I Propose Single Player Games = 39.99 / Single+Mulitplayer Games = 59.99

So what do you guys think? Should the industry really think about this? What are some cons about it?

I personally can see myself buying more single player games if they did this.

I honestly don't care.The only thing that I want to be stopped is unnecessary multiplayer. The Darkness would have been even better if they scrapped the multiplayer and added a couple more hours.Sir-Marwin105

Now theres one con I can see. Devs adding half-butt mutliplayer aspects to games to jack up the price.

I honestly don't care.The only thing that I want to be stopped is unnecessary multiplayer. The Darkness would have been even better if they scrapped the multiplayer and added a couple more hours.Sir-Marwin105

This is probably the first time, but I agree with you 100%. The Darkness is a real gem.

their is no ratio....

same games are simply worth it and some arent...

their are multiplayer only games like BF2, which have more than enough value for their price...and others that dont...

[QUOTE="Sir-Marwin105"]I honestly don't care.The only thing that I want to be stopped is unnecessary multiplayer. The Darkness would have been even better if they scrapped the multiplayer and added a couple more hours.dracula_16

This is probably the first time, but I agree with you 100%. The Darkness is a real gem.

If a game is worth the money, then I have quarrels with spending 59.99.

For example, even though I didn't like Bioshock, I don't think one could argue that it isn't worth the money because the experience you get from it, is what makes the game.

That happens occasionally likeWarhawk but I think thatcompanies are reluctant to drop the prices as game budgets keep going up. dracula_16

But you would think games like HS, R&C, and Uncharted would benefit from a lower price since as of right now, those games arent selling well at all.

So what do you guys think? Should the industry really think about this? What are some cons about it?

I personally can see myself buying more single player games if they did this.

xTHExJUICEx

A single player game can cost more to makethan a single/multiplayer game so no.

I would love to see that.....it would make sense.

I would pay extra for MP in my games....Because I mean 8-10 hours of SP w/ no MP....well it's hard for me to shell out $60 on that often. Ony for rare occurences.

I sort of agree with you.

NOT!!! Just kidding.

I think Multi-Plats = $40.00

Exclusives = $30.00

I sort of agree with you.

NOT!!! Just kidding.

I think Multi-Plats = $40.00

Exclusives = $30.00

_MysTesO_

Actually wouldn't it be the other way around? Multiplats aren't special, they are placed on multiple systems. Its the sole system exclusives that are worth more.

Screw that.

Why in the hell should games like Resident Evil 4 cost less than games that have multiplayer?

What, did the devs for RE4 slack off or something because they didn't add online modes? And because they cut that stupid and uncessary feature, you think they should charge less money for the fruits of their labor?

Pssh.

Ideas like that are what is propagating the downfall of creativity and quality single player in the industry, and I completely despise the very concept, and spit upon it and its homies with great malice and distaste.

Screw that.

Why in the hell should games like Resident Evil 4 cost less than games that have multiplayer?

What, did the devs for RE4 slack off or something because they didn't add online modes? And because they cut that stupid and uncessary feature, you think they should charge less money for the fruits of their labor?

Pssh.

Ideas like that are what is propagating the downfall of creativity and quality single player in the industry, and I completely despise the very concept, and spit upon it and its homies with great malice and distaste.

jethrovegas

I would love to see that.....it would make sense.

I would pay extra for MP in my games....Because I mean 8-10 hours of SP w/ no MP....well it's hard for me to shell out $60 on that often. Ony for rare occurences.

MikeE21286

Exactly, it took me 10 hours to beat Uncharted,if I decided to play it againI add what another 6 hours to the game.I bought COD4...online alone Ive put 15 hours, single took me 5....

I dont know it just makes sense to me, and I really hope sale numbers cause developers to really think about this.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Screw that.

Why in the hell should games like Resident Evil 4 cost less than games that have multiplayer?

What, did the devs for RE4 slack off or something because they didn't add online modes? And because they cut that stupid and uncessary feature, you think they should charge less money for the fruits of their labor?

Pssh.

Ideas like that are what is propagating the downfall of creativity and quality single player in the industry, and I completely despise the very concept, and spit upon it and its homies with great malice and distaste.

Sir-Marwin105

*Revs the chainsaw*

Screw that.

