Do you guys think linear single player games should have a $39.99 standard price point?

[conman]

I'm all for whatever pricepoint allows big-budget developers to keep making great narrative-driven single-player games.

IMO if games are struggling to sell at $60, the problem isn't that they are single-player games. That's a false diagnosis that too many publishers and media outlets are all-too-willing to spread (again). It's more likely a combination of things, including changing consumer tastes, fiercer competition from cheaper indie games, other big-budget games having bloated content, and so on. I don't think that their being "single-player games" is the problem.

 

[Dr Doom]

And you want it to be 4K HDR and graphics like the Last of US 2 also file size of 50GB and 8hrs of playtime

Gamers and their cake

 

[icyflamez96]

No. I don't think purely multiplayer games should have to be <60 either.

I really don't like the idea that linear games are inherently of lesser value than open world games.

If they really are struggling with sales and this helps these kinds of games, then sure, but I don't think that's universally the case.

 

[Acorn]

No single player games aren't worth less to me. Personally they are actually worth more.

 

[TI92]

I think games should be priced where the developers think it should be. Some single player games are $60 value and some aren't.

 

[Deepwater]

This thread is a perfect example of why the current system is unsustainable. Campaigns cost an astronomical amount of money an development time to make. This is a common sentiment that ignores the inescapable reality that these games are costing more and more to make. You price your game at $40. It sells 2 million copies. You're million more in the red. Since the 2008 GFC, gamers have become increasingly conscious of how much a game is "worth". And in this skewed world, incredibly expensive singleplayer content is expected to be somehow cheaper than relatively cheap to make multiplayer content. That's simply not workable. I think there's a general lack of appreciation for how much money and how much time and how many people it takes to make a 7 hour long Call of Duty campaign.

Look at Wolfenstein II. Notice how much padding and content reuse it has? How you revisit the same locations more than once? How they added the dual timelines thing to try and squeeze some replay value for players? All efforts to skimp on costs. Too add more "value". To avoid the dreaded perception that a singleplayer FPS game isn't "worth" the money.

Click to shrink...

I agree with this. But don't say it in the wrong place otherwise you're a corporatist shill. The way some people talk about the right to consume creative content that people labored over is a bit disappointing.

 

[Coi]

Nope.
I don't think that we need to punish games like the new Mario and Zelda just because "single player games worth less"
I'm in the other side actually, these games worth way more than games like Destiny or Call of Duty. Actually, we should pay less for that kind of "multiplayer" games just to enjoy single player and multiplayer in separate ways.

 

[Kickmaster Kim]

No. If anything I think a lot of AAA single player games should be a bit more expensive, to cover their costs.

Click to shrink...

What are these big ass companies losing money from these games now?

 

[kittens]

It doesn't make too much difference to me. I always sell them after I beat them, so I get most of my money back regardless.

 

[HistoricalAnomaly]

If we want to keep seeing single player games, they should really go up in price instead of down. Making less of them is gonna discourage studios from making them vs a multiplayer game with additional content for purchase.

 

[Aters]

Doesn't matter to me. I will wait till it's $20 anyway.

 

[javiergame4]

nah if it costed less, length of game will be reduced, graphics, etc. I think $60 with dlc support like expansions is fine.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

They're losing money at $60. If anything, the price should be going up.

 

[inner-G]

Why single-player?

If you're taking issue with the upfront costs of games, why not look at the multiplayer ones?

Pay $60 for a game, then have to pay for online play, in-game passes/dlc, get nickel and dimed for lootcrates, etc. shouldn't those game be cheaper since the games themselves are storefronts?

 

[Magicgamer]

In general no but if the game is cheap to make, selling it at a lower price point might make more sense for the devs.

 

[Deleted member 2785]

I think all games should be $5. Lose money on every unit but make up for it in volume.

 

[Lurker]

No. The Uncharted series and The Last Of Us were some of the best games last gen. I'd pay $60 for them over something like Ass Creed.

 

[Aurelio]

Has their been any discussion about it? I mean, considering where everything's going I would like this. I play mainly SP so I would benefit from this.

