What should cost less? Single Player Only or Multiplayer Only?

[MakgSnake]

I always debate with my friends regarding this.

Should Single Player only games cost less?... As there is nothing to do after when you are done.

or

Should Multiplayer only game cost less... as there is only online matches to keep you going and without that the game is useless?

But then again... multiplayer games that are a hit are played for many many years down the line as well. So you do get more out of a MP only game? Right? Overwatch, Rainbow Six Siege, etc.

But then again, single player games gives you an experience like no other. If SP games are regular priced, should it be at least 20+ hours.... and not 10 or less..?

 

[nsilvias]

multiplayer requires more maintenence and content dev long term
so that should cost more

 

[CloseTalker]

MP probably uses fewer assets, and has a higher chance of wringing more money out of you. That's why there aren't any (or in case I'm wrong, at least very few) F2P single player only games

 

[Deleted member 31873]

Multiplayer games have much greater potential for other means of monetization than single player games, so I think the initial cost of multiplayer games should be lower. (and I say that as someone who greatly prefers single player games).

Also I feel that multiplayer games require less development effort, since they rely on the presence of other players to be fun, whereas single player games need to be fun by themselves.

 

[AshenOne]

Multiplayer only.. why? Because a lot of assets and voice recording are produced and recorded JUST for the single player parts of a game. Not to mention the making of cutscenes and boss fights as such. Thats a ton of things that bring a lot of entertainment value to the average customer than just a multiplayer only game that only has matches against your fellow human players with different game modes that are just that and nothing else.

 

[LossAversion]

Multiplayer only.

Because they're going to monetize it in a billion other ways beyond the initial price point.

 

[Cosmic Voyager]

Multiplayer. They're going to milk you like a fat goat with MTs anyways, so the barrier to entry should be low if not free.

MT-less SPs have earned their $60 price tag

 

[Cranster]

Multiplayer only titles not just because of all the forms of monetization but also because it's not something you can play offline.

 

[Zukuu]

Depends on the game doesn't it?

 

[gdt]

Neither are a high price.

 

[Rosebud]

Online games, the most famous are free already because they want to sell microtransactions.

 

[Thrill_house]

Multiplayer only as they seem to be the worst about trying to sell me stupid shit. If my 60 bucks wasn't enough fuck off I don't know what to tell you. If you are going to try to sell me garbage at least give me a cheaper point of entry. I kind of stay away from traditional multiplayer(especially shooters) because of those practices.

 

[Supervlieg]

Single player games last forever, multiplayer games only as long before they pull the plug on the servers.

 

[Falchion]

Multiplayer isn't worth as much since it's reliant on player population and being online at all times.

 

[MakgSnake]

Online games, the most famous are free already because they want to sell microtransactions.

Click to shrink...

THIS. So true. The most famous is FREE... so why shouldn't the rest be....

Single player games last forever, multiplayer games only as long before they pull the plug on the servers.

Click to shrink...

True... but a SP game is played once by many... and twice or 3 or 4 times by fans... but MP game is played daily for even 1 year... or 2 years....

But yeah.. I also think MP Only games should cost a lot less.

 

[Deleted member 44122]

mp should cost less because there are more options for monetization

 

[jem]

Multiplayer games typically offer significantly better value for money.

They also typically require continuous updates and maintenance.

That said they are also better placed for alternate monetisation.




However, neither category should cost more or less than the other. That should be determined by whatever is best for the game itself.

 

[Mentalist]

The logical answer is multi-player should cost less up front, since they almost inevitably try to sell you micro transactions, be they cosmetics or extra content.

In my ideal world, single-player games cost less, so that I can buy more of them.

 

[Poltergust]

MP probably uses fewer assets, and has a higher chance of wringing more money out of you. That's why there aren't any (or in case I'm wrong, at least very few) F2P single player only games

Click to shrink...

There actually are a few I can think of off the top of my head: Rusty's Real Deal Baseball and Pokemon Picross.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

I would prefer all multiplayer only games be F2P. I refuse to pay for a game that I can only play with other people.

 

[Ryan.]

Neither. I don't think it matters how much is in a SP game compared to a MP game. The SP game can be 8-10 hours to complete and you'll never play it again and somehow the MP only game that you'll do the same thing for if not more play time, but it's the one winning the wrong.

And people are bringing up the amount of assets as if a MP only title can't go through some big development cycle that SP games do.

 

[Phellps]

Gameplay mode does not define the value of a game. This is such a close-minded perspective.

 

[danhz]

Multiplayer, but because it should add seasons that cost you more money. They need to keep the game alive with new content.

Single players, give me my full game, with its price, might get a future expansion for 15, and thats it.

 

[thecaseace]

Gameplay mode does not define the value of a game. This is such a close-minded perspective.

Click to shrink...

I agree. Anyone thinking game type alone has the biggest effect on price has got their ideas wrong here. There are just a lot more elements that go into the cost of development beyond whether its multiplayer or single player.