Why in the hell should games like Resident Evil 4 cost less than games that have multiplayer?

What, did the devs for RE4 slack off or something because they didn't add online modes? And because they cut that stupid and uncessary feature, you think they should charge less money for the fruits of their labor?

Pssh.

Ideas like that are what is propagating the downfall of creativity and quality single player in the industry, and I completely despise the very concept, and spit upon it and its homies with great malice and distaste.

jethrovegas

Who says a lower cost wont = higher sales numbers = bigger profit?

Who says a lower cost wont = higher sales numbers = bigger profit?

xTHExJUICEx

Who says it does work? Doesnt WoW have the highest cost to play over time, yet its far more popular than pretty much any other game this generation?

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

[QUOTE="Sir-Marwin105"]I honestly don't care.The only thing that I want to be stopped is unnecessary multiplayer. The Darkness would have been even better if they scrapped the multiplayer and added a couple more hours.Sir-Marwin105

This is probably the first time, but I agree with you 100%. The Darkness is a real gem.

yeah i liked that game. i was really into the story, i felt so bad when you-know-who got you-know what in the chair by the bad guy.....and you had to stand there and watch!!!! I was yelling at the tv...

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Screw that.

Why in the hell should games like Resident Evil 4 cost less than games that have multiplayer?

What, did the devs for RE4 slack off or something because they didn't add online modes? And because they cut that stupid and uncessary feature, you think they should charge less money for the fruits of their labor?

Pssh.

Ideas like that are what is propagating the downfall of creativity and quality single player in the industry, and I completely despise the very concept, and spit upon it and its homies with great malice and distaste.

Sir-Marwin105

:o ....you take that back :evil:

[QUOTE="xTHExJUICEx"]

Who says a lower cost wont = higher sales numbers = bigger profit?

XaosII

Who says it does work? Doesnt WoW have the highest cost to play over time, yet its far more popular than pretty much any other game this generation?

Yea but not every game is WoW, of course your gonna get your games that sale well no matter what the price is (MGS) but this should help a lot with new IPs and other games that are under the radar.

[QUOTE="Sir-Marwin105"][QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Screw that.

Why in the hell should games like Resident Evil 4 cost less than games that have multiplayer?

What, did the devs for RE4 slack off or something because they didn't add online modes? And because they cut that stupid and uncessary feature, you think they should charge less money for the fruits of their labor?

Pssh.

Ideas like that are what is propagating the downfall of creativity and quality single player in the industry, and I completely despise the very concept, and spit upon it and its homies with great malice and distaste.

alcarazo9

:o ....you take that back :evil:

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Screw that.

Why in the hell should games like Resident Evil 4 cost less than games that have multiplayer?

What, did the devs for RE4 slack off or something because they didn't add online modes? And because they cut that stupid and uncessary feature, you think they should charge less money for the fruits of their labor?

Pssh.

Ideas like that are what is propagating the downfall of creativity and quality single player in the industry, and I completely despise the very concept, and spit upon it and its homies with great malice and distaste.

xTHExJUICEx

Who says a lower cost wont = higher sales numbers = bigger profit?

Who says it will? And what does that have to do with the matter at hand?

You were proposing the idea that single player games should be 39.99 and single player + multiplayer games should be 59.99.

I was merely stating why I believe that your proposal is a monumentally bad idea.

I mean, yeah, I'd like games to be 20$ cheaper too, but guess what? Developers work hard on their games, and they deserve "teh monies" for their labor.

60$ for games like Bioshock and Mass Effect seems quite reasonable to me.

[QUOTE="dracula_16"]

[QUOTE="Sir-Marwin105"]I honestly don't care.The only thing that I want to be stopped is unnecessary multiplayer. The Darkness would have been even better if they scrapped the multiplayer and added a couple more hours.Sir-Marwin105

This is probably the first time, but I agree with you 100%. The Darkness is a real gem.

yea a really solid game, i didnt even touch the multiplayer because it just looked lame

[QUOTE="xTHExJUICEx"][QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Screw that.

Why in the hell should games like Resident Evil 4 cost less than games that have multiplayer?

What, did the devs for RE4 slack off or something because they didn't add online modes? And because they cut that stupid and uncessary feature, you think they should charge less money for the fruits of their labor?

