A single player game to me doesn't have much replayability but I was wondering what you guys think?
Is it worth $60 (£40) on a new single player game you might not play again? or should you just stick with the regular multiplayer fps's ? Tell me what you think in the comments please:thumbsup:

Depends on the game. If it's something you'll get a lot of hours and enjoyment out of, by all means buy it. I hear renting is a great option if it's something you'll beat in a weekend and never play again.

If you're getting it for the multiplayer, I'd suggest renting first and buying if you'll keep playing. Why spend the money up front on multiplayer that you're not guaranteed to fully enjoy?

With DLC becoming more of an industry standard I think buying your favourite games without multiplayer is still and maybe even more than ever worth it.

I agree with Ploogle

For example, I'm into RPGs, so I get a lot of replay from those after a while, and I also get a challenge out of them.

As i metioned in another thread i enjoy online multiplayers so if it has a good multiplayer you've got my money but singleplayers arent my pot of tea... except rpg's love me some rpg's

It all depends on the game. Id it logs in a lot of hours ( 50 or so ) then why not. You'll defenetly get your moneys worth. But a lot of games offer multiplayers that aren't very good. So the idea of renting first is as good as on idea as any! :thumbsup:

A single player game to me doesn't have much replayability but I was wondering what you guys think?
Is it worth $60 (£40) on a new single player game you might not play again? or should you just stick with the regular multiplayer fps's ? Tell me what you think in the comments please:thumbsup:

I don't share the same view... I don't need replayability to make a game worth buying. If it offers enough entertainment in a single pass, it's worth. 10-12 hours is good enough for me, that's around $5/hour... or about the price of going to the movies. Anything beyond that is gravy.

I enjoy single player gaming more than multiplayer gaming because I don't have to worry about when I play, how long I play, what I play, or how well I play... I simply enjoy myself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing multiplayer gaming, I'm just speaking for myself. I occasionally play with others online, but it's the exception for me... and it has nothing to really do with anyone else. I don't want anyone to be offended if they ask me to play a game and I don't... it's all about timing for me. If I've got the time and am in the right mood/mindset, sure I'll play certain games online.

I really think it depends on your financial situation. If $60 is 20% of your monthly income you should probably avoid games you're going to play once for 20 hours or so. Of course if $60 is 20% of your income you're probably living at home... or on the street, where you have no electricity. I'm buying games that I don't even really play. I bought Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe, spent about 2 hours playing it, and officially gave up. Turns out I'm not a big fan of fighting games. That purchase didn't really bankrupt me though and I would have no problem buying another game the next week. If you're only able to get one game every few months you might want to make it something that will last.

If $60 is 20% of your monthly income you should probably avoid games you're going to play once for 20 hours or so.

But that's only $3/hour... You don't consider that to be a worthy price for entertainment? I'm not judging, I'm just surprised. For me, $3/hour is well beyond acceptable. As I said earlier, I draw the line somewhere around $5-$6/hour. $3/hour is a bargain in my book. Your mileage may vary.

Personal preference is everything here. If I absolutely hate a game and it takes 90 hours to beat, I'm not happy because it only costs 67 cents an hour. If we hold everything constant and assume that online games have many more hours of entertainment for the same price, even at half the quality, then you have to say that they are a much better bargain. If you have a fixed income and have no preference then you have to maximize utility by buying the game that gets you an infinite return. This isn't economics though, real life factors like personal preference make all the difference.

I don't share the same view... I don't need replayability to make a game worth buying. If it offers enough entertainment in a single pass, it's worth. 10-12 hours is good enough for me, that's around $5/hour... or about the price of going to the movies. Anything beyond that is gravy.

I enjoy single player gaming more than multiplayer gaming because I don't have to worry about when I play, how long I play, what I play, or how well I play... I simply enjoy myself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing multiplayer gaming, I'm just speaking for myself. I occasionally play with others online, but it's the exception for me... and it has nothing to really do with anyone else. I don't want anyone to be offended if they ask me to play a game and I don't... it's all about timing for me. If I've got the time and am in the right mood/mindset, sure I'll play certain games online.
Well said rothbart.

I share your views.

Too human any one?

Got it for £10 ($7ish) Played it for about 100hours so . . . 10p an hour? Bargin!!!!

Personal preference is everything here. If I absolutely hate a game and it takes 90 hours to beat, I'm not happy because it only costs 67 cents an hour. If we hold everything constant and assume that online games have many more hours of entertainment for the same price, even at half the quality, then you have to say that they are a much better bargain. If you have a fixed income and have no preference then you have to maximize utility by buying the game that gets you an infinite return. This isn't economics though, real life factors like personal preference make all the difference.

