Poll: Does a game NEED online to be recieved well?

[johnman]

I guess we are lookin at RE5 at 2 different ways. I see it as no different than the GOW 2 map packs or the Halo 3 map packs. They are charging you more money for an extension on your gameplay experience. You really can't fault them for making money when people are buying them. The base price of COD 4 and Bioshock are the same. If you love the multiplayer then you are going to fork out the extra 10 bucks for the extra maps in COD 4. So to have the full game experience COD 4 will cost you more than Bioshock. Although SP games are becoming more expensive under the same theory since more and more SP games are coming out with the bonus levels for 5-10 bucks a pop as well. At least the consumers are given the choice.

I guess we are. The fact they released the mp about a week after the game shipped just screamed of "Give us your money". And fair enough if your not interested, you dont pay. But how much did the DLC cost compared to the cost of producing it? The engine and gameplay were already in place, and from the looks of things they simply copied other games. If you want to play it for a laugh, would it really be worth the £10?
It sets a dagerous precendent, and as a PC gamer who has always had free Mp, i find it hard to understand why companies can get away with doing this. Like Mircsoft charging you to use your own connection to play LIVE! (from an x-box owning friend)

 

[sneak_copter]

Baldr's Gate, Mass Effect, Jade Empire, Oblivion, endless platformers (Mario and Sonic) and Doom are just a few of the many very successful single-player games. Games like the Total War Series, Age of Empires and Diablo-esque games don't rely on multiplayer to be critical hits and deep experiences.

Doom, a single-player game? Those cold winter's holidays in the 90's playing Doom on those shitty 90mb Connections? None of this ringing a bell?

 

[clicklick]

Depends.

If there is not a good single player experience, then online *should* be there to make up for it.

If a nice single player is there, online is a bonus.

It also depends on the player whether he prefers online/offline more.

Imagine Max Payne as a multiplayer game !!!!!!

 

[squid5580]

I guess we are lookin at RE5 at 2 different ways. I see it as no different than the GOW 2 map packs or the Halo 3 map packs. They are charging you more money for an extension on your gameplay experience. You really can't fault them for making money when people are buying them. The base price of COD 4 and Bioshock are the same. If you love the multiplayer then you are going to fork out the extra 10 bucks for the extra maps in COD 4. So to have the full game experience COD 4 will cost you more than Bioshock. Although SP games are becoming more expensive under the same theory since more and more SP games are coming out with the bonus levels for 5-10 bucks a pop as well. At least the consumers are given the choice.

I guess we are. The fact they released the mp about a week after the game shipped just screamed of "Give us your money". And fair enough if your not interested, you dont pay. But how much did the DLC cost compared to the cost of producing it? The engine and gameplay were already in place, and from the looks of things they simply copied other games. If you want to play it for a laugh, would it really be worth the £10?
It sets a dagerous precendent, and as a PC gamer who has always had free Mp, i find it hard to understand why companies can get away with doing this. Like Mircsoft charging you to use your own connection to play LIVE! (from an x-box owning friend)

Ahh see I blame GOW 2 for setting the precedent with thier flashback map pack. Although I can list off a ton of reasons why a company would do this. With EB selling the used copy of RE5 for 5 bucks less or a company like Gamefly that practically is giving the game away it is hard for a company to recoup thier money without using these kinds of tactics. Don't get me wrong I would love for all DLC to be free (as well as Xbox live and games to cost less than 59 - 69 bucks a pop). I just don't think we can lay all the blame on them for it not being so.

BTW the RE5 DLC has merely been announced. It hasn't been released yet.

 

[katsabas]

Sorry. I'm a little bit anxious right now, and I've had a few questions aimed toward me and not toward the question itself, which gets me a little pissed off. Again, you have my apologies.

No sweat. The people that targeted you instead of answering the question did not read the topic and obviously have bricks for brains.

 

[johnman]

Ahh see I blame GOW 2 for setting the precedent with thier flashback map pack. Although I can list off a ton of reasons why a company would do this. With EB selling the used copy of RE5 for 5 bucks less or a company like Gamefly that practically is giving the game away it is hard for a company to recoup thier money without using these kinds of tactics. Don't get me wrong I would love for all DLC to be free (as well as Xbox live and games to cost less than 59 - 69 bucks a pop). I just don't think we can lay all the blame on them for it not being so.

BTW the RE5 DLC has merely been announced. It hasn't been released yet.

Really? Well maybe there will be more to the mp than i orginally thought. I have a mre reasonable view towards map packs, if your willing to spend a few quid for some extra maps then fair enouhg, but if a game pretty forces you to get one though lack of oringinal maps or terrible ones then they can burn (L4d is an exception due to the maps being free)

 

[Hazy]

Sorry. I'm a little bit anxious right now, and I've had a few questions aimed toward me and not toward the question itself, which gets me a little pissed off. Again, you have my apologies.

No sweat. The people that targeted you instead of answering the question did not read the topic and obviously have bricks for brains.

Haha, that is too right.

 

[squid5580]

Ahh see I blame GOW 2 for setting the precedent with thier flashback map pack. Although I can list off a ton of reasons why a company would do this. With EB selling the used copy of RE5 for 5 bucks less or a company like Gamefly that practically is giving the game away it is hard for a company to recoup thier money without using these kinds of tactics. Don't get me wrong I would love for all DLC to be free (as well as Xbox live and games to cost less than 59 - 69 bucks a pop). I just don't think we can lay all the blame on them for it not being so.

BTW the RE5 DLC has merely been announced. It hasn't been released yet.

Really? Well maybe there will be more to the mp than i orginally thought. I have a mre reasonable view towards map packs, if your willing to spend a few quid for some extra maps then fair enouhg, but if a game pretty forces you to get one though lack of oringinal maps or terrible ones then they can burn (L4d is an exception due to the maps being free)

Oh I agree that if a person wants to drop the cash for a map pack more power to them. Although a week after the game is released and a map pack goes up on the marketplace for 800 points is a bit retarded. That and you might be hard pressed to find games without having a map pack especially when they are first released. It does add something new since even multiplayer can get stale playing the same few maps over and over. I just don't get why 1 may be free but the next one costs you (in any game or all games). Like FEAR 2 dlc maps really sound original and fun (like the pinball machine) and it is coming out for free. There really ought to be a better pricing system than what they got.

Anyways here is some RE5 DLC I dug up. After reading it I was completely turned off of the DLC and will be saving those 400 points for something else. Shame I was really looking forward to it before hand.

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/962/962318p1.html

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Bioshock.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I don't game online at all, so whether or not the game has online doesn't influence me either way.