Shadows of the Damned director Massimo Guarini says about Metal Gear Solid controversy, "I think that's one of the biggest failures of our industry."
No it is not, it is a shame you are trying to charge 40$+ for what amounts to 2 hours of gameplay and 2 hours of nonsensical cutscenes Length of gameplay plays into the value of the game, if you aren't given us both a long worthwhile experience and replay value why pay full price?
@yellow I was going to say the same thing about price and time. They need to justify 40 dollars for this game and most are on the fence about The Last of Us and it cost 15 bucks for 2 to 4 hours and its going to be amazing. I love Metal Gear but even I dont wanna pay that much.
Then get it digital for last gen at 19.99$ or wait for The Phantom Pain. No one's forcing you to get the physical version on next gen.
It's $20 on ps3 and $30 on PS4 not $40.
@dcj0524 It's $20 digital only on ps3, physical is $30 That another thing if supposedly it's easier and cheaper to develop for next gen why are they charging more? $40 for a physical 2 hour game is a bit much
just because it was reportedly beaten in 2 hours doesnt make it a 2 hour-on-average game. surly it will take the average gamer (especially a MGS fan, because thats what this game is for, and has never changed generically to appeal to the masse) one or two hours longer. you can play through many games in 2-5 hours. MGS4, people were saying they beat it in 4 hours, 5 hours, while ottook me much longer than that. hell i think devs should price their games based on their prestige in the industry; dont wanna pay a little bit of a premium for a Kojima game/prologue/hold-me-over? good, dont buy or play it and go feed into one-of-the-many crappy $60 games avalible. or... pay a lot of money for a JRPG because logic here is telling me that length=money. if anything wait till the price drops. this is no different than GT5 prologue, which cost 40 digital and 40 physical. cough up the dough and get a taste of MGS to hold you over untill 2015 or gtfo, is all im saying.
I thought we had this discussion back when heavenly sword was released in 2007? I paid 99c for plants vs zombies and probably put in like 20 hours.... But than again, I'm a cag so, I never pay full price.
So, a guy who directed 60$ short game, defends 40$ even shorter game(prologue). Hmm... Let's recap. GT5 Prologue cost that much, and was overkill despite about 100 hours that average driving fan could be able to squeeze out of this game(pretty much basis of sport games is replayability). Here we have 40$(That's what I usually buy, discs, next-gen preferable), next-gen MGS2 Tanker Mission with Peacewalker side OPS, which is still pretty much cut. As a PS4 owner, I'd love to hunt Snatchers with Raiden, but well, I'll go screw myself personally to save precious corporate penny-squeezing time. I'll go with popculture metaphor: It's like having to pay for 0.2L Coke can for a 2L bottle price. Or more like a 60L bottle(since Phantom Pain is deemed 300 times bigger, any standards here? Or just PR bollocks?). From inside the industry it looks pretty much like that: http://www.youtube.com/watc... Con artistry and creating false reality(lies). But let's all defend it, yeah.
i dont think youre getting the fact that this is something to hold MGS fans over untill MGSV. maybe the price is a premium but honestly, you can either buy it and play it or, um, ..Wait. lol. when a game "sucks", people just wait for the bargain bin, so, do just that. 2 hours is just a rumor atm. i highly doubt it will take a MGS fan 2 hours to beat. this game is of the stealth genre for mgs fans, nothing more. dont like that fact? dont buy it. think you might just run through the game shooting everybody then "win"? ew.. please, dont buy it. kojima said this isnt going to be an over priced dlc, we have yet to see the game for ourselves.
Game length isn't what people are complaining about, it's the price being charged for a 2 hour campaign. If Metal Gear: Ground Zeros is worth $40.00, then I guess Call of Duty must be worth $200.00 (before DLC). I can honestly say that this next generation worries me.
@PoSTedUP Actually 4 or 5 hours in MGS4 is for speedruns (achieving emblems), not normal playthrough. And definetelly not something anyone would be doing in their first time with the game. @Back on topic... I don't think devs should have to justify length itself, however they SHOULD justify value. It just happens that, for 40 (or is it 30?) bucks pricetag people expect way more than 2 or 4 hours of MGS... Notice that this being MGS (a story based game) matters. Some games can work with smaller games coupled with endless replay value (sports and fight games come to mind, a single match/fight/race is way short, but them again you're not playing just once). So, what I'm saying here is: we expect a certain ammount of playtime for 30/40 bucks. What we know of past MGS formula don't deliver enough playtime in just 4 hours campaing, replay value is very limited with those... So for it to justify the value we need to see a majorly different experience from what MGS is usually about, which may very well be the case but they are not explaining it, instead they are making excuses about length (not a good sign).
