Interesting points so far. Basically, if you want to enter the PC multiplayer scene, your product really has to set itself apart [I]and[/I] be economically viable, because It's a very competitive market, with established classics still gaining popularity after years, decades if you count eg CS as a whole.
Hopefully the word "entitled" dies out when talking about consumer practices.
Ironically the people that use that word are the most entitled.
The thing about making a multiplayer only game is that players expect to get infinite time out of it, so if you do stuff like XP with level caps people will see that as less content because they can "beat" the game.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49308910]The thing about making a multiplayer only game is that players expect to get infinite time out of it, so if you do stuff like XP with level caps people will see that as less content because they can "beat" the game.[/QUOTE]
by that logic, not having player progression means that you beat the game immediately.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49309708]by that logic, not having player progression means that you beat the game immediately.[/QUOTE]
kind of like survival indie titles, where progression is server-by-server
the only way to win is by not playing
[QUOTE=cdr248;49309708]by that logic, not having player progression means that you beat the game immediately.[/QUOTE]
In a game based solely on player skill, the progression is effectively limitless
[QUOTE=TheKnife;49309724]In a game based solely on player skill, the progression is effectively limitless[/QUOTE]
Even in progression based games like CoD or BF your performance is heavily tied to your actual skill, not just what you have unlocked.
To say that progression based games encourages you to stop playing after a certain point is silly when the end-game of CoD is the same as your first game in UT in terms of content.
It's not that a multiplayer-only game is not worth $60, it's just that a AAA budget should be exposing us to new experiences we haven't had before. A $60 multiplayer game should revolutionize the concept, not rehash call of duty with a bad netcode? I keep seeing Seige and it looks so badass. The fact that it's a $60 mutliplayer game is not the issue. The fact that it's a $60 multiplayer game with connection problems, bad netcode and a $30 season pass is the issue. It's literally the only thing they have to work on, why is it not absolutely perfect? There's no excuse. :sick:
IMO, if your game is multiplayer only, it should be f2p, or be cheap and have microtransactions.
While this does create a toxic environment, and yes microtransactions, it allows for players to easily get in the game as well as allow developers to give it its constant support as it makes them money. Sort of like TF2, which is the reason why it isn't dead yet.
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;49320178]It's not that a multiplayer-only game is not worth $60, it's just that a AAA budget should be exposing us to new experiences we haven't had before. A $60 multiplayer game should revolutionize the concept, not rehash call of duty with a bad netcode? I keep seeing Seige and it looks so badass. The fact that it's a $60 mutliplayer game is not the issue. The fact that it's a $60 multiplayer game with connection problems, bad netcode and a $30 season pass is the issue. It's literally the only thing they have to work on, why is it not absolutely perfect? There's no excuse. :sick:[/QUOTE]
That's not to say that a price tag won't be an immediate turn-off to potential buyers. When I saw that Starwars Battlefront and the season pass were combined to be $150, I thought it was some sick joke. Honestly, even if Battlefront had the most perfect network infrastructure, I still wouldn't see myself buying it.
Meanwhile, CS:GO is $17 and frequently goes on sale for $12. I don't even like the game but I still bought it just so I have it saved for that rainy day.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
