Everyone is going crazy over a potentially short game but let's not forget that length and quality are mutually exclusive. Quantity is irrelevant.
id buy an epic 300 page novel over a mediocre 800 page novel for the same price any day of the week. mainly because 1.) i dont have a choice all new games are $60, and 2.) if im going to be spending hours of time doing something, it is going to be something worth while.
I'm only buying games that have BOTH qualities this year: long campaign, And good dev team reputation. So with that, i have my eyes mostly only on: -Bloodborne -Persona 5 -MGS 5 TPP -Batman (new) -Salt and Sanctuary That's it. Anything else must get great reviews. Money is no joke in this economy and devs need to acknowledge that. Short campiagns with no replay value get short rentals.
What about The Witcher 3. It ticks all the boxes of your gaming requirement and then some!
My bad your right. Witcher is on my list too. A bunch of indies like No Man's Sky.
Guys need to work on your gold digging skills.
I actually agree with you to a degree. Although there are some games that I don't buy at launch, but I wait for the price to go down first before I buy - like Watchdogs, Alien Isolation etc. But The Order 1886, The WItcher 3, Uncharted 4... those are all Day 1 games for me.
@PoSTedUP You're not making much sense. You have the choice weather or not to buy a 300 or 800 page novel. In exactly the same way you do have a choice NOT to buy a $60 game you know. I hope nobody is forcing you to buy games?!? 0.o
ha, i mean: "i" buy games no matter what, games that look good and are Worth my time. just like i constantly buy books or use to go to the movies all the time. wouldnt you rather have an absolute amazing 6 hours over an average 12 hours? have sex with a model for an hour or with an ugly hooker for 5? i just read The Alchemist a book that is 163 pages and it was full price, but it had an amazing message and greater experience than most full length novels ive read the last month. point is: price and length doesnt matter to me, an awesome game is an awesome game and its gonna be the same price as a crappy game. all movie tickets are the same price, do people complain that one movie is an hour and 10 mins long and another one is 3 hours long? or do people in fact see the movie based on reviews and previews? people pay $30 bucks for a 2 hour bluray even when they saw the movie already; 2 hours, single player only. why? because its an epic experience that is worth their time. sorry for the rant, im not ranting at you just so you know. it was a bad analogy and im probably off the topic of your reply, heh.
For 60bucks I don't want my games too short. Remember the MGS:Ground Zero's fiasco. I got that game because it has a ton of replayability AND high quality. In the case of the Order - again another game that is very high on quality AND replayability (I replay my story based games + hunt for platinum trophies); I'm not in a race with anyboy to blitz through the game. What's the point in that? I'll take my sweet time and enjoy every minute of the game.
I really don't care about a games length if it's good it good.plus I got school and work so it will take me forever to beat the order
For me it's about value for money. I'm quite prepared to play a short game if I feel like I'm getting a value for money experience. However, likelihood I'll pay full retail will depend on reviews and word of mouth....not fan boy rhetoric.
this again?? everyone is always willing to pay upwards of $20 to see a movie on Day 1... don't see no one bitching when they are watching a blockbuster with their popcorn and 3D glasses only to walk out 1-2 HOURS later! 60 bucks for an experience that lasts at the very minimum 2-3 times longer than a movie is a freaking steal! I'll be 31 in July and to be quite honest with you games haven't changed in price much at all.. If anything the idea of the Indie game and tablet games/phone games/apps have give then industry a balance.. I mean you didn't have Indie games (a term I hate to use) on PS1 or PS2 or Sega or Nintendo or whatever that you could purchase for like $5 bucks or $10 bucks... Even these small company games can push the clock in terms of HOURS of GAMEPLAY... $60 isn't asking much and I haven't done any research and my memory isn't the greatest but I can almost swear that games in the PS1 days were only $10 cheaper than today... I want to say they were about 39.99-49.99 or something like that. It all comes down to smart purchasing.. Buy the games that look like the ones you'll enjoy.. It's not that hard.. We've all been gaming long enough to know what games we're most likely going to like. Watch some videos, read a pre-view, read a review if you must.. But make YOUR OWN DAMN DECISION! IT's YOUR MONEY. Listen to opinions but don't let them decide for you.
