Prices of next-gen games

Johnmcl7

donnajunkie wrote: »

uncharted 2 multiplayer only started to die after uncharted 3 came out. alot of people are still playing uncharted 3 online. i bet it is hard to get a decent game on halo 3 now.

Halo Reach would be equivalent to Uncharted 2 (based on age) although it's still possible to get games in Halo 3 (there's still people that prefer it over Reach or Halo 4) as multiplayer is a much bigger component of the Halo series than it is in Uncharted.

John

donnajunkie

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I read it correctly - this is your own post which you've then based your further posts on:



Regardless of your experiences and beliefs of multiplayer, it is where the money tends to be now (Blizzard have made a fortune from subscription based online gaming) and it's most certainly not the case that most console players don't go online. One of the advantages for publishers with multiplayer is much better piracy control, single player games are easier to pirate because they can be kept offline but it's much more difficult with multiplayer games. Even single player games such as Sim City have dubious multiplayer components to justify the forced always online system.

John

49% could be considered large dont you think. it couldnt be considered as most though.

donnajunkie

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Halo Reach would be equivalent to Uncharted 2 (based on age) although it's still possible to get games in Halo 3 (there's still people that prefer it over Reach or Halo 4) as multiplayer is a much bigger component of the Halo series than it is in Uncharted.

John

the halo multiplayer is more famous but the uncharted one is well used also. people are going to prefer more recent games because they have more people playing. it is therfore easier to get the type of match you want. i cant remember which game it was but i remember going on the multiplayer and there only being one other person there.

Johnmcl7

donnajunkie wrote: »

49% could be considered large dont you think. it couldnt be considered as most though.

No, 49% would not be considered large by any standard definition as it's not even half nor a majority. 'Less than half of console owners rarely go online' is clearly very different to 'large percentage of console owners rarely go online' Either way, I've no interest in arguing semantics.


John

donnajunkie

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

No, 49% would not be considered large by any standard definition as it's not even half nor a majority. 'Less than half of console owners rarely go online' is clearly very different to 'large percentage of console owners rarely go online' Either way, I've no interest in arguing semantics.


John

49% of their customers arent interested in part of what they offer and words like large or significant arent applicable in your opinion. if they have 10 million customers then just under 5 million is alot.

Johnmcl7

donnajunkie wrote: »

the halo multiplayer is more famous but the uncharted one is well used also. people are going to prefer more recent games because they have more people playing. it is therfore easier to get the type of match you want. i cant remember which game it was but i remember going on the multiplayer and there only being one other person there.

And? That doesn't disprove anything I've said, this is the original post:

yeah, it can prolong peoples game time. however it doesnt justify a massive price as was mentioned when you consider a large percentage couldnt care less whether there was a multiplayer option or not. multiplayer should always be seen as a bonus rather than the main reason to play. if a game has a good campaign you can keep going back to it. the multiplayer only lasts as long as there are alot of people playing it.

A good campaign mode simply doesn't last that long, typically around 10-20 hours which even playing three to four times as you've said you do is not even 100 hours. A decent multiplayer game can easily last at least ten times that or more because people can repeatedly play the same content over and over again because it's kept interesting with different people playing.

I'm not in any way claiming it's the end of single player games because it certainly isn't but to claim the focus should still be on single player only for all games is a dated view, many of the big titles particularly the ones that have lasted many years either have no single player at all or just a token one.

Edit - I see you're now mangling statistics and percentages as well as semantics to try and justify your own errors/mistakes rather than admit you were wrong. I genuinely thought this was something you were interested in but you've demonstrated I'm completely wasting my time as it seems you just keep ignoring any actual facts and figures and instead prefer your own misbeliefs and highly limited gaming experience. I'm not going to waste any more time talking to you.

John

donnajunkie

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

And? That doesn't disprove anything I've said, this is the original post:




A good campaign mode simply doesn't last that long, typically around 10-20 hours which even playing three to four times as you've said you do is not even 100 hours. A decent multiplayer game can easily last at least ten times that or more because people can repeatedly play the same content over and over again because it's kept interesting with different people playing.

I'm not in any way claiming it's the end of single player games because it certainly isn't but to claim the focus should still be on single player only for all games is a dated view, many of the big titles particularly the ones that have lasted many years either have no single player at all or just a token one.

John

you dont need to convince me of the qualities of multiplayer. the issue is when the multiplayer no longer appeals because of no server or lack of gamers the campaign can still be played and enjoyed. for me personally for multiplayer to be of a high enough quality to keep going back there has to be large numbers playing. i used to love killzone 2 then stopped playing for a while and when i went back there was hardly anyone there.

unholyangel

techno12 wrote: »

Physical copies are on the way out - Microsoft tried to make it so this generation, but got a backlash.

Unless I missed it, that wasn't why ms received a backlash from consumers. It was because of the restrictions they were trying to place on disk based games and that you'd have to connect to the internet every day in order to play any game.

ifstar wrote: »

I would say it is completely the opposite with a number of the most popular games. Call of duty single player story is generally ok but the multiplayer is the reason most people play it. Battlefield single player is not as good as COD and again, the majority play it for the multiplayer.

I agree with the rest about multiplayer being the reason most people play it but I disagree that the single player is generally ok. Its abysmal. Black ops is the most memorable as it was completed within a few mere short hours (and I do mean 2-3 hours). When paying £40+ for a game, I expect at least a few days worth of gameplay.

Some people may say I'm setting my expectations too high, personally I say they're setting theirs too low

ifstar wrote: »

Customers will adapt, in much the same way music lovers have. How often do people buy CD's anymore compared to digital downloads? It must be easily 5+ years for me since I last bought one and that was most likely as a gift.

Difference with the music industry is that digital download was cheaper than physical copies. The same isn't strictly true for games (speaking about current gen mostly) as often you find 3 year old games on xbox store for £49.99, where you can buy it for £10-20 new on disk.

I prefer disks as then I can loan them to friends etc - cant do that with digital content yet. Nor can you recoup any money you spent buying it by selling it on (again....yet).




As for the whole large percentage debate. IMO even 30% is large. Substantial, sizable and considerable are all synonymous with large but "majority" and "half" are not.

donnajunkie

unholyangel wrote: »

I agree with the rest about multiplayer being the reason most people play it but I disagree that the single player is generally ok. Its abysmal. Black ops is the most memorable as it was completed within a few mere short hours (and I do mean 2-3 hours). When paying £40+ for a game, I expect at least a few days worth of gameplay.

Some people may say I'm setting my expectations too high, personally I say they're setting theirs too low

yes sadly campaigns are getting shorter to save money. however only people really good at games do them in a short a time as 2-3 hours. i think the quickest for me was 5 hours to do killzone 3. having said that its a fun game and i have been back to it to play through it again.