• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Deploying to Play the Best PC Games!

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game every week! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
savagejoe444

Opinion: $60 Multiplayer Only games need to stop

23 posts in this topic

You know I might call myself a hypocrite when I say this as I am getting Rainbow Six Siege after it releases, but that doesn't change the fact that this shit needs to stop. I know, PvP and eSports are the big talk when it comes to gaming nowadays. I fucking get it okay? But that does NOT excuse the fact that they are not worth the money they ask for, let alone for $60. I can't help but put the blame on Titanfall and Evolve for this. You know what? Never mind that statement, it is their fault.

 

Titanfall was the most critically acclaimed games last year and just understand how that is. There was no Single Player content to speak of at all when it launched and its "Multiplayer-Campaign" was a complete joke. I can't believe how much they half-assed it. And this was from the same guys who made the original Modern Warfare games? What? How fucking weak... I hate Titanfall, I really do. I don't care what anyone says, I absolutely hate this game. It is the most overhyped, overrated, barebones shooter I've ever played and I never want another part of it. Fuck this game.

 

Then there is Evolve; oh boy this game. Now this game was where I ALMOST could have forgiven it's $60 price tag due to the maps being free. But then I realized that was the only free content we would be getting in the game. All of the Hunters and Monsters you had to buy later on and the pricing for them was ridiculous. I mean $15 for ONE Monster? Why? What the fuck kind of jackass would pay that much for one playable monster? I guess people are that stupid then if it was selling well enough, sad fact though. I would have bashed my head in with a metal baseball bat if I ever wasted that much money on this game.

 

 Now we have games like Star Wars Battlefront and Rainbow Six Siege doing the same thing. As I said above; yes, I am buying Siege, but unlike Evolve, Titanfall, and Battlefront, what I played actually felt like something I would want to come back to at anytime and wouldn't get bored of so fast. Plus the maps AND the new Operators will be free; that's as far as I'll go when spending $60 on these types of games. However I am questioning a Day 1 purchase as the shown in the Open Beta that the servers are still not up to snuff. Which really boggles my mind how they can't even get it right after an Alpha and two Betas. Ubisoft Montreal what the hell you guys doing over there?

 

As for Battlefront, hell no. I may be a Star Wars fan (The Force Awakens hype is real!), but when it comes to the games, I want quality AND quantity. I don't give a rats ass about how "authentic" it is to the films, the fact is that DICE's Battlefront is bare-bones in content and the content that it does have is completely lacking, and the amount of depth (or lack thereof) in the game is pathetic. I won't do it. I have more freaking self respect than the community itself has. "But it's a fun game!So? I had fun with Colonial Marines and that game was a pile of garbage. I'm so sick of that argument it's not even funny. It's not even a valid argument.

 

Overall all, as I stated with Rainbow Six Siege and partially with Evolve; if your PvP only game will be supported with free content constantly, then I won't be opposed to spending $60 on it that much IF what I played is addicting and satisfying. But as whole, these games are becoming more and more shallow in terms of content and depth. Its a growing, nasty trend that is slowly getting out of control. If you guys love this sort of practice, more power to ya. Me? I want no part of it and, quite frankly, hopes this trend finally falls on its ass one day. Probably won't happen soon, but when it does, I'll be one happy man.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't blame the seller only, also blame the people who are happy to buy or even pre-order these $60 multiplay only games...

baronrouker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they need to stop as such, But they either need to offer addional content beond that of a standard multiplayer mode to make up for sacrificing the single player element or they need to reduce the price that they sell for to make up for the fact that you are buying less then a full game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found that $60 for ANY type of game was ridiculous. So by the time the price decreases to something I find attractive, multiplayer only games might be already dead. So those have always been obsolete to me.

Your online game better be free or else you are kissing my ass goodbye.

Raspharus and savagejoe444 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found that $60 for ANY type of game was ridiculous. So by the time the price decreases to something I find attractive, multiplayer only games might be already dead. So those have always been obsolete to me.

Your online game better be free or else you are kissing my ass goodbye.

 

Or at least do it like CS go did it. A lot of hours of gameplay for 10 dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask me, 60$ MP-only games can work out if they have enough quality content to keep people playing for a long time, but unfortunately, most of these games barely have content to keep most people for longer than a month.

