Infamous gets massive downgrade from E3. Will the Sony stans rage, or cop pleas?

[ltheghost]

I literally paid 60 for Battlefield 3 and never touched the SP. Have I not made that clear? I've paid $10-15 for games that are local multiplayer only. I even paid $30 for early access to this: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gutefabrik/sportsfriends-featuring-johann-sebastian-joust

Well you are what EA is targetting. The FPS player. They know they can release a game that is really worth 40 and make you pay 60 for it. Then add on DLC which they know you will pay for. But that's you and that's cool, I'm saying it isn't right. You should be getting much more than what they are offering you. Come to the dark side. Get off those FPS...and come to the RPG world. Come play Skyrim for months.....lol

edit...you do realize that if you break it down....single player is 30 and the multi was worth 30 that's why they charged you 60. I just think you should get MORE for 60 bucks. Not just multiplayer..and yes I believe mulitplayer shooters are rips offs. At max you should only be paying 30 or 40. It's just dishonest.

 

[Kodie]

Well you are what EA is targetting. The FPS player. They know they can release a game that is really worth 40 and make you pay 60 for it. Then add on DLC which they know you will pay for. But that's you and that's cool, I'm saying it isn't right. You should be getting much more than what they are offering you. Come to the dark side. Get off those FPS...and come to the RPG world. Come play Skyrim for months.....lol

I tried Skyrim and I found it boring (like all Beth RPGs). But I enjoyed The Witcher 2, Mass Effect series and I think I'd enjoy Obsidian RPGs. I played Counter-Strike for years and never bought any DLC off it. I don't generally buy DLC anyway. You saying it's not right is what's BS to me. It may not be worth it to you but it's worth it to me. And as far as cost to make goes, they had a set budget. If they decided to put in single player, it would have taken away from multiplayer. I'd much rather it this way. I put in 100+ hours into COD4 multiplayer and maybe 6 hours into single player. You tell me which one of those pieces was more worth my $60.

 

[chemicalsword]

If it's good and you like MP shooters, it should easily provide dozens of hours of gameplay. If it's not good, it doesn't matter because you shouldn't buy it anyway. Just like you shouldn't buy a bad SP-only game.

Nobody has a problem with SP-only. Nobody has a problem with SP/MP. Nobody should have a problem with MP-only. If it's not your cup of tea, then fine leave it at that. But don't try impose your rules on everyone.

try to impose my rules?
I listed only some of the many variables that can effect your entire experience when dealing with multiplayer. if you want to accept this new beast called multi only at full retail... have at it. don't impose MY rules.. lol.. breh please..

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Just can't understand the logic that a multiplayer game that you could get 100+ hours out of is not worth $60, but a Single player only game that you'll get 10-20 hours out of is worth $60

 

[ltheghost]

I tried Skyrim and I found it boring (like all Beth RPGs). But I enjoyed The Witcher 2, Mass Effect series and I think I'd enjoy Obsidian RPGs. I played Counter-Strike for years and never bought any DLC off it. I don't generally buy DLC anyway. You saying it's not right is what's BS to me. It may not be worth it to you but it's worth it to me. I put in 100+ hours into COD4 multiplayer and maybe 6 hours into single player. You tell me which one of those pieces was more worth my $60.

It's not right! My point is....you shouldn't just be paying 60 for MP. I know you think it is worth it, but in all reality you are getting ripped off. Counter-Strike was ahead of it's time and they would never charge you 60 for the MP. Because it's blasphemous. And only that Unholy business known as EA would dare make you pay 60 for just MP. It isn't worth 60 breh. You may love it, but you overpaying and they know they can make you pay more. It's not right to treat customers like that. So I guess you are going to buy the DLC for Titanfall....Don't trust EA breh....just don't. They ruined Mass Effect and if you let them...they will take your draws. (How could you not like Skyrim )

 

[ltheghost]

Just can't understand the logic that a multiplayer game that you could get 100+ hours out of is not worth $60, but a Single player only game that you'll get 10-20 hours out of is worth $60

We are talking about mulitplayer FPS. And I'm being dead serious in the spirit of Counter Strike...I'm not paying 60 for a MP shooter. And there are a lot of garbage single player games out there but how many MP shooting only games are out there charging 60? And we are talking about EA!!!!! fukking EA!!!

 

[Fatboi1]

Just can't understand the logic that a multiplayer game that you could get 100+ hours out of is not worth $60, but a Single player only game that you'll get 10-20 hours out of is worth $60

Value is subjective. I played TLOU and beat it once while I beat UC2 many times and played the MP for hundreds of hours. I still think TLOU was worth every penny despite me playing it less than UC2. A MP game may not be fun to you. I bought Halo 4 and that had SP/MP and coop and yet I probably put in less than 30 hours into the MP.

 

[chemicalsword]

there's no guarantee the singe-player game will be enjoyable or replayable either and most games these days have dlc sp and mp

no its not.. but thats the risk you take. and whether you like it or not has a lot to do with personal preference and opinions. you might not like it but someone else prolly does. but opinions aside you can ALWAYS play that single player game. Wife Piss you off.. or you running the country and need an escaPe after a skressful day.. turn on that multi only game and guess what... you just got hit with a variable. servers down. full retail for very likelyhood you will encounter that?? nah. we've all been there.....