@ One blind Wizard, Thanks for letting me know that no one was forcing me to buy this game. I was so worried I kept telling my wife to leave my only twenty dollar bill i'll ever have alone. I'm sorry I like to play video games and I hate paying extra for stuff that we never had to worry about in the past.
Exactly. It's not the game length that's the issue here, but the price they're asking for it. If the game was $15-$20 on all platforms regardless of digital or physical, nobody would be having this conversation.
Agreed, on a side note on the x360 case you can clearly see the "requires hdd" I got $20 says when the game releases we're gonna see and article of people complaining that the company didn't tell us about that, just like bf4.
Yeah, games should be priced based on their length, or at least be a part of it's pricing scale. Some games can be pretty short but have very good replay value, take Ratchet & Clank Into the Nexus for example. It's a pretty quick game, and you can easily get through the entire thing in a few hours. I think I got about 5-6 hours of actual gameplay from it on my longest run (taking my sweet time, looking around for stuff etc). But the thing is, the game makes it really fun to play over right away! Why? Because you can do a challenge mode which keeps your upgraded weapons/armor and allows you to upgrade them fully (cause you can't do it in one run). And you even get a few other things to work towards on your second or third run. I replayed the game 4 times in total, and platinumed it. Getting the trophies and upgrading everything fully was a blast, and a game that cost me $40 new, gave me plenty of fun gameplay time. It was well worth the $40. MGS4 had some decent replayability due to getting the different bandanas, although if you really wanted to suffer you could do the no-alarm and no-kill on a single playthrough, but to me that wasn't very fun, so I did them separately. So unless this MGS has supurb replay value (were talking 4-5 times here, in succession) then $40 for a one-time 2 hour play through is absolutely ridiculous. I can understand it taking them a long time to make it all polished and artsy, but come on... it's a game, decent length and fun gameplay should be their primary goal.
I completely agree with your comment. What worries me is the thought that all this MGS "game" is gonna be is a prolonged demo to Phantom Pain. I love MGS but I'm not paying $40.00 for a demo I can wait until Phantom Pain comes out. If they announced MGS:PP to soon well that's their problem not mine.
It's $30 on next gen. $40 is for the disk.
probablly 1.5hr cutscenes and 30 min gameplay
That is kojimas winning formula... Not sure why it works but it does... game play for the mgs series has always been pretty good, not as good as splinter cell though. The storyline however is just trash.
I can beat Street Fighter IV in about 15 minutes. Isn't replay value just as important?
But it DOESN'T amount to two hours of gameplay for $40. What Game Informer said was that the "main story" took two hours. Ground Zeroes is an open world game with at least three other missions in it. Not to mention MGS games are some of the most replayable of all time. I'll probably replay GZ's main story mode at least three times, finding new stuff every time if previous MGS games are anything to go by- and that's at least six hours of gameplay. Then I'll probably explore the open world a ton, and that'll probably be another hour at least. Assuming that GZ will be up to the standard of MGS1-4, which it almost definitely will be. Look at something like Portal. Portal was released at £30 or $50, and that game's only about four hours long, and it's hailed as one of the greatest masterpieces of the last generation. EDIT: Also, Kojima has said that cutscenes have been cut down on greatly to focus on cinematic gameplay. So hopefully of that "two hour" figure, not a huge amount of it will be cutscene.
But its not a shame to justify it by resolution and frame rate? Some devs got their shit backwards. Make perfect since we re paying all this money and you want to charge us that for a 2 hr experience.
I just really thought about it...and a 4 hour game for 40/ 30 digital isn't all that bad, if it's decent and has replayability. A new blu ray movie which is around 2 hours in length costs around 20-25 and you can't even play those, and most of the time you just watch a movie once and your done with it for some time. I mean yeah it should be more like 30 retail 20 digital IMO. But who knows it might actually be really good...and no I'm not a metal gear fanboy. I didn't even finish 3 or 4. The only ones I played to the fullest were 1 & 2...but the used game industry is really taking chunks away from these devs, they need to start putting their games at the lowest price they can on digital, say 30 bucks for a new release if they want their full profit and to compete against the used game market.
Well said, the story should be longer than 2 hours at that price. I'm sure there will be a lot of replay value collecting new weapons, equipment, and doing missions where it's different every time but that still doesn't justify the main part of the game which everyone buys for, the story. They don't know how many times do games get ridiculed for having a $60 price tag for a 4-6 hour single player story. Seems like money grabbing if you think about it. I wouldn't doubt they cut 5 missions from Phantom Pain, it's 2 hour intro, and trying to make it like a separate game to get more money. Doubt the engine will have any improvements from Ground Zeroes to Phantom Pain, just the addition of much more weapons and equipment. This is most likely a sneak peak to get you hyped up for the release of the rest of the game which you'll be paying more for adding to what you already payed for this short game. An extended demo this game is starting to sound like and I'm a bit saddened as I'm a big fan of Metal Gear Solid and my favorite stealth franchise with Syphon Filter.
