Are Online Only Console Games Worth $60?

What used to be exclusive to the PC, many console games have been coming out lately that are online only games. Should developers be charging $60 for these games? And are they worth the full retail price knowing that at any time a server shutdown can happen? RGT 85 shares his thoughts.

[De_Rezzed]

No

[poppinslops]

Depends on the game and how much you like it... I payed $60 for Titanfall and I still play it, with the free maps and modes making it well-worth the $$$.

Titanfall 2 is a day 1 buy for me, regardless of whether or not it has a campaign or any offline modes... and if the Witcher's 'Blood & Wine' expansion wasn't about to take over my life I'd almost-certainly be playing Overwatch.

If there wasn't a market for these games then they wouldn't exist... simple as that.

[XisThatKid]

Completely depends on the game because there are def some games I've played that have both single and multiplayer and nowhere near worth 60$. a game like Warhawk or MAG for PS3 or SOCOM easily imo worth 60$. This is very subjective though, I consider a games worth off of time of release to purchase, content and how much of it and the quality of it and how it's distributed in game, Most of all fun factor. I'll take a game outside of the popular belief of a standard game contains and that is online only minimal content but i just happen to love the game and play it for a long time, I'd say it's worth it. I think any game is worth it as long as you get your enjoyment to your money's worth out of it.

[poppinslops]

I understand people want their money's worth, but 'worth' and 'value' will always be subjective to the individual... I'm sure plenty of folks (myself included) would have paid upwards of $60 for a game like GTAV - which R* spent $250mil developing - and still considered it a 'bargain'.

But I don't see how a game's online status should pertain to it's worth... No Man's Sky is a $60 'online' game, whose production won't cost a fraction of what GTA did, but it'll have people sinking years (potentially lifetimes) into their outer-space adventures, getting every bit as much 'value' as I did from GTA.

[DragonKnight]

The answer remains no because consoles don't have access to private server options. When online only game gets its support pulled, no more game.

[beerzombie]

Ya I bought Titan fall for x1 and played the crapp out of it. Not having a story can mean a better game for multi-player . Just like having no multi-player can be good for single only games. Devs who focus on their core game, I think make the best games. Not forcing modes just to sell games.

[JackVagina]

The problem with Overwatch is that console players were duped. On PC you have the option of buying the standard edition for 40$ or the Origins edition for 60$. On console we only have the option of getting the 60$ Origins edition. Not only that but the origins edition only includes extra skins witch is pointless if literally everyone has them.

[XisThatKid]

Yea I DO agree with this even though I love Overwatch and would and have bought the game for 60$. even though I can't use some of that content anyway I say the game is worth it with or without the OE add ons. don't get me wrong I'd love to have paid 40$ for it if I could have. But if I felt it wasn't worth the money by itself, I wouldn't have bought it.
Well I paid 48$ because I preordered on Amazon Prime but I def would have paid the full 60$

[PhucSeeker]

Also the PC's origin got stuffs for others game. Console's ver got non.

[Seafort]

Blizzard is a PC developer and have their own website to buy their games from so they can offer cheaper versions of their games directly to PC gamers.

I'll be getting the basic version in a few days time for £30/$40. I'll earn the skins while playing like I do with other games like this.

It would be the reverse if this was a console developer .

[WoshJills]

Yes.

I'm a big fan of Rainbow 6: Siege. Since I bought it, it has continuously been developed, patched, moderated, balanced, tweaked, and given additional content since launch. All for free. Sure, the game initially cost me $60, but there is no paywall afterward 6 months into the game's lifecycle.

These companies do have to pay for servers, server cooling, and maintenance to keep multiplayer games up and running. This is aside from programmers, animators, modelers, artists, or directors. Eventually, we gamers have to acknowledge that if we want continued support, we need to pay the people who are making the things we love to enjoy regularly in our lives.

LOVE ARTISTS? PAY THEM.

I paid $60 for Uncharted 4 only for the single player. I beat the game in two weeks. However, I have been playing Rainbow Six: Siege for 6 months, now.

[holtzy]

No

[81BX]

Idk undead redemption was worth $60

[winter_hill]

It wasn't online only.

[TXIDarkAvenger]

But that wasn't online only if you are referring to Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare.

[81BX]

Rofl wtf? I totally went off topic.... my bad lol

[WoshJills]

Yes.