Given the spirit of this question the answer is probably multiplayer. At the moment these are likely to have more opportunities for additional revenue beyond the initial outlay and has many of the biggest GaaS games have taught us recently the revenue in DLC and MTX outstrips initial game sales by many times and is just more likely to be seen in the multiplayer space. Given that I'd think a publisher could afford to drop the RRP on their hypothetical GaaS multiplayer game compared to a AAA single player one.

Though as I've already mentioned the premise shouldn't be taken seriously, there's too many variables to make this a real question in the industry currently.

 

[Van Bur3n]

Multiplayer only games ought to be free at this point, otherwise your game is probably dead anyway.

Single player games have more value so long as they have the content to back it up. I ain't paying no $60 for a 10 hour experience. That's an on sale kind of game.

 

[oofouchugh]

Single player vs multiplayer is a bad way to frame it, its basically comes down to PvE vs PvP. PvP is less raw work to create the game while PvE is significantly more because you have to create the content consumed instead of providing a playground for players to generate their own in a PvP mode. Its difference between creating an MMO dungeon vs a battleground or a deathmatch map vs a level in a story driven single player game. You can argue that balancing PvP maps is a lot of work, but its harder to quantify the amount of work that goes into that vs the raw effort needed to create assets, scripts, new technical features in engine and tools, and balancing PvE content.

Depending on the genre and how the game is sold (standalone game or GaaS online title) dictates how much effort is needed to support the game during its lifespan, and the kind of work is also different ranging from technical support for maintaining servers or creating DLC be it cosmetic or playable content.

 

[balohna]

A weird fallacy is that SP games can be more expensive to make, depending on production values, despite probably providing fewer hours of entertainment to the consumer. Plus you kind of want a low barrier to entry for online MP.

MP is a lot of work too of course, but a lot of studios seem to understaff when it comes to network engineers and experienced QA.

 

[HiLife]

Multiplayer only should be cheaper because I'm gonna probably gonna support via dlc and battle passes and mtx (unfortunately).

 

[StrappingYoungLance]

I don't really think either should necessarily cost less but if I had to pick one it'd multiplayer, which is kind of something you already see with a bunch of higher budget releases with F2P multiplayer games - there are more acceptable options for monetisation when it comes to multiplayer games.

 

[Fisty]

Singleplayer usually has the much higher budget due to all the additional features, especially in AAA content, and there is almost always fewer options to drive additional revenue.

That isnt to say a content-rich multiplayer game cant charge $60 though, imo

 

[Mr.Vic20]

How much did the game cost to make, distribute, and market?

 

[NeoKnight]

Honestly, between both choices, most single player only games should cost less. I tent to see value in how much I perceive I would play the game. So a MP game, I will get at least one or two dozen hours of play and it has constant replayability. But a single player game is play once and be done with it forever or for a very long time.

Thus, I could pay full price for a MP only game (have before with Overwatch, BlackOps4, Quake Wars, etc) depending on value, but a single player only game has to really be beyond outstanding (e g. Tomb Raider, God of War, Horizon) for me to feel the same value equation. But thats just me.

 

[SUBZERO-08]

Multiplayer-only because it's already going to be packed with microtransactions.

 

[Slamtastic]

In the modern era where companies don't let people host their own servers, a multi only game is a finite length experience fron release until they shut it down, and a gamble on how long it will last you.

 

[MakgSnake]

In the modern era where companies don't let people host their own servers, a multi only game is a finite length experience fron release until they shut it down, and a gamble on how long it will last you.

Click to shrink...

So you are saying SP only or MP only.... I am confused.

Also seeing here that 34% of ResetEra peeps don't mind paying full price for either type of games eh. Didn't see that coming.

 

[Dervius]

But then again, single player games gives you an experience like no other. If SP games are regular priced, should it be at least 20+ hours.... and not 10 or less..?

Click to shrink...

This attitude is the worst (whether you hold it yourself or are just playing Devil's advocate). Straight up hours per $ assessments of a game's value are hugely reductive.

At the same time, to those on a budget, I can understand it playing some kind of factor in purchasing decisions.

 

[MakgSnake]

This attitude is the worst (whether you hold it yourself or are just playing Devil's advocate). Straight up hours per $ assessments of a game's value are hugely reductive.

Click to shrink...

But isn't it bad that a game costing $79.99 CAD and only have 6 hours of game play in it?

 

[Suicide King]

But isn't it bad that a game costing $79.99 CAD and only have 6 hours of game play in it?

Click to shrink...

Is it really? Why is time spent the most valuable thing about a game? I have played Disgaea for hundreds of hours, but that does not mean that I had a better experience than when I played Metal Gear Solid 2 for 5 hours.

It's really weird that gaming is the one art/product that is confronted with this utilitarian perspective focused mostly on time. The painting with the most value is not the biggest one. The film that people are most willing to pay to watch isn't the longest one. The albums that are most popular aren't the longest ones. But with gaming, there is an invisible contract that demands not necessarily good content, but content that pads the experience to last longer, if only to turn a short story into a novel.

 

[MakgSnake]

Is it really? Why is time spent the most valuable thing about a game? I have played Disgaea for hundreds of hours, but that does not mean that I had a better experience than when I played Metal Gear Solid 2 for 5 hours.

