness is locked behind unbreakable (yet broken) DRM, or software/hardware incompatibility?

I'm saying if you get caught circumventing Steam or even discontinued DRM your ass is going to be in a sling after all the fines. I'm saying it might be a solution, but it is most certainly not a good one.

It's not my only reason, the other was that the community decides if the game is still playable much like the publishers do with servers. Go to say, Titanfall and try to find a match, go to MW2 MP, go to Splinter Cell Blacklist (that community literally died in one night because of CoD Ghosts... a little over 2 months after release) go to any game that isn't a cult classic and see how the MP is doing. If I can't play the game any anymore because servers are down for good or because the playerbase died is the game still worth $60? I guess it boils down to I don't only count time already spent with a game as justification for the price, I count the game's continued functionality as something I'm paying for too.

 

[Buckets]

Nope, hate multiplayer, unless its co-op. I like a story in a game and will happily play through it. My only bugbear is removing a co-op option when the game used to have it (I'm looking at you Halo 5)

 

[Fdzzaigl]

If the multiplayer goes well beyond the scope and expectations set for similar games with both multiplayer and singleplayer, then perhaps.

But lets face it, singleplayer usually gets thrown out of the window because they can fool you into paying full price without it anyhow.

 

[RJ 17]

Justifiable? Certainly. Sustainable? Well that's a different matter all together...

Titanfall and Evolve thought they were justified, however they quickly found out that they were unsustainable because people got bored with them within a week. I'm not saying that campaigns are necessarily the main draw for titles, however statics have shown that games with a campaign mode do tend to sell better than multiplayer-only games.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Developers should just be honest with what they are creating and consumers should be aware of it as well; no one buys COD titles for the single player campaign, the story, or the characters associated with that particular yearly release title.

This is completely untrue, though, and Treyarch have noted as much with their "death of campaign is the death of society" hyperbole. The "nobody buys this for the campaign" squabbling has been going on since GoldenEye, the game with its literally tacked on multiplayer that for some baffling reason helped label the N64 as a "multiplayer machine". Speaking for myself, I buy CoD for the campaign. I have zero interest in MP. I buy Battlefield for the MP. Hardline was the best singleplayer FPS of the past few years, IMO. These games are not churned out. They are in development for years. Their campaigns are usually designed by a separate team to the multiplayer. Are they obscenely overpriced? Yes, and the price gouging for 2-3 year old games by Activision is disgusting.

I mean, do people play Naughty Dog games for the campaign? Do people play Halo games for the campaign? Do people play Assassin's Creed games for the singleplayer? Do people play Assassin's Creed games for the controversial modern day sequences? Do people play Half Life for the singleplayer? Of course they do. Multiplayer fanbases have a history of being "noisy", but that doesn't mean SP fanbases don't exist.

It seems that my comment on the inherent need for a campaign in multiplayer games to sell copies was a bit too inclusive.

I meant to say that no one buys multiplayer-focused titles solely for the single player campaign. I am aware that there are people who do not have a reliable internet connection and rely on an offline experience to keep them entertained and there are those who are not quite as skilled as some other seasoned players, so a single player experience serves as a form of practice.

Spoiler: I will now do my best to give my 2 cents on the following titles an their relation to single player campaigns

GoldenEye - Many people bought this title AFTER hearing about the awesomeness (and sometimes cheapness - thank you Oddjob) of the multiplayer experience. I'm certain that people enjoyed the single player campaign, but this was well in the past where a single player campaign was always front and center before a multiplayer experience.

Uncharted series, Assassin's Creed series - Yes, they are designed with a single player experience in mind (especially 4: Black Flag, Geez). The existence of multiplayer came to these series after the multiplayer epidemic that infected several single-player-focused series, where it was believed that games could only be sold if they contained some form of multiplayer in it. Fortunately, for these two series, it worked out fine; for other's, not so much (i.e. Bioshock, Dead Space).

Halo series - This series actually has a decent, lengthy, and fun campaign, as well as an engaging and functional multiplayer. I would say that this IP is one of the few where there is a functional balance between the two and is worth every penny (unless it becomes more than $60 or includes microtransactions; at that point, the developers can go f*** themselves).

Half-Life - I've never played this title, and I'm not aware if it has a multiplayer (since all everyone seems to talk about is the campaign story and the Gravity Gun).

Spoiler: In regards to the Gravity Gun, meet my friend the Gravity Disruptor from Turok: Evolution

So Akklaim did it FIRST!!

...And Telekinesis everywhere else.