With MGS being 2 hours it should be priced the same as any new blu-ray. 24.99 or less.
you can't even say this game really is 2 hours long think about it they only played through the main story of the game not the side missions and most likely played it on easy so they could just run through the game and you can approach the enemies how ever way you want a lot can be done. All i know is i will be getting this and infamous.
-Kojima himself responded to the drama, saying, "I believe people will be satisfied with the 'play time' of GZ and will not stress the 'clear time." That's good enough for me, I trust Kojima... He's one of the top developers in gaming and he makes amazing games.. I don't think he would lie to us, I think it will be quality stuff and well worth the money.. .____........___... .____||......||.......|___|| ||.........___||............ ||
"I think that's one of the biggest failures of our industry." I think devs trying to f*** gamers over by selling you the intro of a much larger game is one of the biggest failures of the industry. Kojima and co probably thought they could make a quick buck selling this now because they have finished the intro and know it's going to be a while before MGSV comes out. Actually it's even a bigger failure when devs are trying to stick up for other devs when they are in the wrong.
I don't think so. The real idea behind releasing Ground Zeroes now is to establish MGSV's place early in the next-gen consoles' life cycle which is a good idea, I think. Amaro makes a point, too. Journey was around two hours with litte to no replay value and costed 15$ at release. You can get Ground Zeroes at launch for 20$ and the devs promise us replay value and extra content besides the two hours main mission.
Journey is very replayable. It's a zen experience that's unlike anything else out there and boasts unique social interactivity along the way. I would never say that Journey is in the same boat as Metal Gear, give that Ground Zeroes is about a singular, linear experience, where-as Journey was about the organic encounters you experience with other people across a short but poignant journey. People complaining about Metal Gear are the same people who find it a rip-off when a game like Call of Duty costs $60 and you get a four-hour campaign.
I loved Journey too and played it more than once anyways but I still feel it didn't have a lot of replay value.
@O_E_W That depends on your perspective of the game. The game is built around the social experience. Getting all the runes with a co-op partner without as much as a voice-chat is a surreal experience altogether. Finally achieving the "White Cloak" avatar of your character rewards you as the "Guru", and everyone who you meet up with ends up following you regardless. The legacy from humble newcomer to an enlightened master is so poetic and brilliant it encapsulates the experience unlike anything achieved before.
+bubble for well said bro...My thoughts exactly. Who the hell would be crazy enough to spend that kind of money on what sounds more and more like a demo?
***"selling you the intro of a much larger game"*** THIS! That is the main issue here. Koji is selling us the intro for $40 and the game is only TWO hours long! Now if the length was a bit longer the price at least would be justified. That's what people are complaining about. It's like "if you're going to cut the prologue out of your game and sell it to us at full price, at least make it at a reasonable length."
"When creators are forced to justify the length of a game, I think that's one of the biggest failures of our industry," Guarani said. I forgot how long games were back then, but now its a changed market. hes says devs justifying game length its the biggest failures of our industry. Umm he realizes games cost allot right? They aren't 40 bucks anymore(besides this game). So its not a shame that devs especially AAA devs need to go all out when creating games. Making sure we get a bang for our buck. I'm saying just in general. Content and length is the key in our games. And if its not that then MP is usually brought into the equation. That's video gaming entertainment of today. So according to him a 2 hour long game is ok and justifiable because the quality is there. If the quality is there we want to marvel over the spectacle as long as we can. Not suddenly be forced to finish it whenever we see that inevitable decline in the climax of the story and say "yep the ending is near." Or you suddenly beating the game on accident with out warning (I use to do that allot) So I'm guessing the rest of the game will be in DLC we have to pay? I'm not a huge Metal Gear fan but I hope Gear fans enjoy what they got regardless.
Two hours is the main mission only, though. From what I heard it's actually around 4 or 5 hours with the extra content. And you can also get it for 20$ on last-gen consoles. Also, it's not the entire game.
Why do people keep using this excuse??? What if I don't have a last gen console? You cant just say "well go buy it for $20. Even if I did have a last gen console (I do), the price is STILL TO HIGH, for a TWO HOUR GAME.
Then don't get it. Just wait for The Phantom Pain to come out. It's not like you're going to convince anyone who really wants it that it's too expensive.