I watched Imitation game and thought it was an amazing movie and the perfect length, but, I only knew that AFTER experiencing it. Came out of a longer movie like the Hobbit, but, didn't enjoy it as much, sure it was longer and by dollar value more 'worth' it, but, it didn't feel that way. I had a Kobe steak and it was expensive as hell, it was also the most delicious thing I ever tasted, sure I could have had 3-4 steaks for the same price, but, honestly it was worth every penny. I don't need crappy tacked on MP like Tomb Raider and even thought MP for Uncharted and TLOU was great, the story only was worth the price alone the rest was just bonus content as far as I was concerned. But that is just me I guess.
You don't seem to understand that most people don't have unlimited amounts of money to spend on entertainment. The witcher 3 and Bloodboorne do have something to do with the Order: they are near release and are also competing for our time and our Money. It isn't unreasonable to think that some people with concerns over how long the Order will entertain them, might look to other titles instead. In an ideal world, someone would be able to purchase any title that remotely interests them. But in the real world, people need to make purchasing decisions, and in the case of purchasing games, the length of the game is one of many reasonable factors in the decision making process... I haven't said anything negative about the Order's length. But I do understand why some people would think that its brevity is reason to consider waiting for a price drop, or buying something that could hold ones attention for longer. As far as quantum break and Tomb Raider are concerned, they are too far from release for people to start panicking. We haven't even seen the new TR in action yet. I have however seen plenty of people expressing displeasure with the most recent QB game play previews.
What are you on about stretch purchases? No one is saying $60 is a stretch. But when a new game comes out, someone might look at their spend on recent purchases and what they intend to spend onfuture purchases and decide "I won't by this game right now for X reason" People have budgets. One guys budget might allow for 1 game a week. Some people buy one game a quarter. Some people buy one a year... Some people buy games at launch. Others by used or wait till the price drops. Just because someone can't afford or doesn't want to spend as much on gaming as you do, or doesn't see the value in paying full price for a 5-8 gaming experience doesn't mean that gaming as a whole is a 'luxury' that they shouldn't be a part of. And who are you to tell others how they should evalueate their purchases? Do I think game length should be the only consideration? No. Your going to great extreme we to disprove a point that no one is making. There's no accounting chore. There's no spreadsheet. It's just a consumer asking him/herself a simple question: "Is what I get out of this worth what I have to put in"...people who have hobbies can watch how they spend on their hobbies. if I've got $60 to spend, and I'm really interested in 2 new games.... And 1 is going to last me 100hrs and the other is going to last me 10hrs. It's perfectly reasonable to buy the longer one now, and get the shorter one later, or rent it... Your basically saying I have to choose the short one or both, or else I'm too cheap to be a gamer.
There's nothing wrong with giving your personal opinion . But to say that someone who considers longevity as a factor should pick a new hobby is utterly ridiculous. On one hand you say value is subjective, then in the same post you suggest longevity should NEVER play a part in a personal purchase decision... That's s massive contradiction. The only person implying that one way is the only way is YOU. Like I said, I own plenty of short games, paid full price for them too. But I also understand and respect people who don't see the value in doing that. I'm not saying everyone NEEDS to consider a games length before they buy it. I'm saying that if someone does consider length a factor, it's certainly within reason; they certainly shouldn't be criticized for it or told to pick a new hobby. One might be less inclined to buy a $40 steak if it was bitsized. One might be less inclined to pay to enter an amusement park if you only had time for a few rides. the same logic can apply to a video game purchase. Yes people should buy what they enjoy. But there's nothing wrong with also considering how long the experience will be enjoyable before parting with your money. And if a game doesn't meet their expectations for any reason, and they choose not to pay full price ; be it length or whatever else, who are you or I to tell them they are doing it wrong? Just because being enjoyable is the only thing YOU consider to determine if something is worth $60 doesn't mean that's all everyone should consider. Especially since they have other options to make sure their price of entry is inline with their percieved value of the experience (buying used, wait for price drop, renting, borrowing, etc)
You've got to apply some relativity though. You're trip to the movies comes with certain expectations. Maybe, You wouldn't take that $20 trip to ticket movies if the film in question was just 30min long. Even if it was a great 30min. Why? Because people have come to expect to be entertained for about 2hrs when they go to theaters. In this case, one might decide to wait until it hits dvd or Netflix. Likewise, there are certain expectations when it comes to video games. Sure an 8hr $60 game might be a steal when compare to a trip to the movies. But it's not a steal when compared to another $60 game with a lengthy single player, replayability, and/or a compelling multiplayer component. There are too many current and upcoming games that offer too much bang for the buck, to ignore the comparison.
