Is it necessary for modern FPS games to have unlocks and points to be competitive in the market?

[Brawndo]

I fondly remember many hours of good times playing multiplayer FPS games like Battlefield 2, Call of Duty 1 and 2, and Unreal Tournament 2004, all of which had little to no unlocks. Although some games like Counterstrike had "cash" to unlock a limited number of items or weapons, Call of Duty 4 was really the first game to introduce what we now see in every single multiplayer FPS since.

Would you play a multiplayer FPS without unlocks and points, or is this game mechanic absolutely necessary for a mainstream FPS to be competitive in today's gaming era?

 

[NerfedFalcon]

If a mainstream FPS video game isn't Call of Duty in a different wrapper, it won't sell. So yeah, I guess it is needed.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Ask Halo. I mean, yeah, 3 and Reach have unlock and point systems, but they're purely aesthetic.

 

[oplinger]

Necessary to be competitive? Yeah.

We like rewards. So we'll naturally gravitate to something that rewards us, rather than something that is just kinda there. It's a little sad because the game could otherwise be brilliant, but people tend to like the short term satisfaction, and having very clear overarching goals that can drive us to do repetitive tasks for thousands of hours.

 

[TheDooD]

Because most have ADD and most likely haven't played any Unreal games... The answer is sadly yes. It isn't about Honor anymore is about S.W.A.G. It's kinda funny people are more happy about small rewards then being the best by getting there legitimately by having the battle being even from the get go.

 

[distortedreality]

I'm hoping that CSGO changes the necessity because there definitely is one there now.

I'd disagree with the "keeps people interested argument" - if you check out the Steam stats, there are currently more people playing COunter Strike than there are playing MW3. To me, it's all about gameplay, mods, and continued support from the devs.

Not sure how well that translates to consoles though lol

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

To keep people playing. People need motivation to play the game. In MW2 it was to get the golden weapons, or the last prestige, or trying to get a knife only nuke or something. The only MP game I've played just out the fun of it was Resistance 2, for like 400 hours. Every other game had some sort of incentive to keep me playing

KZ2 had the weekly awards
KZ3 had the medals
Annnnnd thats about it, I don't really like COD and I never played BF (well I did play the terrible beta,but that doesn't count)

 

[Xanadu84]

Nothing is necessary to be a success, the possibilities are endless. However, unlocks are a GREAT way to provide a constant and strong sense of feedback that facilitates a sense of player accomplishment. So a game without them will likely need to either replicate this feedback in some other way or design a game where such feedback happens to not enhance a game.

 

[distortedreality]

I'm hoping that CSGO changes the necessity because there definitely is one there now.

I'd disagree with the "keeps people interested argument" - if you check out the Steam stats, there are currently more people playing COunter Strike than there are playing MW3. To me, it's all about gameplay, mods, and continued support from the devs.

Not sure how well that translates to consoles though lol

Doesnt Counter Strike have achievements? If not, its kinda surprising Valve didnt patch them in.

CSS does now, but for at least 5 or so years it didn't. Just checked, and it doesn't look like the older CS games do at all.

 

[Broken Orange]

This is just a case of a carrot on a stick.

"Oh, I want that new gun. Now I want the camo for that gun. I need to grind for 20+hrs? This game is so deep!"

 

[Harb]

Isn't necessary at all. Look at Team Fortress 2, which, "despite" having no unlocks, rolls over Modern Warfare .

Now unlocks are in Battlefield only and purely because someone in EA thought it might be a good idea to butcher Battlefield series and make it more like MW just for selling more copies.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Basically it keeps people playing the game. Slowing getting items unlocked as you play provides enough incentive for a lot of people to keep playing the game. It also forces people try different weapons. People loose interest in a game far faster if you dont actually provide them with any kind of reward for playing it.

Basically this. It keeps people interested in the game long enough for DLC to be put out for purchase.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

Isn't necessary at all. Look at Team Fortress 2, which, "despite" having no unlocks, rolls over Modern Warfare .

Hi. It's me, 2011. Yes, Team Fortress 2 has unlocks. Like, eighty bazillion of them. They're not rewarded for accomplishments anymore (well, a handful of them are, but they drop randomly like all the others), but they are definitely there.

 

[KiloFox]

all Halo's "Unlocks" are purely aesthetic, and most of them can be acquired through playing the single player... it dosn't actually affect gameplay at all... it's actually why i think Halo's multiplayer is SO much better than CoD or Battlefield's... because it's an even playing field in multiplayer... a max level has NO statistical advantage over a level 1 (assuming actual player skill level is the same) now if i could find a game that combined having no unlocks (like Halo, all unlocks purely aesthetic) but STILL have the option to customize starting loadout (like all other multiplayers once you reach max level) i'd be VERY happy with my multiplayer... of course, a lot of work would have to be done balancing all the weaponry making sure there's no "this will beat everything" combination, allowing the player to outfit himself to better suit his playing style, or tactical choice.

 

[ResonanceGames]

It'll be interesting to see what CS:GO does to the market, if anything. A lot of people are writing it off, but they forget what an unstoppably monstrous juggernaut CS was and is. Who knows how the console crowd will react to it? (and the X-Box port of 1.6 doesn't count. It was poorly made and marketed. Valve has learned their lesson three times over since then)

 

[KyeMc]

If a mainstream FPS video game isn't Call of Duty in a different wrapper, it won't sell. So yeah, I guess it is needed.

Well actually i think battlefield 2 started the whole unlocks and persistent stat tracking
but more on topic it is more of a skinner box technique and seeing someone use a unlock to kill you will make you strive to gain that unlock

 

[NickCaligo42]

If a mainstream FPS video game isn't Call of Duty in a different wrapper, it won't sell. So yeah, I guess it is needed.

Well. Let's look at the other Call of Duty knockoffs...

[ul]
[li]Crysis 2 might've sold a little better than the original, didn't come close to Call of Duty. Mainly noted for the things it does different from Call of Duty rather than what it does the same.[/li]
[li]Homefront is about as much of a hollow Call of Duty knockoff as you can get. Did so badly the whole studio tanked.[/li]
[li]Medal of Honor--need I even raise that specter?[/li]
[/ul]

Can't think of too many more off the top of my head, buuuuut... you get the idea. These are the most high-profile COD knockoffs ever, and they all either straight-up tanked or just plain didn't sell that well. Wanna re-think your platform?