I just dont understand why there are such different prices. This should be $20 across all platforms, digital or boxed. Xbone and PS4 games were the same price as current gen. There is no need to charge a premium for the newer console versions.
Welcome to a market economy. You should be prepared to justify every aspect of your product if you want to convince people to pay what you're asking for it. Try being a salesman for a day and you'll realize that justifying price is a common business expectation.
Its a shame that creators and devs want to rip us customers off
Why is it a shame? Game value has a direct correlation to how much time you get from playing it through and then how much re-playability the game provides. I doubt too many people would pay $60 for a 20 minute game. It is like movies... They don't charge you $15 to go to a 15 minute movie. Full price movies are almost always at least 100 minutes. If you don't have enough content for a full movie you don't charge $15 to see it. You call it a short. What is a shame is that games that provide 100's of hours of entertainment can only be sold for $60. Gamers seem to think that is a the max price for a standard edition game. There are some games I would pay $100 for because they have so much play time and re-playability.
I don't think that's exactly fair. Would you rather play a 5 hour, $20 dollar game that is fantastic or play a 100 hour, $60 game that is mediocre. A lot of people say they want value, but what they are really saying is they want BOTH value and quality.
Yes, both time and quality create value...
"Game value has a direct correlation to how much time you get from playing it through and then how much re-playability the game provides." I am talking about quality being a reasonable metric for value just as much, if not more so than the amount of gameplay offered. That is why I gave you the 5 hour and 100 hour game question. Unless I misunderstood you, you said you would opt for the much better yet shorter game, not the better (by traditional standards) value, I.E. time. That is also why I said most people who take your stance want both. Take away the option for BOTH high quality and amount of gameplay. We have three options. A) Game that is $15, is 2-3 hours long, thoroughly excellent B) Game that is $40, is 12-15 hours long, is decent C) Game is $60, is 100+ hours, completely mediocre I think most gamers would rather pay to play game A. Whether it's 50 hours or 1,000 hours, mediocre is mediocre and I just think (within reason) that quality should always trump quantity - or, at least in a general sense.
I would pick B if all games had to fit into those 3 groups. I don't like games to be over in a blink, no matter how good they are. I will wait until the full version or skip it. I like open world games which are usually 25 hours or more and are decent to excellent. They don't fit into your 3 groups though. RDR, GTA, Saints Row, Skyrim, Dark Arisen, Dishonored, Fallout, etc Edit: Added more
In the past, I would have taken B, but after Journey, I'll take A every time.
Value is measured by price, quality, and time of enjoyment provided. If they are out of balance then the game is not worth it. And that is the discussion on MGS. It is probably excellent, but it currently deemed short, and it is costly for its length. If it was $10-15 I think people would be fine with it because the quality and time are aligned to the price. But when it is $40 you expect more, it is great but only 2-3 hours of enjoyment is not much. I know of no game that is 2-3 hours and $40 that is worth buying.
I think it all boils down to an individual being a smart gamer/consumer. This MGS game will simply not be worth $40 given its length. Anyone who purchases this game above $20 is contributing to the problems we are having in gaming right now. This is not right. I will personally be gameflying or borrowing this game, I will not support this! This is all coming from a huge MGS fan.
Devs now want us to practically rent games, whether we like them or not. They're part of what is wrong with the gaming industry today. Truth is, the industry depends on the gamers and never the other way around. They want me to buy something? Then make it good. If it sucks, I'll demand my money back. Marketing does not create product, it conveys them (can't remember the exact quote). If the marketing on a game lies and the game sucks, it may sell well but only initially, worth-of-mouth will kill it; and rightfully so. You want us to practically rent your games? Ok, make each and every one of them (and their DLC and add-ons and the like) fresh, easy to understand, difficult to master, affordable, awesome, gratifying, innovative, extremely replayable without being monetarily cumbersome, with the highest production values and win every popular and cultural award in the planet (and in EVERY country). Oh is that very hard? So is making money to pay 40-60 dollar games plus living and everything that comes with it... Yes, THAT hard.
People could just do what im planning on just rent it for a weekend, return it & wait till the next one comes out!
Exactly.. Gamefly is my best friend.
That's what I plan to do. Here in Australia games cost $110 to $120. I'd assume GZ will cost some where around $80. But my game rental service charges me $23 a month for 1 game at a time, unlimited exchanges. Since it takes a day to post and and a day to finish I'll effectively be paying $1.53 to play this game. Not bad. It still doesn't take away from the pathetic money grabbing konami are trying to get away with and other developers trying to justify it.