It's really weird that gaming is the one art/product that is confronted with this utilitarian perspective focused mostly on time. The painting with the most value is not the biggest one. The film that people are most willing to pay to watch isn't the longest one. The albums that are most popular aren't the longest ones. But with gaming, there is an invisible contract that demands not necessarily good content, but content that pads the experience to last longer, if only to turn a short story into a novel.

Click to shrink...

You do have a point.. but I guess the games are reviewed and discussed in that manner.

I have never read a review for a movie where it says... "It is an amazing movie but only 90 minutes long so I give it a 6/10"

But for a game, that is the case. Games are expensive and more expensive than watching a movie in theater or even buying a BluRay hard copy. So yes that is why we get a lot of "Great game but it is over way too soon, only 10 hours"... and the review goes accordingly (ONLY if it is full priced)

A game like INSIDE is 3 to 4 hours long, but it is also a $19.99 or $24.99 game... and that is why it got amazing reviews, but if that game was $79.99... I am so sure it'll be received differently.

 

[Dervius]

But isn't it bad that a game costing $79.99 CAD and only have 6 hours of game play in it?

Click to shrink...

Depends on the quality of the 6 hours and your personal price sensitivity I suppose, though I'd be hard pressed to point at a recent full-priced game that was so short in all of its content.

But a game like Assassin's Creed Odyssey which offers 150+ hours of content is not inherently better than a game like Control that might offer 15-20 at the same price. That's where the issue lies, "this game is shorter so it must be cheaper".

 

[ffvorax]

Definetly MP only.
It's not about the playtime you put in, but about the content in general.
I always feel MP games take much less resources to make in confront to a SP game.
Some of my favourite gaming experience were not longer than 4-5 hours. And I would have paid full price for these.
Nothing in compare to some MP games I spent so many hours in. (not a MP fan, but some years ago I spent many ours in Battlefield, and previously on some other MP games on PC)
I will add that some MMORPG are different for me, more similar to an SP content + all the MP stuff.

 

[Deleted member 11626]

I think multiplayer should be cheaper, considering all of the monetization options.

But isn't it bad that a game costing $79.99 CAD and only have 6 hours of game play in it?

Click to shrink...

Measuring the quality of a game by the hours it takes to complete it is a piss-poor metric, and it's why we keep getting hours of meaningless tacked on content in our single player games.

 

[LumberPanda]

They should cost whatever people are willing to pay for them.

 

[mindsale]

What a weird question. Mulitplayer already involves a subscription on the platform you're playing it on - unless that's PC (and even then, sometimes) and is notorious for events and microtransactions to keep a playerbase hooked. Multiplayer games should - by and large - be free because of all the "extras." I've spent thousands and thousands of dollars on Blizzard multiplayer content. In hindsight really wish I could've given that money to say, Naughty Dog or FromSoftware.

 

[Deleted member 17184]

THIS. So true. The most famous is FREE... so why shouldn't the rest be....



True... but a SP game is played once by many... and twice or 3 or 4 times by fans... but MP game is played daily for even 1 year... or 2 years....

But yeah.. I also think MP Only games should cost a lot less.

Click to shrink...

Not every MP game is free because some have a higher budget to begin with.

A SP game necessarily costing less because it "is played once by many" makes it incredibly difficult to create more story content that a lot of players ask for.

I don't think one or the other should cost less as a rule. They need to cost what they need to sell well so they can keep devs with their jobs and create more games that people want.

 

[DarkFlame92]

multiplayer since they are gonna try and milk players dry with skins and mtx

 

[SuikerBrood]

I voted that singleplayer games should cost less, but it really depends on the game. There are so many variables, are there microtransactions? Are the servers going to be up for 20 years? How often do content updates happen? Etc. etc.

A great singleplayer game can cost €60. A great multiplayer game can also cost €60.

It can both be reasonable.

 

[Deleted member 8196]

MP games cost less to make.

75% of Titanfall 2 budget went to single player and the rest on multiplayer.

Edit. I thought you were talking about game development cost not price tag

 

[Ascenion]

Single Player should be cheaper. It costs less to maintain and has low replay value usually.

 

[MakgSnake]

Depends on the quality of the 6 hours and your personal price sensitivity I suppose, though I'd be hard pressed to point at a recent full-priced game that was so short in all of its content.

But a game like Assassin's Creed Odyssey which offers 150+ hours of content is not inherently better than a game like Control that might offer 15-20 at the same price. That's where the issue lies, "this game is shorter so it must be cheaper".

Click to shrink...

Yeah you do have a very good point. I guess when it comes to comparing Assassin's Creed and Control, the production cost comes into play as well. I am guessing there is a sweet spot of hours and after one has hit that many hours in a game, then it is OK for it to be a fully priced game.

Something like Hellblade looks and feel like a full fledged game but the cost of production and the length of the game decided it price. It was $39.99 when it came out. Even Devs themselves know when to NOT price the game at full.

But yes it is very subjective I agree. It just makes it easier for gamers spending their hard earned money on a game... but it turns out to be 7 hours at full price.

This is a sensitive topic.