By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Titanfall, something I can't get over. UPDATE: Poll added

 

Well you buy a MP game only in the future?

No 287 66.90%
 
Yes 139 32.40%
 
Total:426

I've had a weird relationship with content in games. I felt ripped off after I'd bought Portal 2 - not because I didn't enjoy it (it was a fantastic game) but it took me ~ 7 hours to finish the single player and ~ 2 hours to finish the co-op, and I'd paid full price for it. That to me wasn't enough content to justify the purchase (especially since there was no real replayability other than going back and doing the same stuff again).

The biggest problem I'd have with paying full price for Titanfall, after seeing the reviews, is that there isn't a particularly large variety of modes. To compare the game to Call of Duty, while I do enjoy playing things like Team Deathmatch & Ground War in that game, what I enjoyed even more was Zombies (yes, Treyarch > Infinity Ward) and the smaller, weirder modes like Sticks & Stones; One in the Chamber and Gun Game. I'd say that about 70% of my time was spent across those 3 modes + zombies while about 30% of my time was spent in traditional game modes.

The reviews make out that Titanfall doesn't have any other incidental modes, nor does it have any form of co-op (and of course, a pretty sparse single player). There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it wouldn't be enough to give me £40-45 worth of enjoyment and why I could never pay full price for a game like this.

Now maybe, like Portal 2, Titanfall would rectify this with lots of DLC modes down the line. But "down the line" I wouldn't be paying full price for the game, I could pick it up for a lot cheaper. So... yeah.



Around the Network

DJ, when warhawk first came out I bought the 60 dollar version with bluetooth headset. The game got old fast without other things to do. I havent bought a MP only game since. I havent written them off completely but under 40 dollarsis a must



UltimateUnknown said:
If you play a SP only game, do you ever complain about how there is no MP mode and how that's cheapening the value of the game? No, you don't. In fact, most people get annoyed if a dev puts tacked on MP on to their SP game, telling them to focus on the SP mode more and make it even better than tacking in MP. So if that's the case for SP games, why can't a dev put all their efforts and make a highly enjoyable, full blown MP game without putting on a horrible tacked on 4-5 hour SP mode that has no replay value like in most shooters?

If a SP dev can make a solid content filled game that has no MP mode without making you feel that the value of the game has been cheapened, then a MP dev should also be able to do the same with a good MP game with no SP mode. If it's the contrary, then just don't buy the MP game. I will personally buy a game, whether it's SP only, MP only or both depending on how good the game is and if it's fun enough to deserve my money. I don't have a preconceived notion of a game NEEDING to have either a SP or MP mode for it to be good value for money.


Bad argument. SP doesnt depend on fees, servers or other people to be enjoyable. I can plat a SP only game and resell it a week later for nearly the same price. In my experience MP only games drop in value faster and if you only play it for a month before returning it you only get half your investment back. Simply put, SP only games are worth the investment



The poll is not enough.

Because yes, i'll buy a MP game only if the content is enough good.

No, i wont buy it if the content is like Titanfall



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

I'm actually pretty stunned this isn't a troll thread. But I'm impressed you we're able to come here and talk about it.

I think the biggest issue isn't so much that there isn't a SP, It's just that MP wasn't made bigger to make up for it. Someone else mentioned that SS doesn't have a MP but that game is still $60 but I don't think that's a valid argument because the SP is much larger and more expansive than you'd get with most games that have MP. Because of that I would expect TF to have more to do than the MP in a game like Battlefield but it really doesn't.

I also don't get why people say it shouldn't have a SP because the ones in COD and BF are bad...



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Around the Network
Max King of the Wild said:
UltimateUnknown said:
If you play a SP only game, do you ever complain about how there is no MP mode and how that's cheapening the value of the game? No, you don't. In fact, most people get annoyed if a dev puts tacked on MP on to their SP game, telling them to focus on the SP mode more and make it even better than tacking in MP. So if that's the case for SP games, why can't a dev put all their efforts and make a highly enjoyable, full blown MP game without putting on a horrible tacked on 4-5 hour SP mode that has no replay value like in most shooters?

If a SP dev can make a solid content filled game that has no MP mode without making you feel that the value of the game has been cheapened, then a MP dev should also be able to do the same with a good MP game with no SP mode. If it's the contrary, then just don't buy the MP game. I will personally buy a game, whether it's SP only, MP only or both depending on how good the game is and if it's fun enough to deserve my money. I don't have a preconceived notion of a game NEEDING to have either a SP or MP mode for it to be good value for money.


Bad argument. SP doesnt depend on fees, servers or other people to be enjoyable. I can plat a SP only game and resell it a week later for nearly the same price. In my experience MP only games drop in value faster and if you only play it for a month before returning it you only get half your investment back. Simply put, SP only games are worth the investment

Maybe I WANT to play with other people and that is what's fun for me. Whether something is worth the money is completely dependant on the individual in question and their experience with the game. Someone may be willing to pay more, or even a monthly fee (MMO) to play with others if the experience is good enough for them. I personally don't felt like reselling my MP games.

In my experience, I found that I spend a TON more time with a good MP game than a SP game that I completed once, because every time I play a MP game, the people are different and thus the experience is different too. Simply put, MP only games are worth my investment, even if that investment is to some degree time limited (server availability), because MP games are just more dynamic and fun for me.



 

I can't remember the last time I paid for an online FPS for the SP, I seriously can't, I don't even touch that shit, I play FPS for the online competitive part of it. If a game is really really well done, I'd pay more than 60 USD as I already have with Planetside 2.



Well, so far every game I've bought, I've always played Single Player first to get in the mood. Single Players really make the setting for me. I suppose I would buy a MP only game, but then it has to have a shit ton of content to make up for the lack of Single Player.



Its goint to continue. I predict the next COD to be Multi-Player only, if not just to continue to test the market.

Killer Instinct is also testing the market with its (partial roster option). Give the gamer piece of the game and continue to sell them pieces as DLC...

Things like this is all up to us gamer's. If we keep buying them, they will continue to make them......Looking at you DAY 1 DLC.



UltimateUnknown said:
If you play a SP only game, do you ever complain about how there is no MP mode and how that's cheapening the value of the game? No, you don't. In fact, most people get annoyed if a dev puts tacked on MP on to their SP game, telling them to focus on the SP mode more and make it even better than tacking in MP. So if that's the case for SP games, why can't a dev put all their efforts and make a highly enjoyable, full blown MP game without putting on a horrible tacked on 4-5 hour SP mode that has no replay value like in most shooters?

If a SP dev can make a solid content filled game that has no MP mode without making you feel that the value of the game has been cheapened, then a MP dev should also be able to do the same with a good MP game with no SP mode. If it's the contrary, then just don't buy the MP game. I will personally buy a game, whether it's SP only, MP only or both depending on how good the game is and if it's fun enough to deserve my money. I don't have a preconceived notion of a game NEEDING to have either a SP or MP mode for it to be good value for money.


Yep. If someone is ok with a 10-12 hour SP game, they should be ok with a MP only game that can last 100 hours + for the same price. Unless they value MP differently. In which case that would be the underlying issue, not the design of the game.