 

[Kodie]

It's not right! My point is....you shouldn't just be paying 60 for MP. I know you think it is worth it, but in all reality you are getting ripped off. Counter-Strike was ahead of it's time and they would never charge you 60 for the MP. Because it's blasphemous. And only that Unholy business known as EA would dare make you pay 60 for just MP. It isn't worth 60 breh. You may love it, but you overpaying and they know they can make you pay more. It's not right to treat customers like that. So I guess you are going to buy the DLC for Titanfall....Don't trust EA breh....just don't. They ruined Mass Effect and if you let them...they will take your draws. (How could you not like Skyrim )

I agree about EA but I don't like a lot of these big corporations (Bethesda killed id and I'm worried about what they'll do to Mikami). I don't understand though how you can say 60 for MP is objectively not worth it. That's as dumb as saying 60 for SP is objectively not worth it. First of all value is subjective but if you want to make it objective than the metrics show that MP can be at least every bit as worth your money as SP. The metrics I would use are hours played or cost to create. I can't imagine a metric one can objectively use where MP doesn't come out at the same value as SP. And here's another thing to consider - SP experiences are always the same. Forever. I can buy Skyrim on a Steam sale for $10 (actually I did) and it's the same experience you had when you bought it at 60.

I don't trust EA, I don't trust Ubisoft, I don't trust Bethesda, I don't trust Capcom, I don't trust Konami. I evaluate each experience on a per-game basis. I try not to make a blanket statement and try to apply it to games I've never played.

As for not liking Skyrim I don't know man. I want to but Bethesda RPGs bore me. Some quests are awesome (Dark Brotherhood in Oblivion) but most of the time I feel like I'm not doing anything particularly fun. And I don't like the combat system either.

 

[Kodie]

no its not.. but thats the risk you take. and whether you like it or not has a lot to do with personal preference and opinions. you might not like it but someone else prolly does. but opinions aside you can ALWAYS play that single player game. Wife Piss you off.. or you running the country and need an escaPe after a skressful day.. turn on that multi only game and guess what... you just got hit with a variable. servers down. full retail for very likelyhood you will encounter that?? nah. we've all been there.....

If that happens but I still manage to get hundreds of hours of enjoyable gameplay, then at the end of the day, my money was still well spent.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

We are talking about mulitplayer FPS. And I'm being dead serious in the spirit of Counter Strike...I'm not paying 60 for a MP shooter. And there are a lot of garbage single player games out there but how many MP shooting only games are out there charging 60? And we are talking about EA!!!!! fukking EA!!!

I'm not sure what the publisher has to do with the value of a game. And other games are MP centered and give a half ass campaign just to say they did one. People think the game is worth $60 and even more with DLC. It's not up to you to decide that they are stupid or sheep, or whatever other epithet you wanna toss out.

Value is subjective. I played TLOU and beat it once while I beat UC2 many times and played the MP for hundreds of hours. I still think TLOU was worth every penny despite me playing it less than UC2. A MP game may not be fun to you. I bought Halo 4 and that had SP/MP and coop and yet I probably put in less than 30 hours into the MP.

I wasn't saying that the single payer games aren't worth the money. I think they are all worth the money. I'd rather pay $60 up front then get some free to play or $30 shyt with a bunch of monetization schemes.

 

[chemicalsword]

If that happens but I still manage to get hundreds of hours of enjoyable gameplay, then at the end of the day, my money was still well spent.

i feel you. I put in hundreds of hours into tetris... mike tyson punch out.. and currently fifa.
if I pay full retail.. when i need an escape I want it right then and there. I just can't fathom
not being able to play a video game I paid full retail for as soon as insert disc. I'm not against
multi only breh. huge fan of warhawk and socom. just not a fan of those games at full retail.
when I want it I need it then. no variables.....

 

[Hiphoplives4eva]

are y'all okay with paying 60 for a single-player only game too?

Exactly. These same fukkers said nothing when Killzone charged folk an EXTRA 19.99 to play the multiplayer game, but they have all these fukking insults for Respawn and M$ for charging for their game. ITs ironically the same idiots that dont have Xbox's nor claim to be interested in owning one.

 

[Kodie]

i feel you. I put in hundreds of hours into tetris... mike tyson punch out.. and currently fifa.
if I pay full retail.. when i need an escape I want it right then and there. I just can't fathom
not being able to play a video game I paid full retail for as soon as insert disc. I'm not against
multi only breh. huge fan of warhawk and socom. just not a fan of those games at full retail.
when I want it I need it then. no variables.....

I respect that you may not want to pay full price. There are many reasons to not pay full price. But I don't think it's malicious on the part of Respawn, or even EA, to sell this at $60. And I don't think of people that buy it at $60 as simply sheep. I think they know what they enjoy and they know that they will enjoy this.

 

[Kodie]

Exactly. These same fukkers said nothing when Killzone charged folk an EXTRA 19.99 to play the multiplayer game, but they have all these fukking insults for Respawn and M$ for charging for their game. ITs ironically the same idiots that dont have Xbox's nor claim to be interested in owning one.

Are you referring to the season pass?