I'm a big fan of Rainbow 6: Siege. Since I bought it, it has continuously been developed, patched, moderated, balanced, tweaked, and given additional content since launch. All for free. Sure, the game initially cost me $60, but there is no paywall afterward 6 months into the game's lifecycle.

These companies do have to pay for servers, server cooling, and maintenance to keep multiplayer games up and running. This is aside from programmers, animators, modelers, artists, or directors. Eventually, we gamers have to acknowledge that if we want continued support, we need to pay the people who are making the things we love to enjoy regularly in our lives.

LOVE ARTISTS? PAY THEM.

I paid $60 for Uncharted 4 only for the single player. I beat the game in two weeks. However, I have been playing Rainbow Six: Siege for 6 months, now. Whichever one is a better value is a subjective opinion, but money is objective. Make no mistake: online games will always cost more money to maintain in the long run.

[alfcrippinjr]

rainbow six is a ok game but it should have also had offline play.
if you read about the game

they where going to give us offline play for terrorist hunts on the release day.

we would have had a offline play of terrorist hunt play against bots
which everyone wanted.

and they removed it which is bullshit how a software company can just do that.

these companies are getting money from sony to make online games only
to keep it active playstation plus.

plus online games only are the lazy way out like the division is

[superchiller]

Nope, they sure aren't. They're completely dependent on having an online connection and having other people connected and ready to play as well. They're throwaway games that will be dead and forgotten in (at most) a few years. When the online community dries up, or the servers go down, they become worthless and unplayable.

[freshslicepizza]

people pay $15 or more to see a 2 hour movie but you don't think a game that can be played for endless hours for even just a year (or longer) isn't worth $60 even if you are having tons of fun playing it? yeah ok, you make a lot of sense.

[bradfh]

@moldybread
Download a mobile game, play for hours for free.

If someone that charge full game price should have a campaign mode. I don't care if people don't play campaign, I buy games to play campaign and I will never buy an online only multiplayer.

[Godmars290]

Thing is games nowadays *can't* be played endlessly. They either last 2-4 hours or in this specific case require more than just your own butt sitting in a chair. Other audience members who are paying for online access on top of online.

[freshslicepizza]

@bradfh

i can respect people who pay $60 to play campaign games that may only last 10-12 hours but you can't respect people who pay $60 for an online only game they might get hundreds of hours of enjoyment?

[Aenea]

moldy, give it up, you can't win against these people, logic will not help.

I never understood it either, I love both SP and MP games and I have gotten more hours of enjoyment out of MP games than SP games and people don't seem to think they are worth it.

Besides the number of hours one can enjoy them I've also tried other logical things like MP games take as much time to make as SP games but people don't seem to believe that either, it's crazy really...

[freshslicepizza]

@Aenea

maybe it's just some people like having the disk in their hands and think online games serve no value because it's not a commodity they can trade in as easily or sell. or worse yet they are horders who like to collect games instead of just enjoying them. to me the vcalue is in the experience and if i can get hundreds of hours out of online gaming then it's pretty easy to justify $60. i love campaign games too but not many i can play over and over again.

[Bathyj]

So youre saying because online games have an expiry date (when the community dies out or the servers shut down) that they arent worth the money, but because offline games can be played forever they are?

Dude, I only play single player, I hate online games, but thats flawed logic. If you are getting 2 or 3 years out of an online release of course its worth it. The reality is most single player games you will only play once or twice, maybe a couple more than that, and maybe you'll hold onto them and give it another go in 10 years for nostalgia's sake, but you'll probably get 50-100 hours of play total out of an adventure game like Uncharted or Tombraider (that being generous) but an online game you could get 1000s. The fact you can play it after a few years is irrelevant. Nothing last for ever, and I dont measure value in hours. If an online game is worth it to a player than its worth it even with an expiration date.

[iTechHeads]

The online connection isn't a problem at all.
It's just that the content itself isn't worth full price.

Games like Uncharted 4 have a full-blown single player story AND decent multiplayer.

[UltraNova]

That's it right there ^^^

As long as games like Uncharted exist, then the answer to the question of- is an online only game worth 60 bucks will always be, NO.

How about this: Take Uncharted 4, why not divide the game between SP and MP on two separately sold discs, at 40 bucks each and offer the full version on one disc for 60?

This way SP or MP only games will always cost 40 and if a dev wants to make a game with both then they can offer choice.

