Microsoft At E3 2018

pravus said:
To do that, I think they need to start splitting up their games more.. instead of trying to make a release, SP + MP. One part is always going to get more love or be hampered in some way by the other.

IMO, I'd like to see Gears and Halo just have their own separate and isolated MP suite releases.

That way when it comes time to do a new single player game they don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, it can be it's own thing, MP wouldn't need to start from scratch and change all the things people liked about the previous release for the sake of it being a new release. Then the single player can get the attention it needs and won't have a team split up trying to juxtapose how things will work from the single player to the multiplayer.. you could even have gameplay take a giant leap in another direction (ala God of War) and it wouldn't ruin the MP because it'd be it's own thing.
Click to expand...

I'd love for that to happen. I think you're right; there are inevitable compromises when you try to do an outstanding SP and MP game at the same time. I think you'd get better quality if you separated them. And on a personal level, I don't like paying for content I don't use.

It's hard for me to imagine the industry moving in that direction, though. It would be a big shift in how things work. Plus, people might object to paying separately for both SP and MP (presumably $60 each), when now they get both components bundled together for a single price.

I like the idea, though.
 
I have to say, I really liked the seasonal model that Killer Instinct had. It kept things fresh and exciting. I know that wouldn’t work for a lot of games, but it was a lot of fun and kept the community together. I’d pay for high quality SP content with a great story in a seasonal format.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pravus
TeGu said:
With the resources Microsoft has, they in are in a much better position than most, to do exemplary jobs in both the immersive, high quality SPs as well as the addictive tight gameplay and meaty content on the MP front. I'm an Xbox fan, but, there's no real excuse why MS shouldn't pursue both. Hopefully Microsoft is beyond realization and now actively racing towards this practice. We will see now, won't we?
Click to expand...

They haven't delivered on both at the same time in about 7 years now and even in those instances, like I said, the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater for the follow up releases and the MP needs to once again splinter off the community for the next release.

In the current games climate, literally every single current top played mutliplayer title is completely cut-off from a single player experience and has become a GaaS multiplayer suite that can continue to be improved upon instead of resources being cutoff for an inevitable sequel. Battlefield and Call of Duty seem to be slowing down lately because of it whereas those other games are all flourishing because people are enjoying the games longer and getting much more content and updates for their money and developer focus. There's even rumors that the next CoD is dropping it's singleplayer to double down on a MP focus.

MS has resources, sure, but that isn't going to overcome split development focus and the eventual drop off of developer support a year or so later when 90% of the development team starts working on the next game in the series or a different product, which inevitably delivers a death blow to the previous community. That worked with Halo 3, but quality and support for newer MP-only titles is on a completely different level these days.
 
Last edited:
TeGu said:
With the resources Microsoft has, they in are in a much better position than most, to do exemplary jobs in both the immersive, high quality SPs as well as the addictive tight gameplay and meaty content on the MP front. I'm an Xbox fan, but, there's no real excuse why MS shouldn't pursue both. Hopefully Microsoft is beyond realization and now actively racing towards this practice. We will see now, won't we?
Click to expand...
It takes more than throwing money at something to make it great. It takes talent, vision, and a certain amount of luck. it isn't something that can be bought. Money helps, but it is just a means.
 
Frozpot said:
It takes more than throwing money at something to make it great. It takes talent, vision, and a certain amount of luck. it isn't something that can be bought. Money helps, but it is just a means.
Click to expand...


Oh I get it takes more than money. The resources I am referring to aren't isolated to mere financial status and holdings.
 
Zcythe said:
I have to say, I really liked the seasonal model that Killer Instinct had. It kept things fresh and exciting. I know that wouldn’t work for a lot of games, but it was a lot of fun and kept the community together. I’d pay for high quality SP content with a great story in a seasonal format.
Click to expand...

The weird thing is, MS has been talking about doing this for a long long time now... no idea why they haven't themselves.

Maybe we'll start seeing it down the line now that titles are going through Game Pass.
 
Nervusbreakdown said:
​
Well Xbox live was new at that era and SO was good back then.

But RYSE had online arena to play for hours. That is different.

I had Jade all the way back from the xboxOG days.
Click to expand...

You are clearly very hung up on the price tag for them which I think is fair but you don't have to buy a game day 1 if you don't want to. Plus Gamepass exists. If Microsoft delivers then it doesn't really matter what a games retail price is.