you can't argue that at all.. games have been like that since day one... FFVII and GEX: Enter the Gecko cost the same amount of $$$ back in the day two totally different level games... one turned out to be a classic... the other people probably don't remember.. games have always been valued at the same price... it has ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT IMAGE!!! that's why you saw Tekken being sold and not TOBAL NO.1... they costed the same back in day... but 1 was better. that's why people buy NBA2K over NBA Live... and what do you mean people wouldn't pay $20 to see a 30 minute movie??? you obviously live in a different world... because on a daily basis people drop $20 or more on scratch-off tickets like it's nothing... just to name one of the countless things people spend money on. people will spend their money on whatever they find interesting or want.. it's that simple.. you can't just suddenly attack the video game industry for something that has remained the EXACT SAME since the video game industry was created... some AAA games are good... some AAA games are bad... regardless they COST THE SAME... some AAA movies are good.... some AAA movies are bad.... some AAA music albums are good... some AAA music albums are bad... just be smart about your finances... that simple... know the amount of money you have at all times and try to continuously grow that amount of money and you'll find that you can afford almost anything you want.
I don't need to apply anything. What is relative to you isn't the same as me. That's like the question of time relative to me except I am in a quick moving train and your walking, it's not the same for either of us. What I value only I can determine and time has nothing to do with it. That's like saying I won't enjoy the movie UNLESS it is at least 2 1/2 hours. Nope each movie and experience can only be judged AFTER I have experienced it. What I deem the appropriate length has nothing to do with relativity. Honestly your way of thinking is narrow minded and negative way to think of things. Just like my Hobbit example, if you calculate the dollar per minute it was more bang for my buck. In terms of value though? Nope the shorter movie was a far better experience with much better story and tighter scripting. The longer movie actually should have been shortened, the length just wasted my time. You see YOU can't put a value on what I enjoy and deem worth my time, ONLY I can. You can't put a price on what I value. So if that's your narrow minded view I am sorry for you. Don't assume you can know my expectations.
@chevalier @ozmoses My comment was to a gentleman who claims he doesn't understand why someone would object to spending $60 for a short game, citing the price of a trip to the movies. My response was that different people have different expectations when it comes to what they money gets them. A sentiment that you both appear to agree with. Many people consider length of experience to be a factor in their purchasing decisions. That ISNT UNREASONABLE. Those same people, if faced with the option to buy a great, short, linear title for $60 (like The Order) OR a great, long, open title (like the witcher 3, or Bloodborne) for the same price might predictably choose the latter. No, you personably don't need to apply relativity. I wasnt suggesting you, or anyone else SHOULD. It's your money, afterall. I buy short games all the time, so I have no idea how you take this as my so don't assume that my view is that games need to be a certain length. But someone who is trying to understand why others don't want to spend $60 for short games (which is the question I was responding to), needs to consider the factors that govern other people purchasing decisions. It's strange that I get called narrowminded for pointing out other people's Point of View.
Witcher and Bloodborne have nothing to do with the Order. Just because a dozen other good games come out this year shouldn't take away from another good experience. Plus what other 3rd person game even plays like The Order any time soon? Bloodborne will be amazing but is a month away and Witcher is out in May. Seriously why all this negativity for a unreleased game? The hypocrisy and hate pouring in is ridiculous. How come there's no hate articles for Quantum Break? Will Tomb Raider even get half this criticism?! Is Sony twisting arms and saying you guys have to buy this game? Don't like then ignore and move on. Especially from people who Haven't played any of it.