The only game that cant be divided like that is Dark Souls because SP and MP are inseparable and totally worth 60 bucks from the get go. Granted, its a 1:1000 thing but exceptions do apply.

[Aenea]

I love MP games (and SP games), loved U4's SP, not a great fan of the MP tho, rather play Battlefield 4 (yes, a 3 year old game, go figure!)...

[Seafort]

They might be throwaway games on consoles when a new generation starts you don't have access to it anymore but on PC the game will still be alive and kicking many years down the line.

That's the downside to console gaming and the massive upside to PC gaming.

You want to play Overwatch for years to come get it on PC and not console.

[superchiller]

Nah, PC gaming isn't worth it to me. Constant need to upgrade hardware, no physical games, playing on a small PC monitor, hassle connecting to the TV, lack of uniform support for controllers, inability to just sit back on the couch and play, etc. Not worth it at all.

[TheBurger29]

@superchiller
Are you trolling? I have had my pc for 5 years and have not had to upgrade once, you can get different sized monitors if you actually googled it you would see that, hassle connecting to the tv????? Its called an HDMI, same thing a console uses. Controllers work with almost all games, be it 360, xone, or ps4 controllers. Plug a controller into the pc and play the damn games on the couch! My god are all console people this stupid.

[Seafort]

@superchiller

Constant upgrading? That's news to me. Due to the low power of the consoles now PC gamers don't have to upgrade half as much as they used to.

And what do you call buying a new console with upgraded hardware? To me that's constantly upgrading every few years just like on PC.

You might want to research what you type next time and discover the 21st century as you seem to have been stuck under a rock for a long time.

Consoles will have a digital only future too soon enough then maybe we can actually all get cheaper games and not be at the mercy of retailer pricing. Games will still cost more on consoles than PC due to added royalties from the console overlords.

[AuraAbjure]

Yes, if there's enough depth.

[Godmars290]

And what do you regard as depth? Character/weapon customizations? A coop story mode? Layered -vertical- arenas? Adaptive AI?

Edit:
Forget that concerning AI, devs seems to be struggling with it as much as they did two console generations ago.

[lxtrxi]

Without a doubt, no.

[Soulrakk]

If there's enough depth, yes. Multiplayer can be played for endless amounts of hours with various results. A single player campaign only game on the other hand can't ever live up to that. If you're going to ask me which one I'd pay $60 for, I'll take the multiplayer one every day of the week. Single player only experiences are dated in my opinion.

[LamerTamer]

Unless one doesn't like playing with others online. There are restrictions, there has to be someone else playing at the same time you want to, you have to have a good connection, the servers need to be available, you need to play at someone else's pace etc. The experiences are basically limited to a bunch of foul mouthed brats running around a "map" shoot, die re-spawn, rinse repeat. It is ok if you like that sort of thing but not everyone does. Some prefer stories etc that aren't found in MP only games. Saying something is "dated" because it is not MP only is nonsense.

[Soulrakk]

Fair enough, but it's also nonsense to discredit a multiplayer game that you think has to be about shooting each other. An online only game can be Division, Destiny, Diablo etc. Or any game that's online only co-op. You're opinion is valid but can be said the same about single player experiences, and even more so. I know for me, once I play through a single player game, I'm done with it. Meanwhile I'm still playing Destiny & Diablo years later & having different experiences every time. Even if we're just talking PVP wise, I STILL play Battlefield 4, a launch title & Titanfall. When was the last time you played through a launch title single player game because you can't put it down? Sorry if you disagree, but I still feel like the single player only games is a dated concept. If the game doesn't have multiplayer or co-op of any kind, it gets played through & then traded in or collects dust. Everyone is different and I totally get that, I'm just giving you a reason why "online only" games ARE worth $60. You said it best, some prefer it, some don't. So why can't online only games be worth it? Some of the highest grossing titles of all time are heavily focused on multiplayer.

[Yui_Suzumiya]

$40

[kratos90]

He mentions you have to pay for additional DLC for Overwatch yet Blizzard said all Maps and future characters will be free. This guy needs to get his facts checked.

[blackblades]

No game is worth $60 unless you get stuff like ost or artbook or whatever. Paying $60 is a choice you can either pay full price at launch or wait a month and get it for $40-$50 or longer for cheaper.

