Poll: Would you buy a game in chunks?

[DanielBrown]

Aye, I most probably would. I play a lot of games, but the only times I want to play multiplayer is when I'm in an MMO. I have done more than my fair share of Counter-Strike and Team Fortress, and it doesn't appeal to me anymore, so multiplayer is just a waste of money.

 

[Hashime]

I too am a member of the crowd that does not really play multiplayer online (except for TF2 / KF). It would save me money as I only really play the single / co-op campaigns.

 

[Grotch Willis]

You do realize that we already have been buying a game in chunks for years now, Half-life and all of its expansions and spinoffs (ex: CounterStrike).

 

[Echo136]

If I could, say, buy Dead Space 2 for $40 instead of $60 without the shitty multiplayer content, I'd do it, but there's no way that would happen.

 

[keideki]

As long as the costs add up to the amount one would pay to buy the features together I guess I have no problem, or better yet, if all the features were offered at a bundle price. Say a single player campaign costs 15 bucks, and the multiplayer costs 15, if they total for both was 25 I would totally be down for that system.

 

[spartan231490]

What I mean is having the singleplayer, the multiplayer, the bonus content (outfits, camoflauge, stuff that is kind of meaningless) sold in diferent packages while beeing cheaper.

Of course that if you bought every package of the game (in order to have all the content) the total price would be the normal price of a recently launched title.

The thing is that sometimes I hear people saying that they dont care for singleplayer, others say that they dont care for multiplayer and I know that some people dont care for meaningless additional stuff, so basicly you would pay for what you want of that game. If you want the whole game you would end up paying the same as if it was all in the same package (actually there could be a version of the game that included everything to go along with the release of the seperate packages).

Would you like this type of deals in the future?

Of course I would. that would give me a chance to pick only the content I wanted. I would never buy another CoD singleplayer again. and I wouldn't need multiplayer for games like Assassins creed and bioshock. I also wouldn't get any outfits, camoflauge, ect, cuz I don't ever use it.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Probably. But it would have to be way cheaper than a full game. And by that, I mean it would have to add up to the price of one game when it's all accounted for.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I'd like it, since most games I don't care about multiplayer. But, at the same time, they would need to quit half-assing the single player. Even $30 is too much for a 3-4 hour game with zero replay value.

 

[FalloutJack]

No, I want a game. A complete game. I'm aware that the logistics and deadlines are rough on companies to put out the latest super-giant, but don't give them MORE excuses to slack off. Whole game, whole profit.

 

[TheLoneBeet]

It'd work for certain games and only with digital distribution. This would be a pretty cool tactic for Steam games to be released this way.

Personally I'd try it but I'm not sure if I'd like it. I usually buy games for the single-player campaign and the multi-player is just additional content that's hit and miss. I still enjoy TRYING it though and if I'd already purchased the single-player I'd be hesitant to drop money on the multi-player. When it's all bundled together and I don't have a choice the risk is less significant.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't think a lot of games could work like this and thus far you guys are not making a case for it being particularly plausible and I'll explain why. (oh and I like lists it makes it easy for you to argue any particular point without arguing everything.

1. Lets start with the basics. Most of the work that goes into a game is going to be a part of both multiplayer AND single player. Call of Duty is an example a lot of you are throwing about. The physics engine, the graphics, the weapons all that stuff is going to be in both. Sure there are some unique things in the multiplayer and some unique things in the game but the reality is I'm sure that it wouldn't be worth it economically to split it into two separate things.

Can you imagine trying to separate out the single and multiplayer in any fighting game? Or racing game or pretty much anything other than Call of Duty and getting worthwhile results?

2. Call of Duty and similar games aside where the real question should be do you have enough new content for the multiplayer to justify this or should you just be charging me for some DLC for this game I already own, the Single Player serves as a tutorial. Once you've beaten Starcraft your just good enough to understand why you lost when you go online. Lets be honest here though if you tried to learn Starcraft online you'd be almost every game before you figured out how the tech trees worked.

3. League of Legends IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF THIS. League of Legends is a free game where you are able to purchase things for convience and cosmetics. There is no single player (unless you count fighting the bots) no campaign mode. You can earn IP to buy your charachters just not the skins and even if you never give them a dime you have access to whatever charachters are free that week (or that you've purchased with IP) you have access to every map available as well.

League is a brilliant plan and I'm sure they are making a boat load of money, anybody who plays the game can tell you that there is a point where if you haven't bought at least a skin for your main that maybe you don't actually like the game.

4. I think a much stronger case can me made for perhaps a directors cut or something similar costing extra. CoD:MW2 only had a single player because ancient law demands it. It was short, real short. I would happily have paid and extra twenty bucks if they would have made the game a full length game maybe fighting some of the same battles but from different angles or something, anything.

 

[Apollo45]

Nope. This is exactly why I haven't bought Starcraft 2 yet. I'm not going to spend $60 on a game that's a third as long as it should be.

 

[josemlopes]

Probably. But it would have to be way cheaper than a full game. And by that, I mean it would have to add up to the price of one game when it's all accounted for.

Yeah, I said that in the first post, the price of all the parts combined would be the normal price of a recently launched game. The SP would be like 35% of the full price, MP 40% and the bonus content 25%.

 

[Heartcafe]

Hmm, that actually doesn't seem that bad of an idea. I never use multiplayer anyways because of my crappy internet. But it seems to be too much of a hassle for developers and way too easy to exploit.