Elitism probably plays a part in it. People just inherently value Singleplayer more than Multiplayer, which is fair play but to act like Multiplayer can’t be worth an AAA price is ludacris to me lol.
3 Likes
Yeah - I am not really into Battlefield, but I can appreciate the developers focusing on the MP as it is the main draw for the fans of this series. My only issue is charging an extra $10 for PS5/XSX version when the PC version is not.
On a side note, I hope Project Typhoon is also given benefit of the doubt if it turns out to be a purely MP-focused title and looks fun to play.
3 Likes
Very well said, I’m inclined to agree with all of your points.
1 Like
A lot of times I think it comes down to an inability, or unwillingness to see how others could feel different than yourself, when you’re someone who just isn’t that in to multiplayer
The fact that someone could sink so many hours in to just multiplayer, to the point where they could value it as much, if not more than single player is I guess just too foreign an idea to some people
That said it also comes down to what it is as well. Some franchises can get a way with ditching multiplayer more than others. Rainbow Six: Siege and Overwatch 1 didn’t have it at all and did amazingly well. Titanfall 1 also did good without it, but now after how good Titanfall 2’s campaign was they would probably have a rough time losing it any future installments
COD still did okay that one time they didn’t have it and I think could have done fine if they never brought it back, as I think that franchises MP would benefit from having 100% of the focus and dev time dedicated to it. Same as Battlefield. I think this is a great call, to be honest, as having all hands on deck all in on just that one thing should help make it as great as it can be this time around
Halo, on the other hand has just too much history with enjoyable campaigns and a story that people are really invested in. It’s just too drenched in their DNA to ever be able to get away with abandoning. And I don’t think they would ever want to, anyway. I couldn’t see Destiny getting away with it either as they would lose like 80% of their audience if they did such a dumb move
Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t. But as long as you have enough players who feel it’s worth it to them to just play multiplayer in your game, it will be worth it to you as a developer to do it. And I see no issue there
1 Like
No single player and 70 bucks. Not that I would buy a military shooter these days anyway but I sort of think this might be on gamepass.
I don’t see MS charging 70 for their games.
The problem isn’t the price tag. It’s the price tag for games not even close to being worth 70. Just an excuse to scab more money.
Well… The regular podcast crew said they had heard last year that Xbox will eventually follow suit and charge $70 for their games if memory serves me correctly. The whole industry will eventually charge $70 for new games. At the moment Xbox cannot due to the games being cross gen and the whole idea of smart delivery.
If you sit down and think about it, Xbox has more incentive than just about anyone because it makes Game Pass more of an attractive option because you would get into a situation where if you are buying just 2 games a year from Xbox then you would literally save money by just subscribing to Game Pass.
1 Like
People have been used to not having to pay much for multiplayer FPS games. This trend started back in 2016-2017 when publishers realized that people really don’t find multiplayer games worthy of a 60 dollar price tag, those same publishers then took different strategies in order to escape from the 60 dollar price tag for their multiplayer FPS games:
-
Most of the FPS games these days are F2P: Apex Legends, Warzone, Paladins, Halo Infinite, Valorant, CSGO, Team Fortress 2…
-
Some are tied to subscription services like Game Pass or EA Play, making them pseudo-F2P: PUBG, Halo 5, Titanfall 2, Battlefield V, Rainbow Six Siege…
-
Some, while not being truly F2P, have “free play weekends” all the fucking time and cost like 10 dollars these days; that is the case of Overwatch, and boy do I have a bridge to sell you if you don’t think Overwatch 2 is gonna get Warzone-d and turned into an F2P game with seasonal battle passes. Another game that is super cheap is Rainbow Six Siege, which can be bought for 10 dollars these days, making it pretty much F2P really.
So yeah, people don’t like having to pay 60 dollars for multiplayer FPS games, let alone 70. There is only one franchise that is getting away with it nowadays and it’s called Call of Duty; then again, since 2016-2017 the sales of their annual games have been trending downward, possibly because people now have a different perception of value in gaming.