[SonyStyled]

Single player components of games is permanent. You can always have the same experience tens of years later. A mp only game tens of years later is just worth it's memory, assuming the servers are shut

[BlakHavoc]

Depends, if there's plenty of content than yes. If not obviously no, doesn't matter if its only online. Destiny had plenty of content imo so I feel like it was worth $60, but a game like Evolve or Titanfall, nope.

[Playable_Gamez]

Agree... Destiny and the Division at $60 are fine. But games like Splatoon, Evolve, Titanfall, and Battlefront are not worth $60

[nitus10]

I sort of agree with you but if some of the reviews with gameplay that I have seen on Destiny and "The Division" I don't think they are worth US$60. I think "grind fest" and "boring" come to mind here.

Surprisingly "Splattoon" actually got some quite good reviews and the gameplay looked fairly interesting. Titanfall came off as interesting but Battlefront (assuming StarWars EA) had incredible graphics but fairly mediocre and in some respects tedious gameplay.

As for "Evolve", what to say. Here is a game that was designed for DLC and I think that says it all. In other words "Give me money!".

If some people liked these games then fine but personally I don't think they were worth $60 initially.

At least you don't need a monthly subscription to play these games like WoW ... Oh wait!

[Mr-Dude]

Division $60? No way... I can understand a lot people like it. But that game was not what they promised.

[Realms]

Simple answer no I remember when games always had a campaign mode even if they focused heavily online, however many publishers realized that some people would buy them regardless thus giving you games with a very shallow gaming experience that leave you wondering if they where worth the price of admission, cough cough Battlefront, Titan fall, Evolve...etc.

[Bathyj]

Only if you play online games. If you do then its totally worth it.

[Big_Game_Hunters]

IDK Console gamers pay that much just to play online so for them i assume yes.
For me its about each game's individual content and quality. Plenty of SP AND MP games i wouldn't pay one cent for

[Silkside]

So single player games that offer 8-12 hours of gameplay is worth $60 but a multiplayer game that gives you hundreds of hours of competitive gameplay isn't worth it?

Just think of multiplayer only games as a different genre of games, if you're not into it then give it a pass and shut up. Many people think that it's good value, who are you to say otherwise?

Your frustration with the pricing is so misguided.

[LamerTamer]

Well in general MP only games are easier to make. You don't need to script complex story lines, dialogue, voice acting etc. Basically with MP you just design maps and then throw players in who make their own entertainment. I am sure games like The Witcher 3 cost much more to make than something like S.W. Battlefront.

As if it is worth it ,that is up to the one buying the game. BTW I don't think an 8 hour SP game is worth $60 either, that is much too short. To me they should be at LEAST 15 hours long to be worth the price.

[ginsunuva]

I mean, it's someone's opinion whether something is "worth" whatever.

[nitus10]

You are both right and wrong at the same time.

Sure it is up to the gamer as to if they are going to purchase a particular game, however, developers and to a greater extent the distributors dictate as to whether a game has multiplayer, single player or even how much DLC it can have and god forbid "pay to win" content.

If players just lap up what is thrown to them then the developers will continue to produce more of the same and even get involved in more dubious practices mainly because they can get away with it. In many respects, this hurts the gaming industry but many people, particularly some casuals can't see this as long as they get their "thing" or the next "shiny".

[TXIDarkAvenger]

I'm going to say no for consoles. Online communities die pretty fast on consoles.

[solid_snake3656]

I'd still be playing socom if they didn't shut the servers down.

[TKCMuzzer]

Thats because there are to many games released. Communities don't have time to build because gamers are always moving on to the next game. If more devs offered free maps etc the communities would last longer but they segregate gamers to much.

[lastking95]

Only my favs lol

[King Nezz]

Heck no. This is the main issue I have with going digital only. $40 or $45 is the sweet spot for me. Until then, I'll go after digital titles when they drop in price.

[OldGuyStillGaming]

Overwatch will be $25-30 in a couple months
That will be the time to buy

This week I'd rather get the definitive edition of Dead Island for $40

[ShinRon]

It depends on what goes into making and promoting the game, how good it is and how it will be supported down the line.

[dragonopt1]

ONLY if the added content is absolutely free. All new dlc etc should be free of charge, if I had to pay $60 plus dlc for online only....hell no

[ShinRon]

There is 0 logic in treating mp only games like second rate experiences... theres reasoning for peoples irrational beliefs but no actual good reasons.

The market has the answer and the market says yes, just wait for May NPD...

