Paying $59.99 for online only games

#31IceDragon77Posted 12/11/2013 9:03:32 PM
Meh. I never play the single player for games like CoD or Battlefield, so I couldn't care less if they got rid of them.
The only one I do care about is Halo because it has an awesome universe.

Titanfall looks like it will blur the lines. Making the multiplayer tell the story could be interesting.
--- Thanks Fellwolf and L4DHunter! <3
#32mygoodluckcharmPosted 12/11/2013 9:08:08 PM
Don't you need Live Gold subscription to play online too?
Online only games is fine, but it's subscriptions that killing me and the game pretty much useless without it. Luckily I still could play Titanfall on PC so no Gold for me.
#33Lerp85Posted 12/11/2013 9:11:50 PM
jayoheazy posted...
krystyla posted...
Why should it cost less? Is it less work.....

Ummm, yes? No SP means less work

By your logic any game that is single player only is less work and should not cost as much. Horrible logic.
I buy DLC. If that makes me a "sheep" then oh well. Don't like it? Oh well, get over it.
#34Jedi454Posted 12/11/2013 10:19:38 PM
jayoheazy posted...
krystyla posted...
Why should it cost less? Is it less work.....

Ummm, yes? No SP means less work

Sony Fan confirmed.
GT: DyingRoman
My Gaming channel:
#35a687947Posted 12/11/2013 10:28:14 PM
neither, I like singleplayer just as much as multiplayer so I am perfectly fine with paying full price for a game I think looks interesting enough that has either or both
#36streamjumperPosted 12/11/2013 10:46:55 PM
Your poll is seriously lacking a lot of reasons why someone would say yes or no.

For example: "No, but only if the MP was really good and had a lot of options"
Darwin, set the Wayback Machine...
#37Mr_arizonaPosted 12/11/2013 11:04:51 PM
For a game like COD I say dump the SP and put all resources into MP. So many people don't bother completing Halo, COD, or Gears campaigns anyway so if the demand isn't there just focus on MP.

However don't just remove SP and just sell the MP as it was with SP. If SP is removed there better be more maps, more options, just more everything to make up for SP being gone.

Bottom line... If it's good I'll buy it.
#38MrMisanthropePosted 12/13/2013 6:59:06 AM
Four hour campaign and 100+ hours of MP for $60? Sounds good.

Subtract four hour campaign, still have 100+ hours of MP? Sell for half price.

Sure. Seems logical.

#39GeistPosted 12/13/2013 7:05:21 AM
You people complain about stupid things. It's like saying if I pay 59.99 for a race game I should be able to get out of the car and shoot people. You buy games for what they are and ignore them if you don't like what they are. It's that simple.
I dislike Nintendo.
#40CallmegePosted 12/13/2013 7:21:28 AM
Nope. In fact when it comes to battlefield I'd rather they reduced the price if it has singleplayer. Nobody has ever bought a battlefield game for singleplayer so why do they bother? Battlefield is a multiplayer game. Always has been, always will be. Any time or money put into the singleplayer only hurts the overall game.

Time spent playing a battlefield sp: 5 hours
Time spent playing a battlefield mp: 500 hours.

But there's probably as much money spent, if not more spent, on the singleplayer as the multiplayer.
God save our gracious Queen, Long live our noble Queen, God save the Queen!
not changing this sig until we have a King - started: 30/8/2008