Thoughts on $60 Online only games?

With the growing list of games that launch without a single player campaign such as Titanfall, Evolve, Star Wars Battlefront, Rainbow Six Seige, etc it got me thinking. Does it bother you that games are launching for the full $60 price tag without a single
player campaign, and only having a multiplayer component? This could go either way let me know.

:)

 

gold mvp to unlock superstar cole question

i read online you only need 60, is this true?

 

Wait....6v6???

hmm online only space game with robots and bots, 6 vs 6, at $60 also available on 360 (probably at 900p). Sounds cheesy

 

No, does not bother me. I donot play online only games. But yall can have your fun.

 

"Titanfall", "Evolve" and "Star Wars: Battlefront" are all great games.

Didn't "The Witcher 3" release without an online campaign?

That was a great game too.

 

Um Witcher 3 was single player only and still is.

 

Oh wow. That explains why I couldn't find "Team Deathmatch" now.

Thanks Jasper!

As most people were already aware of this my point is a great game is a great game, single player or multiplayer.

 

People need to stop wanting every game to be tailored to their own personal taste. Some people only like one or the other and that's fine. So when a game comes out that doesn't suit your needs, go play one of the many that does. Instead of complaining on
the Internet about how they should change it just for you.

FYI: This post isn't directed at anyone specific.

 

i agree, just bought starwars for £49.49 and it is only online, am i moaning, hell no, it is an awsome game.

 

I see why others don't like the $60 price tag for online only games. But I think of it like this. If I play Call of Duty, I'm most likely never going to touch the campaign. So for me, it's not a big deal as I already view COD as an online only game.

For those games that only have an online only, it depends on the content and the replay-ability. It also comes down to how long the community lasts. Because many online only games are popular for a while and then the community dwindles to low number, basically
rendering it pointless to play.

If anything you can say some games with online/single player modes don't always go good as well.

 

Online-only, or singleplayer-only, games are totally fine in my mind. If a game would be better suited to only having one or the other, then it's great that the developer/publisher realises this, focuses on that and doesn't tack other elements on just because
they can. It means they've got a solid understanding of the game's identity and its player base. In theory, it lets them focus on making the core experience - whether that's the campaign or multiplayer - better because they don't have to worry about the other
element.

But, if they're going to do this, there should *more* of that thing. So if it's going to be multiplayer-only, there should be more of that content; it should not feel like a a game that had the campaign stripped out, it should feel like a game that really
focused on creating the best multiplayer experience and that there's no room to even include the singleplayer because there's so much to do.

And if it does feel like a a game that had its singleplayer component stripped out, leaving only the multiplayer (or a singleplayer game where the multiplayer component was removed without replacement), then that game should not have the audacity to be priced
at $60.

But then, that feeling of whether the game is worth its price is going to be entirely subjective and everyone's going to make up their own minds about value.

~~~

Yesterday, Kotaku put up a good piece exploring this same topic, with discussion of PC games as well:

kotaku.com/multiplayer-only-games-shouldnt-cost-60-1747182497

And Jim Sterling's video on the topic is more console-centric: (Beware: swearing. Lots of it, as I recall. This is your NSFW warning.)

 

It doesn't bother me but I won't play mp only games. Charging 60 is rediculous especially when they have no substance like Battlefront. I was playing at a mates last night and it was shocking how little there was. It should have been 30. Like I said, I just
don't buy them so I won't ever feel cheated.

I think not adding a SP campaign is really lazy.

 

Really doesn't make any difference to me. Like others have said I just don't spend my money on them if I don't feel like they are worth it.

 

If the game is good and provides the value, then I have no problem paying $60 regardless of if it's online only or single player only. If I am not enjoying the game, then it doesn't matter if it's online only, or single player only.

Star Wars Battlefront is light on content, and is online only, but I've been having an absolute blast with the game. It's the first game I've been motivated enough to play online by myself(I exclusively play with a select group of friends) since Shadowrun,
and before that Socom 2. So it was $60 well spent, and I plan on buying the season pass once Dice tells me if I am getting prequel content or not. No prequel planets or events, and I aint buying.

 

Titanfall was fun, but I didn't pay full price for it. By doing that, I've felt that I've gotten a value with an online-only experience. Plants vs. Zombies as well was a good game that didn't have single player and was reasonable priced at $30 (and supported
free DLC!)

I see the concerns of online-only games for full price. I'm used to getting a single-player and multiplayer experience for that price and if one part of that experience is axed but still retained that hefty price tag, it would make me question how much each
aspect is worth.

Another thing is with the Internet; as that article mentioned, if the servers get axed or the community dwindles, you've practically wasted money on a game that is unplayable. At least with a single player, you could still play that game without it being
taken from you.