Microsoft doesn't need to make SP only games but they should be willing to make them just like they should be willing to make all kinds of games. Its not like Xbox owners are unwilling to buy them or anything.
 
Re. price of SP only games, you don't need to pay more than $20, even if you get them on release day. You only pay $60 if you keep them (or buy digital), and you wouldn't keep them if you think they're a "one-and-done" affair. For instance, I paid $10 for Far Cry 5 ($48 w/Prime, sold for $39). Yeah, Far Cry 5 has co-op but it's mostly an SP game, and the point holds for any SP game. You can play them for $20 if you aren't planning on keeping them.

If $20 is too much to pay for a great SP experience, then you probably just don't like SP gaming much at all. Which is fine, of course. Everyone has different tastes. But talking about it as if $60 is the set price is kind of a red herring.
 
Andy said:
There's a basic distinction that often gets forgotten, and I'm not sure why.

There is a big difference between 1) a great SP gaming experience and 2) a short (8-12 hr), linear, SP-only game. The latter are a dying breed at the level of AAA gaming. No one needs to fret about MS putting money into that sort of project. Even Sony doesn't do that anymore. MS surely won't.

But "SP gaming" does not equal "brief, linear, SP-only game." SP games come in all different shapes and sizes. SP does not mean SP only. SP games often have MP attached. SP games are often open world, not linear. SP games can have extended lengths (30+ hrs, hell 200+ hours). They can have large DLC packages. They can have choice & consequence that boosts replay value. There are lots of options, and you can mix and match.

Advocating for great SP gaming experiences does not mean advocating for brief, linear, SP-only games.
Click to expand...

Yep and God of War is proof of that, it's not open world but it's big enough and content rich enough to be more than worth the $60 price tag.
 
VaLLiancE said:
When our gaming format of choice doesn't have good current single player games.
Sp games aren't important.
Click to expand...

No, I think Nervus is just someone who greatly prefers MP gaming and doesn't find a lot of value in SP experiences. That's fine. Different strokes.
 
dont get me wrong I love single player games, I just can't see my self to get it at full price. I am still waiting for Wolfenstein 2 to go down on price to $20.

I picked up Batman for $10 a few months back and loved it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy and TeKPhaN
Nervusbreakdown said:
dont get me wrong I love single player games, I just can't see my self to get it at full price. I am still waiting for Wolfenstein 2 to go down on price to $20.

I picked up Batman for $10 a few months back and loved it.
Click to expand...

I’d rather pay $60 for a great SP game then $60 for a shell of a MP game like Sea of Thieves. I know there’s other ways to play it like Gamepass.
 
It's not like Megadrive/Nes games were cheap but now games cost more to make they should be cheaper?
 
The Wolf King said:
Val a few posts up
Click to expand...
That ish't really what he is saying. He is saying to seperate games so people can buy the part they want, technically the full game is still the same price. It is about choice, not cheaper games.

I don't agree, though. It is a massively flawed idea.
 
Game Pass makes SP games more important. This kind of service needs variety. If gamers are only interested in multiplayer games, it reduces the value of Game Pass. Gamers who like multiplayer games generally don’t play more than a couple games at a time. Games like Rainbox Six, Halo, PUBG, Overwatch...etc can be had for cheap. Fortnight is free.

If you are a multiplayer only gamers, I don’t think you’ll get a ton of value from Game Pass. You’re better off buying games outright.

Game Pass would surge if Microsoft could figure out how to create some high quality episodic content. Even with bigger games like Fable, I think the roadmap will be to have a big initial release with a lot of support for the game afterwards.

I’ve been against episodic content in the past however I’m really in favor of it over a service. A lot of advantages including less risk for AAA campaigns, developers can apply feedback quickly instead of waiting another 3 years for a sequel, and as a gamer I’d rather experience 3 to 5 different games with variety than 1 bigger time sink. With Game Pass, a lot of gamers are more likely to try games out and have that water cooler build up. I could see a point where gamers are discussing gaming episodes like they would an episode of Game of Thrones a few days after a content drop. That’s the effect of smaller bite sized gaming pieces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dno69
It should probably be priced by how many hours of gameplay.

If Black Ops 4 doesn't have a campaign it shouldn't be full price (it will be though) and the same should be true of single player only, especially if theres a fee for online play and it isn't being supported.

Gamers are thankfully voting with their wallets and want the best value for money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back