Mexiguy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't blame the seller only, also blame the people who are happy to buy or even pre-order these $60 multiplay only games...

Wait why blame them, that makes no sense if they are happy with what they are doing then i see no problem like i am picking up battlefront but non of that money is going to ea used baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people are willing to pay for it then Devs will make it available.

 

Titanfall and evolve cant even be blamed for this imo.  Funnily enough it falls more on the shoulders of games like COD.  I say this because after a certain point people stopped buying call of duty for the campaign and only played the MP.  Game devs caught onto this and decided to cater games more to those kind of players.

 

And recent games just prove they will still sell well with a limited or even non existent campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people are willing to pay for it then Devs will make it available.

 

Titanfall and evolve cant even be blamed for this imo.  Funnily enough it falls more on the shoulders of games like COD.  I say this because after a certain point people stopped buying call of duty for the campaign and only played the MP.  Game devs caught onto this and decided to cater games more to those kind of players.

 

And recent games just prove they will still sell well with a limited or even non existent campaign.

Not So much it is dieing believe me when it comes to cod. I have played every single cod I speed run the games to master prestige (not anymore) but it is dieing I couldn't bare myself to buy black ops 3 for $60, I only got it because of a friend of mine was willing to pay half the cost for me to play it.  I'm not even going to buy the season pass unless someone buys it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are of course some exceptions to this (MMO's and big single player games like Fallout 4 for example) but generally speaking as far as I'm concerned if it doesn't have both a single player story/campaign and multiplayer then it's not a full game.  So I'm only willing to pay half the price for a multiplayer only game and maybe 2/3 for a single player only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall, Titanfall died not long after it's release, which sucks cause I really liked the game. Evolve died even sooner. Though I'm not sure how much the former sold, I could of swear the latter did poorly.

 

It's just me, but putting the blame on these not so successful games is silly. The production to make the single player probably didn't amount to shit when the main demographic only plays the multiplayer. If they can cut production cost by bailing on one player mode and still meet sales expectation then why not? It's an idea I can't exactly blame. There are games with a single player mode that I almost completely ignore, like GTAV, black ops 3, and smash bros.

 

When it comes to $60 for just the multiplayer, video games are expensive to make, man. These guys want to raise the base price, but they know that's going to cause an uproar. That's why we have these awful season passes. At least it's still $60.

Killzone likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall, Titanfall died not long after it's release, which sucks cause I really liked the game. Evolve died even sooner. Though I'm not sure how much the former sold, I could of swear the latter did poorly.

 

It's just me, but putting the blame on these not so successful games is silly. The production to make the single player probably didn't amount to shit when the main demographic only plays the multiplayer. If they can cut production cost by bailing on one player mode and still meet sales expectation then why not? It's an idea I can't exactly blame. There are games with a single player mode that I almost completely ignore, like GTAV, black ops 3, and smash bros.

 

When it comes to $60 for just the multiplayer, video games are expensive to make, man. These guys want to raise the base price, but they know that's going to cause an uproar. That's why we have these awful season passes. At least it's still $60.

 

I don't know what it was like on PC, but Titanfall was being played for a long time after release on XBox One. I didn't feel ripped buy that game because I picked up up dirt cheep in a console bundle and bought the DLC on sale, so that along with the great post launch support that game was well worth it to me despite the lack of a single player campaign. I will admit, though, the fact they pieced together that bullshit "campaign" that they had just to check a box coupled with the fact the world of Titanfall had some genuine potential  for a story made the lack of single player campaign very frustrating. I'm hoping when (or if) we get a sequel they fix that.

 

When It comes the issue of full priced multilayer games in general, I have to agree it needs to stop. Titanfall and Evolve at least had fresh idea's, but I genuine don't see what battlefront brings to fold other that it's name and associated franchise. It's based on an already existing game franchise that actually had proper campaigns is all the more embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I agree if your only offering half a game it should be half the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to $60 for just the multiplayer, video games are expensive to make, man. These guys want to raise the base price, but they know that's going to cause an uproar. That's why we have these awful season passes. At least it's still $60.

