Should single player games be cheaper?

[jebbo]

After looking at the votes for this month's "game of the month" on a small site I frequent (www.gameslurp.com)it looks like Batman Arkham Asylum is going to get the vote 2 months running. Not a bad thing, I love the game but it does relate to my thread title there and here.

Now I'm in a total Jekyll and Hyde situation with this game. To elaborate: I bought it, played it solidly and in all honesty loved almost every minute of it. But there it ends.

Single player games always have this problem - replayability. How do you draw the player back after he's played the story..? With Batman I have no desire to play through the game on Hard without the attack indicators (which is the obvious next step for replayability) because I know I will just get pissed off with it! - yet even if I did I wouldn't come back again...

The challenge maps live up to their name, but once you get a decent score and satisfy the primal desire of completion I really can't be bothered to 'ace' them - considering the ridiculous unattainable scores posted on the leaderboards.

To conclude and explain the shallowness I feel: here is this (admittedly awesome) game I spent £40 on, lying unplayed for a month that was only in my PS3 for a week. I have no desire to ever load it back up. The Jekyll and Hyde is I love it because it does everything it should; and doesn't really, in my eyes, fail anywhere. The Hyde is a sense of almost wasted money (or perhaps 'value') because it will never get played again.

When I look back at the other £40-50s I've spent on single player games over the years I get this time and time again, but not always. What is it that makes me play Fallout3 for 50 hours after finishing the story and getting to level20? What is it that made me replay the Zelda, BanjoKazooie, Mario, Final Fantasy etc games over and over for years after their purchase?

Has the online multiplayer aspect of many modern games changed my view on gaming as a whole? Possibly.

So thoughts... Do you look at games and consider their replayability as a factor? I certainly look at games now and only tend to only buy single player games once they have dropped in price or are pre-owned before buying - case in point I have yet to get inFamous (which I really want to play) because it's still so expensive, even pre-owned.
Are you a majoratively single or multiplayer gamer? And has this changed over the years? Does this factor into your purchases? Should single player games be cheaper?

 

[Radeonx]

Most single player games I buy either have long campaigns, or I love the theme or concept immensely. And I think it's worth the money.
And even so, in my experience, most single player games I buy are much better than the multiplayer games I get. With a few exceptions here and there, but overall, I'd rather have a good single player game then a good multiplayer one, and I'll pay $60 for one.

 

[Poopie McGhee]

Well, i'll just say Fallout 3 took well over 100 hours of my life, as Borderlands (hopefully) will do...
So, in some instances they are worth $60 (US), but otherwise I wait till the price goes down (or buy used)...
:~)

 

[BarkBark]

Personally I find a solid single player campaign more valuable than multilayer. I always found
multilayer a cheap way to add value to a game, but then again I never really liked online play.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Single Player games usually have enough content to make up for not having multiplayer. I think they're priced well at 40 pounds, which is what I think all games should be priced at on release.

 

[Maeshone]

I just keep 'em. Some day I'll probably want to pop it back in and have another go at it... Hell, I'm still playing the Sands of Time-trilogy rather regularly, but that was ps2 games so those were cheaper... Anyways, in order to answer the question posed, yes, I would love for all games to be cheaper, but, I have no issues with paying full price for a single-player game that's shirt with little replay-value (Mirror's Edge, love it and still play campaign occasionally) because I will probably pop it back into my console in a few months, or a year.

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

I am not shelling out 60 bucks for 15 hours of gameplay, but I think games like Fallout 3 are definitely worth their money. I typically rent single player titles.

 

[badgersprite]

I don't know about replayability, but I do question whether we're always getting our money's worth because I do think too many single player games are getting shorter as graphics get better, with the exception of maybe optional side missions (which, in open-world games, really do add a lot to the experience). But still, not all games have 100 extra optional side missions and, in those games, I'd expect to see much longer main stories. Not artificially lengthened, but just as long as old games used to be.

I'd be happy to go back to the days when single-player games came on four discs and consumed more than a year of my life if I wanted to see everything. Like, compare the length of Resident Evil 4 to Resident Evil 5, or the length of Final Fantasy XII compared to Final Fantasy VIII...

Games are a lot more expensive in Australia, so I do feel a pinch when I'm not sure I've gotten my money's worth with a game. I can replay through games that I've finished without any trouble. I don't mind doing the same thing twice. It's just annoying when I feel like I have to start again when I only got the game last week...

 

[Firia]

I think games should be cheaper period. They have no problem dropping prices from 60 to 30 a few months after initial release (not the case for blockbuster titles) to generate extra sales.

The problem with multiplayer vs single player is that each one has a drop off point. Multiplayer is only worth while if there are players to play with. Some games simply lose their player community after a period of time. The game then becomes worthless to play. Single player however requires voice actors, choreography, and a slew of expensive things that aren't found in multiplayer games (typically). So they both have drop-off points for playability. Single player costs can be costly compared to MP costs, which would make lowering costs for just SP less likely.

 

[Pimppeter2]

No.

Oblivion

/thread

 

[BlackJack47]

I remember replaying Resident Evil 4 about 29 times, same for Legend of Zelda: OOT