 

[ShinkuTachi]

I'd honestly be in favor of prices going up by 10 to 20 dollars to drop optical media as a format for games.

 

[MidiPour]

I think games shouldn't have a fixed pricing model. If developers want to be ambitious, but would have to cover said costs, outside of collector editions, loot boxes and DLC, they should be able to hike up the price commensurate to the development costs. Likewise the opposite for a game that's more compact and had a lighter development cycle.

 

[Deleted member 5015]

No, I'd argue make it the other way around. Make linear SP games 80 or 100 bucks or more and give more freedom to the devs. Cut out loot boxes and other after sales monetization, and instead focus on creating games and not how you can recoup your investment.

 

[nib95]

Pretty sure a lot of these linear AAA SP games cost more to make than some of the AAA multiplayer stuff out there. In fact, I'd imagine SP campaign content with heavy cinematics, motion capture, massive graphical budgets, huge varieties of locations and all the rest, are a very expensive endeavour indeed.

Ultimately I guess it depends on the game in question, but two of the games you've listed are remasters so don't really count. The Last Guardian was $60, and Uncharted Lost Legacy (not listed) was a less expensive DLC esque project, albeit a seriously meaty one.

 

[John Harker]

No. It's not like they are cheaper to make.
Maintain, yes, maybe. But even those kinds of games get intense post launch production these days too.

 

[Sauce Marlow]

I think online-focused games with loot boxes and micro-transactions should be the ones at the cheaper price tag as they keep raking in money well after launch. If anything, single-player games should cost more considering the initial purchase is often the only way the game brings in money.

 

[blue_phazon]

Having a lower price would certainly entice me to buy more. In this day and age, I'd never buy a singleplayer only game for full price unless it was huge like an RPG or something

 

[Deleted member 18823]

Keep them $60 especially if they have advanced graphics/tech that costs a lot of money
Games with lootboxes should be $40 or less

 

[xxracerxx]

No, if anything the multiplayer with loot crates should be $50.

 

[ChakosCough]

Do you want Visceral to happen again? Because this is how Visceral happens again

 

[Angst_]

I just want to get an entire game for my 60 dollars. No extra bullshit DLC or loot boxes.

 

[Melchiah]

Nah. I have no issues with paying 60-70€ for a linear single player game, whereas I wouldn't buy a game without SP campaign or many of the open world games even at half the price. Frankly, I find it an insulting idea, that linearity and/or solitary playing would be less worthy by default.


EDIT:

No, if anything the multiplayer with loot crates should be $50.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. You either charge premium for expansions, or have microtransactions, not both. I'm looking at you destiny 2. In comparison, Mass Effect 3 multiplayer handled it well by offering free maps in compensation for having microtransactions.

 

[Mystic Vivi]

Nope. Ideally game prices need to increase. Multiplayer and single player.

 

[JusDoIt]

What are these big ass companies losing money from these games now?

Click to shrink...

Um, all of them?

 

[Sheng Long]

If the game is great, I have no issues with it being $60.

 

[GamingEnthusiast]

Depends on how much it cost to make the game.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

I really don't like the idea that linear games are inherently of lesser value than open world games.

Click to shrink...

Yeah...as someone who vastly prefers a tight, curated linear experience over an open-ended one I'm really not digging that idea at all.

 

[Melchiah]

No single player games aren't worth less to me. Personally they are actually worth more.

Click to shrink...

Unfortunately, that narrative has been present in many reviews, along with ridiculous terms like "corricor racer", for the past two decades. It started with FPS reviews, where games were labelled as corridor shooters, now it's spread everywhere like a disease due to the open world fad.

 

[pulga]

Sure, if you want more developers going under.

I'd rather pay $60 for Odyssey or Zelda than CoD or whatever the multiplayer of the month is.

 

[bunkitz]

Absolutely not. That implies being linear and 10-15 hours long means it's of less value or lower quality. If it's a remake of an old game, or something that's just 5 or so hours long, then okay, $40 sounds fair.

