I’ll just say that if you make a single player only game you beat once and never touch again, that’s quite different then a game with a heavily supported multiplayer component. It really depends on post launch support and if that’s the case, then there has to be more compensation on top of the original purchase price.
That’s why I’ll play via Game Pass and if a game is taking up a lot of my time, I’ll buy extras to show my support.
Take Horizon Zero Dawn vs Gears 5. Both have campaigns. But only one has MP and got great post launch support (Gears 5 just got a free major update today). This kind of free post launch support warrants a MTX store for the devs effort. Again it’s all cosmetic and not pay to win. Same goes for Sea of Thieves. Tons of free updates and content.
I don't think you understand how easy it is to make new maps, or new skins. To say that it's multiplayer therefore it's justified is silly. Multiplayer takes way less effort to do than single player. Just look at any classic multiplayer board game, such as Sorry, or Monopoly, or Scrabble. Or Poker. Or any game. How long do you think the initial inventors of said games took to come up with the rulesets, pieces and players? Now how many hours do you think the world as a whole has played these games? It's definitely not 1:1. A multiplayer game doesn't need good AI, because the enemy players are the AI. A multiplayer game doesn't need level design outside of a few football field sized multiplayer maps. Meanwhile many single player games need entire open worlds to be made for them. A multiplayer game doesn't need a story, or enemy scenarios, or anything like that.
He isn't wrong. When the PS and Xbox audiences have proven to be more than willing to put up with microtransactions, then why shouldn't publishers continue to price and design their games accordingly?
This. It's the norm now with the odd game breaking away from this new tradition. Mtx in fact has been the norm for nearly 5 years. But I think I know why this thread was created...
I own 65 PS4 games. 100 Switch games. Only about 10 of them have MTX in them. MTX is not the norm.
That is very pro-consumer....Now being less sarcastic. If a game can keep you interested in it for a full year so you won't buy 5 games, it isn't unreasonable to receive more than a single full purchase price from it. The problem is the lack of transparency and the dirty way they do it. If they come out and charge 200 or 300 for the game and you think it is fair sure go and buy, If they launch expansions or meaningful DLC for 30 bucks and you like it sure buy it... now to make the game obnoxiously grind to sell acceleration packs is shitty practice, worse imho than cosmetic overpriced DLC that even though we can argue is low cost and should be on the game already you don't really need to buy or get in the way of your enjoyment.Will wait to see how Phil Spencer or his advocates rephrase this interview.
The idea that getting somebody to play a game for 300 hours, must have meant that the devs put in a ton of work, and therefore need extra money in return doesn't always hold true.
It holds true if the game gets frequent post launch content and support
It doesn't take that much for a game to keep somebody interested for a full year. They just need to design the game in order to make it compelling, instead of fun. Take the +100 score you get for killing somebody in a CoD game. That +100 that pops up is a little piece of reward for your brain. It trains your brain to keep going back to CoD, whether you truly enjoy CoD or not. When you find yourself going back to a game over and over again, even though said game makes you rage, that is a sign of addiction.
It takes a ton of effort to keep somebody interested in one game. There’s so many games to play these days our attention span is so small. You can do compelling and fun at the same time.
But yeah, the way that they try to confuse the consumer with season passes, MTX, and 5 different "Digital Deluxe Editions" of a game is even worse, like you say. I don't think the $70 price of games is justified, but I'd take that if it meant no more content carving, and no more MTX. I'd take the $70 price tag if it meant we went back to good meaningful DLC ala Fallout's Broken Steel Expansion, or Witcher 3's DLC. Or Torna.
IMO $70 is warranted purely due to inflation. We have been paying $60 for over 20 years.
BTW, I do absolutely love how people try to defend cosmetic MTX as "Who cares, it's just cosmetic!" The number of free cosmetic customization options in GoW, Spiderman, and GoT is unmatched. Having different costumes to find in a game has been a staple of the industry for years. And it was all free. Now they are trying to charge you for those formerly free costumes. And the kicker is that all it takes is a dude working for $30 an hour for 4-5 hours to make a new skin or costume. And in exchange for that roughly $150 investment the company gets to sell thousands of copies of that skin for $2-$5. They could sell these skins for a nickle a pop, and still make boatloads of money. Charging $2-$5 for this cosmetic crap is just pure greed no matter the way you slice it.
Gow, Spiderman, and GoT have no multiplayer component. Please show me their competitive multiplayer. Games that require little post launch support from devs VS games with a actual multiplayer component with frequent free content updates are not the same thing.
If nothing else you listen to, listen to that. You can’t compare a single player only game to a GaaS or game with a campaign and competitive multiplayer that is supported for years after launch.
Again, you have no idea how easy it is to make content for a multiplayer game. Story, Voice Acting, AI, Level Design, and many more game elements either aren't needed for a multiplayer game, or are needed in drastically reduced amounts for a multiplayer game.