Well, I take it as a given that people will only play games they like. People that intentionally play games they don't like are a special kind of weird. :lol:

They're called achievement whores and there are many of them out there. I have a couple of friends who anger me with some of their decision making. One of them was playing Culdcept Saga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culdcept_Saga) for dozens of hours just to get pointless achievements. He wasn't even playing the game, he was setting up 4 player games and then playing against himself. The other one bought Lost: Via Domus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_video_game) for the very same reason. They maxed those games out and then traded. Neither one of those games is worth spending any money or time on, yet both were wasted. This is what happens when people have too much money.

It all depends on the game. Id it logs in a lot of hours ( 50 or so ) then why not. You'll defenetly get your moneys worth. But a lot of games offer multiplayers that aren't very good. So the idea of renting first is as good as on idea as any! :thumbsup:

50 hours is a long time!!! I completed GTA4 in about 25!

I think multiplayer definitely adds some replayability, but the single player has to really bring it in order for me to want to buy it. Most of the games on my favorites list are single player games (Fallout 3, Valkyria Chronicles, Dead Space, Culdcept on PS2) and the ones that have multiplayer (Killzone 2, Guitar Hero WT, Burnout Paradise) have very strong single player modes.
The sad thing about the single player games is that once I was done with them, I was DONE, I traded them on Goozex or Playswitch and got other games. That's not saying that they weren't worth the $ I paid for them. I got what I could out of them, and then moved on. The multiplayer aspect in some games has kept some games in my library longer than if they hadn't had that aspect.

A single player game to me doesn't have much replayability but I was wondering what you guys think?
Is it worth $60 (£40) on a new single player game you might not play again? or should you just stick with the regular multiplayer fps's ? Tell me what you think in the comments please:thumbsup:

Rent to find enjoyability, decide from there. Tried and tested formula for having only games you enjoy in your collection.

I agree with Ploogle

For example, I'm into RPGs, so I get a lot of replay from those after a while, and I also get a challenge out of them.

Final Fantasy X: £20, 2000+ hours easily in total doing challenges, and unlocking everything, beating everything, leveling, the works. That is 1p per hour of entertainment. Roth, if $3 an hour was a bargain, what would you consider that.

Too human any one?

Got it for £10 ($7ish) Played it for about 100hours so . . . 10p an hour? Bargin!!!!

See above. Also Shadow of the Colossus, £2 for 100 hours (ish) figuring out strategies, travelling. One of the greatest times had was just exploring. That's only 2p an hour though... :tongue:

It's all about finding what you'll enjoy, and using that knowledge to your advantage

If I like the look of a game I'll buy it, I don't bother reading reviews. I don't rent either.
I am a bit spoilt though :)
I don't see what the $3/hour is all about, if it's a game I'll enjoy, for any amount of time, I'll buy it/save up for it regardless of the price.

depends on which game. Fallout 3 was definitely worth the money in single player, and TF2 has more that earned its worth in game time.

I don't share the same view... I don't need replayability to make a game worth buying. If it offers enough entertainment in a single pass, it's worth. 10-12 hours is good enough for me, that's around $5/hour... or about the price of going to the movies. Anything beyond that is gravy.

But that's only $3/hour... You don't consider that to be a worthy price for entertainment? I'm not judging, I'm just surprised. For me, $3/hour is well beyond acceptable. As I said earlier, I draw the line somewhere around $5-$6/hour. $3/hour is a bargain in my book. Your mileage may vary.

But this would vary based on you play style, wouldn't it?

Take a hypothetical $60 single player game. Play though it once, only focus on beating the main storyline and nothing else, and it would take you about 10-12 hours to beat (Rothbart's "good enough" rate).

But, if you are like me, and must search every nook and cranny in the game and attempt to complete absolutely everything that the game has to offer, then the time needed for completion, and thus the 'value', of the game increases substantially. What was a relatively short 12-hour game is now a respectable 40-hour game, increasing the value by more than three times.

OCD when gaming = Value WIN

To me it comes down to whether I enjoy the experience or not. I would rather pay $60 for a 6 hour amazing experience than a 100 hour snooze fest full of pointless repetition.

My time is valuable to me, I don't have hundreds of hours to spend gaming. I would probably play less than 8 hours a week on average these days. And single player games often offer more value as I don't need to worry about anyone else when I am playing them. I love multiplayer, but unless I have enough time to get good at a game I don't really enjoy it that much,

Its the quality not the quantity to me.