From my understanding, selling games at $60 is already difficult for publishers, so selling them at $20 less is gonna be even more difficult and less appealing for then. We might end up having less linear games that way. And more loot boxes.

 

[Shrikey]

Is there any resource that collects MSRP through the ages? I know of pricecharting.com, but it only goes back to 2008.

My recollection of saving for games when growing up in the late nineties was that you had to pay at least 50-60 dollars for games like MGS, FFVII-FFIX, RE2 etc. If that's the case, then not having a price increase in two decades is insane.

I'd gladly pay 70 dollars for AAA day-one releases if that meant we didn't get any of this pre-order bonus loot box microtransaction bullcrap.

 

[BlueLightning]

Hey, I would like everything to be free or every game to be maximum 5$ with no microtranscations, but let's be real, and this is coming from someone who lives in a country where a game costs a lot compared to what you get at a job, this is the world we live in for now. Those people have to survive, a good game costs a lot to make right now and the costs as technology evolves will only go up. Single player games are not lazy so it needs to cost the same. Please don't make game makers to force multiplayer or give up on sp completley with things like this... I really don't like where the industry is going and I'm more and more not into games because of the trends that some of you make... Enjoy the games. The problem is not with them but with the system we follow everyday of our lives.

 

[Redcrayon]

I think it would imply that a crafted single-player campaign of xx hours is somehow of less value than a multiplayer arena game where you're replaying the same content all the time. Some reviewers might suggest that, I think they are wrong. There's a reason we often discuss the direction, script, gameplay, writing etc of single player games and not just the five-hundredth time you played the oil rig map and found your 5646th piece of random loot.

To me the single player games are worth far, far more, I'd pay £60 for them long before I'd pay more than £20 for an online multiplayer game, because I might choose to return to them long after the servers for the latter are dead. The idea that Games-as-a-service can charge £60+lootboxes over time but a single player title that's a personal experience of xx hours can only charge £40 would only encourage the former.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Wat Sony isn't selling some of their games for 40 dollars or less because they're linear SP titles. I don't know how you came up with that idea and how does selling TLG, Until Dawn (non-linear but very short), SP VR titles or The Order for 60 dollars support your theory?

 

[Jedeye Sniv]

Sales come so fast these days, there's really no need. Just wait like three weeks and get it half price.

 

[Radishhead]

I refuse to pay more than £1 per hour of entertainment, with a little room for negotiation if it's a particularly brilliant game. Thankfully UK retailers love dropping prices below the RRP at launch.

 

[Chocobo115]

Don't see why they should skimp on the budget for singleplayer games.
I prefer my singleplayer games to be pushing the indusrty forward and polished.

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

yes they should be $40 because swallowing $40 is alot easier than swallowing $60. I almost never buy games at full price because that price tag. if games like the last of us 2 is 40 bux instead of 60 i'd be waay more willing to buy it on launch than wait.

 

[Cap G]

I think they should be $80 because they are a niche product that sells less. Enthusiasts should gladly pay for it because they do not have the opportunity to endlessly sell microtransactions. :^)

 

[Dark Ninja]

Games are cheaper than ever. They all underperform and sales happen weeks to a month or so after release. Every company is scarred of their game bombing more than ever. Just build up your backlog and wait for a sale I don't pay full price for anything except Nintendo games.

 

[Deleted member 11926]

Depends entirely on the game.

I mean if it has the content of a $39.99 game then yeah. But a game being linear in no way lowers it worth automatically.

Click to shrink...

I agree. I think this misconception that singleplayer games are cheapter to make is short-sighted. It all depends on the scope of the game. On the contrary, I would price multiplayer-focused games that come with lootboxes and microtransactions far below $60. Please don't misunderstand. Of course, multiplayer games are costly to make as well, it's just that even publishers admit that the "whales" that buy into this whole microtransactions/lootboxes thing are willing to spend quite a lot of money. So, lowering the initial "buy in" price would be beneficial in bringing even more people in. I don't think multiplayer games should be $60 anymore.

 

[Chainshada]

After reading a lot of these comments, it's harder to be made at the inclusion of microtransactions.