[irishyort]

It's not a 2nd rate experience but you cant tell me that as much work goes into a AAA with both PVP and PVE is the same as a MP only game. Lets give it a fake value in years : AAA with both 3 year dev cycle, AAA with MP only 1.5 years as it is only half of the other game. It's about being fair to the consumer.

Overwatch is a perfect example of this, there is no storyline there is no backstory thought and lore even as a challenge and world to build the characters around.

Destiny on the other hand while they had their problems (Many didn't like it and still don't), but it's highly rated these days by regular players for its MP experience, but they also had a pretty beefy campaign and story they built.

With all the extra effort Bungie put in for that should they only be getting the same amount as Blizzard for their half a game? NO. That's not fair to developers and not fair to the consumers. My worry is what do devs now do in the future, does a single and MP online game now come with double the pricetag of Overwatch?

I own both and am happy to pay these amounts for good experiences, but I can see where other people are coming from for sure

[NotoriousWhiz]

N4g is clearly full of single player gamers and collectors. I pay $60 for dinner for 3 at a restaurant and that's gone after a couple hours. If the game is good and worth my time, I will spend money on it. I don't buy games so I can play them 15 years from now. I buy them to enjoy them right now.

[danielc1991]

I think it's up to each person. I am not a huge fan of playing online games (I play online ocasionally) so I don't buy online only games. But other people only play online so it's worth it for them. This specially applies to hardcore gamers who are perfectly aware of what they are getting, it's not like battlefront was advertised as a single and multiplayer game (or the Tomb Raider reboot was advertised as having multiplayer).

[NapalmSanctuary]

No, just because a day will come when they aren't worth the hard drive space or disc they are printed on. If you are talking MP only games, the answer is still no for 1) the reason stated above. Adding bots takes care of that. 2) depends on how much content comes in the base package. SWBF was worth, maybe, $20. while on the flipside, oldschool SWBF1&2 were well worth the $50 retail price.

[SprigganN4G]

nope

[PaleMoonDeath]

Pay for the internet bill, the machine, the subscription service and the entire game that requires a certain two on top of that? No. half price or no buy, online only is half a game in my eyes, not a game at all after the servers go down.

[TKCMuzzer]

The internet bill is pushing the reasons a bit. I pay for my internet whether I game or not as it's pretty much a staple of modern household bills and gives access to so much more than online gaming.
The other reasons are fine but you may aswell include the electrical bill in the list as well.

[iTechHeads]

Not at all.

[Shadowolf]

Absolutely not!

[madpuppy]

Star wars Battlefront of all games SHOULD have had a Single player story mode, That is what Star Wars is all about, an engaging story with likable characters that are beloved by moviegoers and gamers. To not include one was pathetic to say the least.

[TKCMuzzer]

Yet, millions of people made the decision to buy the game already aware of that fact, unfortunately if there is a audience then devs will go for it.

[WickedLester]

I bought it. It along with Street Fighter 5 have been my most regretted game purchases this generation.

[irishyort]

IF the article is in direct reference to Overwatch - short answer - No.

Less short answer - No. But if they have content that lets people play for an extended period of time and flesh out the online only game maybe.

Destiny - Yes - Has PVP and PVE content so is worthwhile

Overwatch - No - Doesn't have enough content even with Bots as a diversion for offline. It still needs far more maps and modes for the asking price

Battleborn - Meh but yes. Has enough of a single player content (6 Hours) but really not decent enough to last in its current format

[irishyort]

also the risk is to the industry and gamers is that if they put in half the development hours to give you a PVP online only game, does someone that gives you both a full PVP and PVE game start charging $110..... Could this start a bad trend?

[Skate-AK]

Depends on how much you like it. I paid $60 for MAG and it was one of the best game experiences I have had and have never had one like that since. Sadly now it is a coaster.

[Tobsesan]

If they are done right yes, but you need to have enough modes, maps and unkockable stuff to keep people playing. If you cant do that, make the game 40$ or fck off

[quent]

If forward and backward compatibility can be guaranteed by console makers then maybe.

[Realms]

Some people are missing the point publishers have realized that a certain number of gamers specifically the FPS community will migrate to latest game i.e. Destiny, then Battlefront, now The Division and can given you less of a game but once they move on to the next game it becomes apparent how shallow those experiences really are, and the only way to bring gamers back is through DLC which brings up a whole new set of reasons as to why big publishers do this which is to give you the least amount of content only to then sell it as DLC in the future. It's fine by me if some gamers want to continue to feed this practice but that is the reason some games feel like a rip off and shallow as hell.