Pssh.

Ideas like that are what is propagating the downfall of creativity and quality single player in the industry, and I completely despise the very concept, and spit upon it and its homies with great malice and distaste.

jethrovegas

Who says a lower cost wont = higher sales numbers = bigger profit?

Who says it will? And what does that have to do with the matter at hand?

You were proposing the idea that single player games should be 39.99 and single player + multiplayer games should be 59.99.

I was merely stating why I believe that your proposal is a monumentally bad idea.

I mean, yeah, I'd like games to be 20$ cheaper too, but guess what? Developers work hard on their games, and they deserve "teh monies" for their labor.

60$ for games like Bioshock and Mass Effect seems quite reasonable to me.

It matters because the developers for HS, Uncharted, R&C....arent making "teh monies"....look at the sale figures, theyre pretty subpar for great single player games.

It matters because the developers for HS, Uncharted, R&C....arent making "teh monies"....look at the sale figures, theyre pretty subpar for great single player games.

xTHExJUICEx

They aren't making money because they are PS3 exclusives. :|

[QUOTE="MikeE21286"]

I would love to see that.....it would make sense.

I would pay extra for MP in my games....Because I mean 8-10 hours of SP w/ no MP....well it's hard for me to shell out $60 on that often. Ony for rare occurences.

xTHExJUICEx

Exactly, it took me 10 hours to beat Uncharted,if I decided to play it againI add what another 6 hours to the game.I bought COD4...online alone Ive put 15 hours, single took me 5....

I dont know it just makes sense to me, and I really hope sale numbers cause developers to really think about this.

Uncharted was the game I was thinking of also. I played it through the first time.....9 hours, and then I shipped it away on eBay (and I own a bunch of 360 games.....I rarely sell my games anymore) But I'm like....there's no replay value here at all. And almost all 360 games have some multiplayer component

Sorry, didn't mean to bring a console comparison into the thread.....just thinkin' out loud.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

Screw that.

Why in the hell should games like Resident Evil 4 cost less than games that have multiplayer?

What, did the devs for RE4 slack off or something because they didn't add online modes? And because they cut that stupid and uncessary feature, you think they should charge less money for the fruits of their labor?

Pssh.

Ideas like that are what is propagating the downfall of creativity and quality single player in the industry, and I completely despise the very concept, and spit upon it and its homies with great malice and distaste.

Sir-Marwin105

Discredited much?

o_o

Multiplayer doesn't MAKE a game.
D:wiretoss

Forgive me for sounding picky/fanboyish but, that's what Wolfenstein Enemy Territory is all about. :P

Consumers have the discretion to force changes. Don't buy short games, rent them.

If companies wish to turn a profit, force them togive us value for money by not buying games with a short SP, no or weak MP and limited replayability.

Remember just because a game looks pretty doesn't mean its worthwhile owning.

Fairplay to Sony fans who are obviously a bit reluctant to part with their money for some of the exclusives which aren't worth the money. I know they come in for some stick for not buying games, but why should they pay $60 for a 6 hr game? Rent it, if you know you'll be playing it a couple of months from now, buy it.

[QUOTE="_MysTesO_"]

I sort of agree with you.

NOT!!! Just kidding.

I think Multi-Plats = $30.00

Exclusives = $40.00

ArisShadows

Actually wouldn't it be the other way around? Multiplats aren't special, they are placed on multiple systems. Its the sole system exclusives that are worth more.

Oops my bad thats what I meant to post

I think $49.99 is a fair price. Its less than $50 and psychologically its easier, for me at least, to spend $50 easier than spending over $50. Not just that, but i'd rate alot of games higher if they cost me less. When you pay $60 for a game thats only "ok"... that game is garbage. That game is crap. If you payed $39.99 or $49.99, that game is straight, aight, ok, not bad.

I think there should be more strategic pricing as well. Some games are just smaller or are somewhat risky titles or niche titles. Something like that should debut at a price closer to $39.99 or $49.99. Like Eternal Sonata on the 360, a JRPG on a system thats not known for JRPGs. To test the market, I think they should have launched at a lower price. I think they would have had way higher sales if it cost less. There are alot of games that are AA or A that I think would sell way more if they were maybe $10 less.