I agree....

You still suck though Kotaku.

Games are cheaper than they ever been, counting inflation and after seeing advertisements from the 90s on video games, don't complain about 60 bucks for a game. If you vote with your wallet and not buy it, eventually they put it on sale for like 40 bucks.

I think multiplayer only games are fine. However, if you are going to go this route, you better make sure the content that is available on launch is substantial and don't insult us by locking away content behind a season pass from the get-go. (Ttanfall, Battlefront, Evolve, Rainbow 6 Siege)

Same thing with single-player only games. Fine, I am all for them, but the content better be there. Could you imagine Halo 5 with just the single player?? *shudders* Another example is The Order 1886. It was actually enjoyable to me but I only payed $20 for it which is about all it shoulda cost.

Love it or hate it, Black Ops 3 is one of the most content-packed games for both Single and Multiplayer and should set an example of what to expect from a full-priced game.

Network coding is among the hardest parts of making a game. Server costs are in most cases the most expensive part of maintaining a game over time. So why should a game focused on this aspect of gaming cost less?

I think they should charge what they want, then I'll decide whether I think it's worth the asking price.

100% agree.
Multiplayer online should be half price.

I agree and I won't buy them at $60

I've already got a lot more value out of Rainbow 6 than most other single player games, its worth every penny if that's the sort of game you're into. If the quality is there I don't see the problem and its down to the individual on what they regard as value for money. Some people need to really give it a rest on this whole subject, multiplayer is a lot different to single player and people know what they want. Rainbow 6 is the best game I've purchased this year by far, more than happy to support a developer that puts out something fresh and IMO something that's great value for money.

Definitely, it's pretty much a half a game it should be half the price.

I don't see what's wrong with MP only games charging $60 providing the content and value is clear to see. I'd rather a developer focus it's resources on their vision for the game rather than having to waste them on shoehorning an unmemorable single player experience in. The two big offenders I've bought for this are Titanfall and Rainbow Six.. while in both cases it felt like a potentially missed opportunity to craft a good single player game, I've certainly got my value for money out of Titanfall and have already pumped countless hours into Rainbow Six.

Honestly to me it all depends on how good the game is. I would have gotten bf4 if it didn't have single player. It wasn't that great and I only play the mp anyway. Titan fall was also great,it launched with so many maps and at the time there really wasn't much else to play. Saying that, I would have liked more game modes for Titan fall(which they added) more titans, more guns and a story mode would have been cool.

I think it depends what they're offering.

If they've cut down on SP content in order to offer a more robust, expansive multiplayer experience, then I don't think pricing them at full retail price is a problem.

But, so far we've seen games that have the same or less amount of content than we would expect, anyway. 10 maps doesn't really cut it if that' the only thing your game offers.

Wow, i hate kotaku but agree with this

100% Agree. I just cannot log enough hours to justify the price.

So then should a game like Skyrim or Fallout 4 be $100? you can't have it both ways... if a game short on content shouldn't be $60 then you're justifying a game with above average amount of content being more than $60

So only single player games can be 60? Ok got it

I agree that multiplayer only games seem steep for $60 but I know plenty of people that buy games like Call of Duty and never play the campaign but put 100s of hours into multiplayer.

In today's market, I think it's difficult to decide what to invest in - from a developer's point of view. Why make a 20 hour campaign if a large portion of your audience isn't playing it? At the same time, if you use less resources to make a multiplayer only game some consumers will complain that it doesn't look good enough or have enough features. It seems like a hard call to make for sure.

For now, Im happy playing Star Wars and didn't blink at spending $60 because the gameplay is there. $60 for good gameplay and a fun experience seems worth it.

I don't buy MP only games, but I do Gamefly them..

I would gladly pay $60 for a multiplayer game if it has a lot of content and free DLC support.

I don't like multiplayer only games cause in the future when There servers are down there is no more playing then that's why all of them should at least have a decent campaign

This is the reason i opt out of purchasing rainbow 6. I don't think asking $60 for a multiplayer game is fair. This is a practice i've been complaining about and one i try not to support. I took a chance with Destiny and felt i got shafted by all the expensive additional DLC.

If the games are released at a reasonable $40-$45 i would make the commitment but not full price as it isn't a full game. Many say single player only last X amount of hours and that is true but remember their are different kinds of gamers. For example i am the type who plays through the story first on normal before i even touch online multiplayer. Later on i'll go back over the story and on a higher difficulty. Then there are other who run right into Multiplayer and in the case of say Call of duty some never play the story and still feel satisfied with their purchase. This is fine it's your dollar but at least you were given the option.Now with games like Rainbow 6 i feel cheated as i love going through the story specially if it's a good story.

So i believe that if you are asking full price for your game ($60) it must offer what other full price games do.

Oh and don't get me started on this "Online required to play single player or against the A.I. bull but that's for another article.

the price of mp only games is fine the issue is these games are highly lacking content if they actually offer plenty of content it'd be fine

I agree unless it's massive in some way, but there are very few MP only games I'd pay full price for.

One word.

Warhawk!!
Great game!

I think that the problem is usually the lack of content,.. give me 25 maps or all the dlc free and maybe