Goriginal Content
EoD - E3 hopes
EoD - Industry woes
EoD - Mailbag 5/20
RR - Zero Escape
GN Podcast #405
NFD 5/17 outtakes
EoD - E3 hopes
EoD - Industry woes
EoD - Mailbag 5/20
RR - Zero Escape
GN Podcast #405
NFD 5/17 outtakes
RSS Feeds: News Feed | Top Stories | Console News | Portables News | Podcast Feed | Twitter Feed | © 2013 GoNintendo
I rather my games be cheaper than having multiplayer.
I think a split like that is a terrible idea, but it'll probably happen.
$30 for single player and $30 for online multiplayer. Now all the people who say that they don't give 2 shovel about online multiplayer (A lot of people on this site), you just got your problem solved.
If that does ever happen, then I wouldn't be surprised if the price was increased by at least $10, making the total cost of the game $80 or more.
$30 single player and $30 online multiplayer=???
That's cheaper than the EA and Activision DLC that costs 30 cents to make!
I agree, unless it is Mario Kart I don't really give a shovel if there is multiplayer or not.
Edit: Wow no negative numbers for this post.
No split. Would be way stupid. I like to have both in one so I can choose when my mood fits.
And really. The Wiimote/Nunchuck is so much better than the dual analogue sticks for FPS games... Sheesh...
I like the idea of being able to purchase the single player/multiplayer separately. I bought Killzone 3's multiplayer for the price of one Call of Duty map pack and it's pretty damn enjoyable, moreso than the horrible horrible campaign. Course there are still games where I'd want to get both, but the option to do that will always be there.
This is a post that gets it.
I gotta say, I would proudly save my $20 and not bother with the multiplayer. I don't think there's been one that's managed to keep my attention for more than around 5 hours.. though the one in AC Brotherhood came close.
Why are some of you guys dissing Multi-player while I agree there are many instances where its been shoehorned into a game it's still a fantastic experience for the most part. Especially if it means I get to play with my brother online, lan, or same screen
Games I've played online in the past 2 years:
Mario Kart
Pokemon
Tetris
Portal 2
List is actually quite similar to games I've EVER played online...
Like he said, that's just horrible for even suggesting it. Don't give bigwigs ideas.
@Loco Lokee If i have no interest in multiplayer in a game i would rather pay less to get a game without the multiplayer. I'm not saying multiplayer is bad. But if there is a game like...bioshock (as an example) if i can get bioshock 2 for 30 bucks without multiplayer instead of 60 bucks for both then i would choose the multiplayer-less/cheaper version.
So just about every comment here is in agreement with Pachter yet this post has a -7? Makes sense.
This is what I like to call "The Pach Effect". Whether what he is saying makes sense or not, it will be rated down simply because it's Pachter.
I kind of agree since I never play online, but I can just wait for the games to bomb and be cheaper anyway if I don't really want them.
@Lyude77
That reflects more on the maturity level of the voters than anything else.
It could be the negative votes disagree with his statement about Nintendo and third parties and the Wii U Pro Controller though?
I don't like this idea. I like Singleplayer, Multiplayer and Co-op. I don't want to pay $80 to get what I was only paying $60 for before. $60 is too expensive as it is.
@coffeewithchess
If you are correct, then there is no need for the Wii U Pro Controller then. Obviously Nintendo disagrees.
Clearly if you are paying the full 60 bucks for games today you are doing it wrong.
Expecting something is one thing, but to want the split of features from your purchase is retarded sorry. Expecting the publisher to properly price your singleplayer experience based on your taste and preferences as well as the multiplayer you apparently don't value as much is not going to assure you a great outcome. Just do what you should always be doing, pay what you are willing to pay, which requires you wait after release dates and stop complaining about prices you don't pay.
Ugh Pachter.... The Wii U Pad HAS BUTTONS. This dude makes no sense.
I think Pachter misunderstood the second question. It wasn't about splitting games and charging for both halves... I think it was about developers deciding, "You know what? Let's just make this single-player only and charge less money. It doesn't need multiplayer tacked on."
And that's something I could support. There aren't a lot of games where I care about multiplayer.
Only Nintendo fans don't want online...for the most part! Why should we pay $40 for half a game?
It all goes back to this download crap! Why should (as an example), Nintendo get $40 for the DL version Not-So-New Mario on 3DS, when a store bought version is also $40? They want us to pay more for less, and not only that but Nintendo gets to pick up the shipping/retail/packaging costs, for doing none of those things! We are paying them to do NOTHING! Now back to the campaign vs multiplayer idea...why should we pay more (or even the same) for less content?! Why does Marvel comics sell physical comics at $3.99 and the same comics on the iPad app is also $3.99? Something doesn't seem right there! A download of COD on Xbox is going for $60...yet, we're not getting a physical copy?! It's a load of crap!
View the full discussion!