[CrimsonGuardVII]

if you get 60hrs of playtime out of it, then yea.

[Aenea]

Basically this is: are games you don't like worth $60?

Many people replying seem to be single player fans so of course they are going to say "no"...

[theshredded]

No, get that sh*t away from console. Only exception I'd consider is if the so called season pass is free

[Clown_Syndr0me]

If the content is there, yes. I played BF4 MP for 150 hours without playing SP.
Most single player games last me 10-15 hours.
So in that scenario I got 10x value for money on the MP game. Yes BF4 has singleplayer but from sake of argument I ignored that.

Games like Battlefront however I played 10 hours and was bored.

[alfcrippinjr]

NO they are a total rip off online games should be cheaper
you also have to pay another $50 to play it online

plus the software company control what happens with the games and when to shut them down.

hey try and get your moneys worth of the division broken arse game

all ps4 online only game should have a big sticker saying

your games going to cost you $90 for online only (canada prices)
and also your going to need to purchase also a playstation plus card for $50
yeah its cheap i know.

me personel think and for sure im correct sony is pushing big money to game developers
to make those games online play only.

i rather spend my money on a game with a good campaign and offline
like just cause 4 is

online games only should be in the $30 to $40 max

[DivineAssault]

Not to me.. If its missing a campaign which should be the main component, then no.. I chose to buy doom instead of overwatch because of this.. I really wanted to buy it too but if theres no SP, its going to be useless when they cut off the servers.. Ill rent/ borrow overwatch later on as much as i wanted to get it.. Blizzard had something good going but chose the lazy way out by cutting the SP.. Im disappointed with them about that..

[Sokol]

Absolutely No..

[T2X]

Well, to be fair. Things are only worth what someone is willing to pay. I look at it like this, for $60 I get X amount of hours. Single or Multiplayer. To me it's the same as paying $40 to go see a movie ($15 for a ticket, $8 for Popcorn, $4 for a drink. Maybe another odd $12 bucks for candy or a beer (Yes, these are real prices where I live and I'm being on the low side considering if you want to buy 2 tickets (For you and someone else or even add more to that for 3D or IMAX movies. I have literally spend almost $100 bucks for my wife and I to see a movie. It's all over in about 2 hours. See? The game I can at least play over and over again if I feel like it. Am I really going to care about every game I own years down the road? Most likely no. Another thing to consider is this, depending on your age (I am old enough to remember going to the arcade) I think of how many quarters I poured into those machines and it was much more than $60. But back then if you wanted that full experience you couldn't get it on your Atari 2600. Now you can get that and much more in your own home. And then there are those who feel that they should crank out a game like GTAV which costs millions to make and produce and market and give it to us for $30 dollars. It's not reasonable considering the ridiculous amounts of money these projects cost today. I feel I always get at least $60 worth of use out of every game. It's the cost of a controller and look at how many of those you'll go through. That's my two cents anywhoo! Take care.

[MasterD919]

Hell no they aren't.

[shinrock]

Online only =$20-30
Single player only =$20-30
Both=$60

[FPS_D3TH]

No, Overwatch is not worth $60. $80 here in Canada. Keep your laggy arena shooter, I'm in no rush to buy an online only unfinished game for $60-$80. We'll talk when it's a cool $30

[Akira2020]

I always wait a few months until they drop in price by $20 or more. During the wait, I just hit my backlog of older games that need to be finished (or leveled up via multiplayer).

[NeoGamer232]

Game costing should become uniform throughout with three major principles. These principles should be:

1) Every game should have an option for a one time cost to play the entire game without microtransactions
2) Every game should have the opportunity to be bought thru pay as you play (microtransactions). Essentially, for people who are willing to grind for eternity or for people who can't afford the upfront cost.
3) A complete, full price game is valued based on genre expectations. (RPGs are long but complex games with typically no MP, Shooters are shorter campaigns but have coop and MP, etc.)

I have bought less and less games over the past two years because these principles have been followed less and less by publishers.

[PurpHerbison]

$40 at the most.

[GoodnessGreatness]

NO! Especially here in Canada where we pay $80 for new games! It's probably why I might not buy Overwatch till it come's down to $30 at least

[Sokol]

Same here, 30$ is all I'm willing to pay for a game content Overwatch offers.