Quote Originally Posted by Demi_God View Post
I don't mind paying $60 for a MP only game if I get $60 worth of playability out of it and it has to come to my standard in that case. If Battlefield 5 was polished when it released with hardly any horrible bugs in the game, that game would be worth $60 if it was MP only.

If people feel it's a worthy purchase for them, I really don't see a problem in it. Sure, the game could be cheaper, but I'm not really bothered by it.
well yes, no one can and should argue about what someone should see worthy as. that's subjective.

but it's not a reviewer's job to say "well, this is really good and addictive, i better take no points for it being PONG! for $60!" lol.

point of a review is to give an objective point of view. ok, is the game good? alright, does it have this and that...and is it worth the money they're charging for? here, you can't just be like that it's good so it's worth it...because i can find you good games for under $5 that could be as addictive and you might even get as many hours out of it...because that's subjective to everyone.

some people may have spent over 1000 hours on Counter Strike: Global Offense (an online only game, has more than adequate amount of maps/weapons). Does that mean that Valve can charge $60 for it? depends on quality "and" quantity right?