The problem is that all the money rarely goes to making the game actually better.

 

Honestly how much of the budget for CoD AW went to the actual game and how much into paying Kevin Spacey?

Brokensteel119 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am have been askingbethis Question for a long time and this is it why do we buy cod, bmulfield, and probably more shotters just naming off the most popular. But really why do we buy them, the bulk of people buy them for multiplayer and that's it never hitting the campaign, the same with me I have recently picked up battlefront tnd will have a better opinion on it in at least a month. Content is what most people look for with me if the cone os worth while then it has achieved what it set out to do. But content can mean different things to different people for me if you have 5 great modes that s all I need to be happy. But what about multiplayer only games well me why would I pick up games like battlefront and siege that's right strictly multilayer so no campaign at least in my eyes means nothing as long as the multiplayer is solid and to be honest do you really want another story campaign from dice ? Ya no. And siege i dont care because the game was markted as multiplayet first so when no campaign was in it i shed no tear.

The game its self is fun but the quality of what the multiplayer is needs to be good that being said 75 for games last like this is shitty and needs to stop but multiplayer only games is not bad as long as the multiplayer is so and worth the money so for me if a game is markted first as multiplayer first i dont care if the campaign is cut yes siege was going to have campaign but I heard very little about that also we need to stop blaming the consumer for this if they are happy then leave them alone. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with this multiplayer only stuff, and I would be willing to add in the "always online" into that.... Like when you can't play a single player game because it can't connect to the server... What the actual fuck?!? I just want to sit and play, but because it can't connect to Origin/Ubisoft/whatever I can't play?!? That's just stupid... 

And honestly, as long as people keep supporting day one DLC and other bullshit (pay-to-win levelup packs, dlc content that should have been in the release, etc) then it is NOT GOING TO STOP. And no matter how many ppl complain, there is ALWAYS gonna be ppl who buy it (lots of disposible income, or mommy & daddy's credit card) so they are not going to stop... The ONLY way it would stop if there was some sort of consensus among gamers (HAAA!) which is never gonna happen cause most can't even stop trashing each other long enough about their choice of gaming medium, let alone actually band together and agree on something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been asking myself this question for a long time why do we pick up games like battlefront, cod, titanfall well... That's right for the multiplayer the campaign s are just the iceing on the cake. If the game itself has enough content To sustain your attention. But that's another thing Content means different things to different people Ihhave picked up battlefront and should have a good opinion on this In a months time. Multiplayer only games are not a bad thing as long as content is good and the price is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing a bit of siege, well trying to. I actually like the game when I can play for more than 3 minutes. 

I will not be paying €60 for it. I will wait for it to go a hell of a lot cheaper. I really hate that you have to be online and connected to their dodgy servers to play lone wolf. It's a shame because the characters they have come up with and the great levels they could of made a great single player campaign. I can't wait to see how it launches.

Rainbow six vegas was an ok game but I enjoyed it and played it a few times back in the day. 

 

I'm not crazy on multiplayer only games either and there is plenty of free to play ones around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Titwnfall appatrntly haf cheater issues... And rampant cheaters kill a multiplayer only game faster than a nuke.

That said I think a multiplayer only game can be worth full price if its good (obviously) and festures highly capable (snd easy if you like) bots like in unreal tournament.

Having both online, private, dedicated, and LAN as options is a must too... None of this only on their servers shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Titwnfall appatrntly haf cheater issues... And rampant cheaters kill a multiplayer only game faster than a nuke.

That said I think a multiplayer only game can be worth full price if its good (obviously) and festures highly capable (snd easy if you like) bots like in unreal tournament.

Having both online, private, dedicated, and LAN as options is a must too... None of this only on their servers shit.

Nah there weren't many cheaters in the PC version of Titanfall that I remember, it just died pretty quickly, and the crap monetization model that diluted the userbase depending on what DLC they had bough only made it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Takes alot of money to make these game now compared to back when it was 60$ to buy a game that took less then 5 million to make for a AAA game. Now it costs 100's of millions to make that AAA multiplier game for the same asking price.

 

Vote with your wallet. If people don't buy that multiplayer only game they be in a bigger hole then back in the day. I would say from a my point of view it was a gamble that payed off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0