Do multiplayer-only – especially ONLINE-Only – video games deserve to be the same price as a single player game?

Don't be a fucking pinko.

Tribes2 had an offline bot practice mission(s) iirc. :p

But the answer is fucking NO. I played Tribes (whatever version) a year ago and it was full of hackers and shit and completely and obviously fucked the game experience. If they are not going to manage the ONLINE experience and not provide an OFFLINE game, they shouldn't even be in the business.

I have a similar question, when you have a mostly multiplayer focused gameplay with classes, abilities and cooldowns like current MOBA shooters, how do you implement single player content in said game? should it be co-op? or you think there is a viable way to make it single player when there is a risk of "missing stuff" with new characters being introduced later?

An offline set of scenarios would work very well. Take for example Mount and Blade and Mount and Blade: Warband, most either play the campaign or the multiplayer, but the custom skirmish and scenario modes both work very well and can be enjoyable in their own right. Granted, it's not as much content as I would like, but it's still content. For an MMORPG, I would implement a few singleplayer dungeon scenarios, covering multiple different level ranges. They would for the most part be refocused versions of dungeons in the main game, but with some standouts specifically designed for singleplayer.

Children have no means to improve their lives by generating income through labour. Children cannot be held culpable for the living conditions brought about by their parents. For a society to thrive, all children should be given a fair childhood: proper education, proper living conditions, and proper medical care, regardless of the stupidity, misfortune, or lack of parents. You kneejerk "muh communism", when in reality it is impossible for nationalism to exist in a society where the poor are so widely separated by such barriers from the middle and upper classes.

I'll give you exactly ONE guess as to who said this.

tl;dr
Fuck off and die retard

I never said anything about Communism. I merely wanted to know why you believe video games should be free. From my point of view they're a luxury and not a requirement, and thus should cost more than necessities such as food, heating, housing and hydration.

There is no definitive answer.

SHitler

It isn't a necessity, it's simply another facet of "fair childhood", which in a hypothetical "should be" scenario would be the ideal. Intentionally denying the future generation access to the same cultural assets as the middle and upper class would potentially cause a greater separation of national identity, which obviously is detrimental to the very concept of nationalism. If children are to form a sense of fellowship with their countrymen, they should not be denied the small luxuries of their peers.

But is it really beneficial? From my own experience, video games have been quite detrimental to myself as a person, much as smoking or drinking is to smokers or regular drinkers. While my psychological ailments and detriments might have been innate, they've only been exasperated by access to video games. Furthermore, plentiful and easily accessible luxuries such as alcohol, tobacco or illicit drugs often correlates with economic depression. Whether it is the pleasure brought from those devices of affixation which causes it or the economic depression that encourages their usage is difficult to say.

I see, it may not be much but I want to try developing a template for a class shooter like OW without all the stupid balance mistakes, that on itself doesn't sound good I know but I see people really complaining about no single player content, sometimes I agree.

A class shooter doesn't have to be shit. Gameplay wise, having different characters with different abilities and different applications for those abilities isn't a bad thing. I've never played and never will play Overwatch, so I wouldn't know how it pulls off or fails to pull of a class system.

It doesn't matter if videogames are beneficial or not. "Oh well that's probably not good for you anyways." Neither is candy. The point is that denying such small luxuries to a fraction of children for reasons entirely beyond their control is inherently unfair, and divides the future solidarity of a nation's citizens.

But life itself is unfair. The goal shouldn't be to make things fair or equal, but to make things optimal, sustainable and efficient. I'd say the modern economy we live in is very fair and equal: the poor, the rich and whoever is in between can all grow fat and slovenly, covered in grease from either rotting chicken and chemically infused cheeseburger, their daily cooking, or a 15 course meal from a five star restaurant.

For starters, there is only one hero who can fly for at least 20 seconds straight, she has a rocket launcher with 120dmg direct hit and 80dmg splash damage from the center, said rockets don't have any falloff, to "deal" with her you need a hitscan hero, the first has an assault rifle with an effective range of 20m before falloff, the second hitscan has a six shooter with more potent damage but similar falloff, the other is a very big robot who dies to a sneeze despite having armor, the other one is a sniper with no falloff but still not ideal.

Originally the rocket queen was meant to be countered by hitscans but people cried and she got buffed with said mobility bonus, when the hitscan is able to deal with her then someone switches to Mercy, a TF2 medic who can glide towards her patient, do 60 hps or give 30% damage boost on said patient, she also has regenerative health which kicks in 1 second after not taking damage, which means, if you focus her, she gets into cover and the rocket queen kills you, if you focus the rocket queen you have to either headshot or not try at all because she gets health faster than you are able to deal damage if you are not using an aimbot.

Oh BTW, the medic can and WILL revive rocket queen on the spot.

From a consumer view, nope. You are spending more money for what would normally be half of a game. Especially when they are going to hit you up with microtransactions, online only, and season pass bs as well.

From a devs view? Yeah. They will price it as high as people (retards) will pay for it with the least amount of content required to save money/make more money.

There's no real answer to this.
Like what single player game? A $10 lesbian walking simulator? A $40 action game? A $20 80 hour RPG?

I don't value single player story campaigns as much as I value the kind of journey in skill from competitive online games however. The always online thing is bullshit however automatically makes a game worth $0 to me.

Some FOSS game can probably get some children away from the usual psychologically exploitative microtx F2P games. I actually came across children when I play multiplayer open source games just Xonotic. That's the one tangible benefit I can see it being, of course there's others concerning software ethics and ensuring the game does what it says it does (e.g when games are torrented, even singleplayer the common recommendation is to block outgoing connections for it because of possible data mining or snooping).

Depends on the game, the developer, and the publisher. Mostly the publisher.

If they only focus on that one game/series? Sure.
If they manage multiple games and projects at one time? No.

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Holy fuck you're gay. Video games are a hobby/toy, not some vibrant, enriching experience for all to share.

Has there even been such a game that wasn't a complete flop? The only $60 multiplayer-only game I can think of in recent memory is Evolve and that was a catastrophic failure.

In recent times I mean. Most multiplayer only games seem to shoot for $40 at the most these days

Considering you get far more time for your money with multiplayer games, if anything they should be more expensive than single player only games.

Pinko is a degoratory term used by US goverment officials against those who were suspected to be linked with those of the communist party during the cold war because of their liberal policies.

Though, if you ask me, they should just have been called faggots and given free helicopter rides for supporting such a fucked up ideology.

Translation, you got BTFO. I played tribes for years and no one uses hacks because you genuinely get no enjoyment from that in the game. The skill requirement is just too great, so noobs get killed a lot.

Tales of Grimoire should have been at most $20.
t.- fellow neanderthal