The problem with 2042’s price is that it feels like EA is laughing at us:
1 - It costs 10 dollars more on next-gen systems than on PC, even though the PC version will be superior, that means that the “Yeah but it’s more technically advanced on next-gen consoles” excuse is really stupid and doesn’t make any sense.
2 - The new “$70” price tag, and especially the “80€” (96 USD) one is a huge psychological barrier.
3 - The game, even though it costs 70 dollars, is going to have microtransactions, multiple battle passes, season passes and multiple editions.
4 - The last time DICE told players that they would support a game for years and that that was why they had to add MTX to their game they put out Battlefield V and cancelled post-launch support only a year and a half after launch, so confidence in DICE is not big.
5 - If you check Battlefield V’s achievements on Xbox, you’ll see that around 30% of all players have completed at least one campaign so yeah, some people - even though they are a clear minority - are not happy about the lack of single-player content. Plus, there are no battle royale or co-op modes like in past entries.
6 - The lack of Smart Delivery is bullshit.
You can have a F2P game with MTX, passes and whatnot, and you can have a full 70 dollar and with no MTX and no bullshit, what people are not going to accept is having to pay 70 dollars only to have to pay more afterwards in order to get more content.
The FPS market has evolved into a two-product market:
1 - Single-player FPS: Far Cry 6, Doom Eternal, Wolfenstein 2…
2 - Multiplayer FPS, most of them either F2P or subscription games: Valorant, CSGO, Warzone…
If you try to take the advantages of both products to get a higher revenue and you are not called Call of Duty, some people will feel robbed and say your game has little content for its price tag (see Evolve, Battleborn…). Some people are already saying Back 4 Blood doesn’t deserve its 60 dollar tag, for instance.
TLDR; I’ll play it when it hits Game Pass less than a year after launch.
Well that was a battlefield-ass battlefield trailer. I’m syked for it.
To the naysayers, classic battlefield never had campaign, but maybe i’m getting old.
More people enjoy multiplayer games than singleplayer and they play them longer according to every metric on the planet. Singleplayer only people (and the press) are just more vocal on social media.
3 Likes
And let EA miss out on all the sales its gonna get? Lmao. No big AAA day 1 title has launched on game pass aside from new IP Outriders from SQUARE and the MLB published The Show and I dont think that will change post Sunday (hope Im wrong).
Most we will see I guess is back 4 blood or something along those lines.
I’m sure this all applies to you, personally
But to me and plenty of others, it does not
As someone who is a massive fan of these games. Full price for just the multiplayer is very much worth every penny. Much more so than a lot of 10-15 hour single player titles, in my case.
The idea of waiting months for Gamepass, or a discounted price just would not work for me. No damn way. I’d be climbing the friggin walls, not being able to play it when I know it’s out there to be played
2 Likes
No, it’s not a personal analysis. I said “[If they do what they are doing] you will have people saying the game isn’t worth its price”. That thesis does coincide with mine personally, but I was trying to explain why some people don’t see this game as a great deal in terms of value, because I’ve seen people here and on Era saying that they don’t get why some people are complaining about the price of the game.
I do think your thoughts make sense too, though.
Hope some form of crossplay is in the game because some of my friends are interested but they havent made the jump to next gen yet.
2 Likes
If there is, it will be you playing on their smaller 64 player servers. While also loading in to a match earlier, waiting for a countdown so all the last gen peeps can load in like 20 seconds later
1 Like
Yeah thats fine. Still got some other friends for 128 lobbies so thats a win.
This game was not made for me. I will pass on it.
Pre-ordering a Battlefield game is a bold move, that’s for sure.
I don’t understand this level of hype after a mediocre prequel (BFV), a CGI trailer (lmao at game engine footage) and other not so good news (no campaign, no smart delivery, 80€, seemingly no f2p mode). People really go wild about things without apparent reasons, if this was Halo it would have been destroyed.