This is a sound idea. I'm most likely going to cancel my preorder and just wait it out. I may even wait till Phantom Pain is out. I have such a backlog of PS3 games so waiting isn't too big of deal.
I don't think this guy understands the problem. You don't need to justify length. You need to justify price. $40 for 2 hours is not in any way justifiable. $15 for 2 hours? That's much more reasonable. If you want to make shorter, more focused games, by all means do it. You're the artist, create the games you want. But you need to adjust price according to what the game is actually worth and the amount of content. I couldn't care less how long the game is as long as it's good, but I do care what it costs.
The response that is getting to me right now are those saying, "Get it digital on last gen consoles!" Why advocate a likely much inferior version of a product to justify the other version? It's not like there is the "normal" version and a super rare, ultra delux only for rich people version. No, there is the inferior, made to get as much profit as they can version and the version Kojima wants to make.
The game being only 2 hours in length has already been debunked. http://n4g.com/news/1450275... And it certainly won't be 2 hours with all of the extra stuff Kojima usually throws into his games. The fact is that it never takes the time people often claim to be a game's length.. because often they're plowing through the story, not doing anything else, usually playing on easy mode. That's never an accurate indication of how long a game takes to complete. Someone else had also pointed out that you can finish Fallout 3 in around an hour, so does that mean that they shouldn't have charged $60? Altered Beast, game that takes only 20 minutes to complete, cost about $50-$70 (which is about $98 - $138 in today's money) when it was released on the Sega Genesis... did they deserve to charge people that much for a 20-minute game? The problem actually is that you're judging a game based on its alleged length (which turns out to be false), and not on the amount of content. And if you care *that* much, then buy it digitally (which is less money) or just wait for the full version to be released.
Fallout 3 can be completed in a one hour SPEED RUN. Ground Zeroes has been completed by Konami testers in under 5 MINUTE speed runs. Big difference there. The 2 hours was a regular playthrough of the story by Game Informer.
Considering how devs have gotten into a mindset of delivering whatever they feel like, being entitled to cut parts for DLC or "their artistic vision", yeah, they sort of do.
I still don't understand why was this cut off of MGS V in the first place, the only logical explanation is to get extra $$, and i consider that a failure of the industry. Can't wait till EA and Crapcom hear of this..
Here's the thing, if handled correctly this could have been really cool. If this had been $20 across all platforms, and had a fun/interesting boss to make it feel like a standalone product it might have set an interesting precedent. Or, think about it like this: A lot of DLC sadly comes out after many people have long since put the game back on their shelves or even sold it. Not only is the story slowly fading, but the familiarity with the game's control and pacing is also gone. We have to relearn the game and reacquaint ourselves with the story before we can truly enjoy the experience. But, if this "DLC" is released before the main game comes out and is gameplay focused, replayable and priced properly I'd be more than happy to support that practice.
$10 sounds like a deal!
It's two different animals comparing a 2 hour game that was built to be that way and a 2 hour game that was literally RIPPED straight from a full game while the part of the game that was ripped was called a tutorial/introduction level in multiple interviews. It's a glorified demo that they are charging for. It's the comparison of the Tanker section of MGS2. They said they separated it because they weren't sure how long the second part would take to finish and it will most likely be apart of the full game because that's how MGSV has been advertised Ground Zeroes + Phantom Pain = MGSV. The length is fine being a tutorial level of a full game...on it's own it's bad. 20 bucks or 40 it still a glorified demo.
All I care about is quality. Journey, Last of Us, Modern Warfare 2, and Blur are my favorite games for a reason.
Im not paying full price to see a 10 minute movie in a theater, or to just buy the first chapter of a book. This dev needs to wake up and realize that as long as people have to work for their money, they are going to expect something in return for it.
Its a good job they are getting flak over this, years ago this would have been a free demo, one things for sure they cant hide anymore with social media, gamers arent stupid they wont be ripped off!
The stupidest statement I've ever heard! You could only get that from the gaming industry!
Not if you're paying for it. Any company is at the whim of the consumer. If the consumer doesn't like it, game over.
No, just no. It is one of the most important factors in my deciding to purchase a game. For this genre of game, I expect 10 hours of play time. No exceptions. Remember the days when games came in big boxes? It's been streamlined to a dinky DVD box now. Most don't even come with a manual, just a link to an online pdf. Same goes with game length. As soon as one AAA game decides it's ok to release a 2 hour length game, the rest will follow. Don't let them.
Yeah it is. And you want to know why? BECAUSE YOU WANT TO CHARGE US SIXTY F*****' DOLLARS FOR THE GAMES!!!!! Stop charging so much, man will stop complaining. Can't speak for everybody. Some people just aren't satisfied.