This console generation has seen the surge of multiplayer only games, some of which are among the most popular releases. The AAA industry has been hoping for the death of single player games for well over a decade. Multiplayer games provide plenty of opportunities for extra monetization. I can already see publisher executives salivating with dollar signs in their eyes. Many of these games are released at full price along with microtransactions and DLC. The industry loves to use the free-to-play model while charging full price. So why not just fully embrace the model? Multiplayer only games should always be free-to-play. Microtransactions are shoved into them anyway. The game will become worthless once the servers go down. Such games don’t offer enough content to justify the $60 price tag.
They Already Have Microtransactions
Even though publishers charge full price, the shove microtransactions into their premium game. No longer are publishers satisfied with game sale. Now they need to make even more money then all the money in the world. Multiplayer only games provides many opportunities for extra monetization. Overwatch popularized the loot box, which infected the games industry in 2017. Executives have been hoping for the death of single player for that very reason. If they’re going to use the F2P model, just make the game free. The players that gravitate to these types of games are more likely to purchase the microtransactions. Popular multiplayer games have large player bases, meaning there will be plenty of profit to be had.
Dead Servers Equals Dead Game
If the game is F2P, the player won’t feel as betrayed when the servers are no longer supported. This is always a significant fear for any multiplayer only game. When the servers go down, the game becomes worthless and unplayable. Of course, that only applies to console players, since the PC players often create their own servers. Publishers never stop to think about the players, unless its to squeeze more money out of them. Always be weary about playing full price for these games. You are better off sticking to games like Fortnite or Paladins rather than Overwatch or PUBG. While all these games may die, you’ll feel less pissed if you didn’t physically buy the game.
Content Doesn’t Justify The Price
The problem with multiplayer only games is few offer enough content to justify the $60 price tag. Kill the other team before they kill your team. You’ll get new maps from time to time and events. Do the same thing over and over until you get bored of the game. Sure, the games are designed to hook players for hours and hours, but that doesn’t mean the content is worthwhile. Maybe I don’t see the appeal due to my indifference to online multiplayer. Either way, $60 seems to be too expensive for this type of game.
For over a decade, publisher executives have sounded the call for the death of single player. Online multiplayer was supposed to supersede everything. While these games are popular, they didn’t kill single player. What publishers did instead was force microtransactions in premium games. They adopted the F2P model while still charging $60. What happens when the servers are shut down? The player is left with an unplayable waste of money. If AAA publishers want to embrace this model, they should go all the way with it. That will never happen since that will leave a few pennies on the table. Until then, I will not ever buy multiplayer only games. And no, its not because I don’t have friends to play with. Why do you ask?