Even though a multiplayer title would offer more hours andre-playability than just a single-player only title? Oh

So should only single player games with no multiplayer. Goes both ways.

All games should be made to fit the developer's vision, and then priced according to what they offer (or more cynically, what people will pay).

Picking a $60 price point and then trying to layer on extras to justify the ridiculous price tag is back to front. Saying "we want to charge $60 so the campaign should be 8-10 hours and we should have multiplayer" is back to front.

PC gaming is moving towards a more sensible flexible pricing model, at least where self-publishing is concerned. Hopefully the console indie-scenes will follow that trail, and then eventually maybe big publishers will adapt as well.

Btw, if you want to be more technical. I've laid WAY more hours into multiplayer centric games like titanfall, COD 4, Battlefield 3, Halo 2, ect. About 60 hours or more each into each game over the years. So in what way is the game less valuable when there's potentially more hours being played within the game? The only people I can see this affecting are people that don't have many friends to play friendly multiplayer matches or people that simply don't like multiplayer.

35-40 box max for multiplayer games. SP 50 box.

With Multilayer, I have no control over the servers.

Triple A Single-Player Only games should be the same price, especially considering most of them only take about 10 hours to finish.

Maybe not. not if you could have a mmo without subscription fees, or just a really high quality multiplayer game

I'd rather still pay $60 and get a full multiplayer or full singleplayer game. Take away those 10 bucks and odds are they'll start being skimped a bit. That, or we will start getting really crappy multiplayer or single player components that aren't necessary.

Games full stop should be priced based on the amount of content/length they offer.

So should single player games with no MP be cheaper as well? Or games without Co-Op as that seems to be this generation's thing as well.

You get into this slippery slope argument on what each individual thinks about value and you would never agree upon that.

Also generally speaking you would value a games price by the hours played yet you would put more hours into MP then SP so why should MP only games be cheaper yet no mention of SP games.

At the end of the day keep games $60 and demand more content from publishers.

I agree.

An argument can be made for cheaper AAA single player only games that last for 8 hours or less.
I mean I have spent over 600 hours on BC 2 online and less than 7 hours playing the sp.
It is a matter of perspective IMO.

I understand the argument but the lack of singleplayer in Titanfall does not affect the quality of the game. I've put in over 100 hours into Titanfall and still play 3 or 4 matches every night. Easily worth my 60$

Are multiplayer only games cheaper to make than their singleplayer only counterparts? Multiplayer only games require servers that have to be bought/rented by the developer. Multiplayer games often require more patches than single player games. But then again multiplayer only games may require less programmers,artist and fewer voice actors, writers etc.

What about single player only experiences, shouldn't they be cheaper too? Or are we excluding them on the basis that back in the good old days people would pay the full price for a single player only game and therefor we should never change that?

At the end of the day, if the consumer believes he's getting his money's worth, may it be single player or multiplayer, he'll spend it. Otherwise he won't. Let the consumers decide what they want on a game to game basis rather than create some arbitrary rule deciding how much people should pay for an entire category of games.

I wish. Being an older gamer I have no desire to play single player games vs ai bots anymore. It's about online multiplayer for me vs another witty opponent. Memorizing patterns and killing waves of ai just doesn't challenge me anymore. I feel I'm not alone.

I agree, say £20.

60 bucks for titanfall is a total rip off especially if you bought the x1 version, I paid 30 bucks for the pc version and its not worth a penny more

It all depends on how much physical content is included & I don't mean replayability!

I just hate it when short minded children accept silly costs because a game with minimal content has got a lot if replayability therefore it's worth more despite the fact the Dev took minimal effort to make it then the nerve to charge extra for it.

Pricing should be based on amount of content. Simple common sense!

I've been playing Warframe since it launched, so I completely agree. Heck, that's Free-to-Play and offers quite a bit more content than Titanfall and it feels like a big-budget release.

Thats ridiculous so by that idea then games that are only single player should also be cheaper since they do not have mulitplayer. Also as far as gameplay wise multiplayer gives you way more hours of play than singleplayer. My favorite single player game is bioshock played it the most out of every game beat it 4 times total time played around 50 hours. But for titanfall I already have over 50 hours played and most games with good multiplayer I will get over a hundred hours easy. So this argument is nonsense and there is no way you can justify this.

Touche.

Second Son full price 20+ hours
Titanfall full price 152 hrs and counting.

i know which was the better value for money for me.