"In an ideal world, someone would be able to purchase any title that remotely interests them. But in the real world, people need to make purchasing decisions, " Just going to point out the ridiculous "real world" choice. Sorry if a $60 game is a stretch purchase and is a finance hit then these real world people should be realistic and not have gaming as a hobby. They have their priorities messed up in that case. Gaming is a luxury and not a real issue for people like you suggest. Otherwise you want me to believe after a $400 purchase a $60 one is some kind of stretch? That's just grasping at straws. Buy what you like and be happy, you can't put a dollar figure on enjoyment and personal satisfaction in $ quantities. If your considering how many hours your going to get out of a hobby then I question whether you truly enjoy gaming. This shouldn't be a acccounting chore where we calculate amortization and on a spreadsheet. The only thing at the end is did you enjoy it? If the answer is yes then it was worth it. More hours does not equate to more enjoyment. I finished Uncharted 2 and by your dollar and cents view it may have been not worth it. For me it was one of the best experiences EVER. It was priceless, I would have thrown money for more. The only feeling I had was, let's do that again. Same as this expensive $10 ride that literally lasted minutes, but, was so much fun for my brother and I we will always have that great memory. If I equated $ to that experience albeit brief was worth it. If you have to think so hard for your enjoyment maybe you should consider picking up a book? It has great $ to hours value.
Well ideals and all you speak of are hypothetical. Buy what you like if you want, hours of game don't increase enjoyment and it is pretty simple to just buy and enjoy what you like. If it isn't in the budget then don't buy. Like you suggesting applying some relativity, that's just going to depend on each individual and like I said if you suggest hours of enjoyment is a factor versus dollars then maybe it's time for a new hobby. " value in paying full price for a 5-8 gaming experience doesn't mean that gaming as a whole is a 'luxury' that they shouldn't be a part of...." Value is subjective so what metric are you going to use? Gaming as a whole regardless of your opinion is a luxury. It's not a necessity to live so by definition is a luxury. Food, clothing and housing are necessities of life. "people who have hobbies can watch how they spend on their hobbies. if I've got $60 to spend, and I'm really interested in 2 new games.... And 1 is going to last me 100hrs and the other is going to last me 10hrs. It's perfectly reasonable to buy the longer one now, and get the shorter one later, or rent it..." That's your metric. All the power to you and your free to spend your money as it is yours. I am saying your suggesting/implying more hours = more enjoyment. Except like my examples I have enjoyed short experiences more than long drawn out boring ones. Your suggestions don't and can't be calculated because like I said value is subjective. "And who are you to tell others how they should evalueate their purchases?" I gave my personal opinion with my experiences of how I view things so I don't see how that is wrong? So just because I and 4 or other posters have the opposite view your going to suggest where wrong for our views? I will quote myself again: " The only thing at the end is did you enjoy it? If the answer is yes then it was worth it. " Bottom line if you enjoyed it then $60 was worth it. TLOU, Journey, Uncharted, Tomb Raider and plenty of short games were to me far and away more enjoyable then some of the long drawn out games. Same goes for movies, books and other media's as well. Like I said value is subjective so stop assuming that your way is the only way to think or view things.
Your the one suggesting that we 'have' to apply relativity then going on about (how dare I) telling you how to evaluate?! Then you go on suggesting we have expectations of games and comparing game length as if length, money and how good something is somehow mutually exclusive. "One might be less inclined to pay to enter an amusement park if you only had time for a few rides." Well just because you don't personally have the time does NOT change how awesome the park is now does it? That's not a consideration that should be associated. Here you suggest that your time be considered though?! Honestly people don't do these dollar considerations on that 3 minute ride. Do you do minute calculations for that $20 movie you watched? Do you go and do dollar per page before you read a book in a new series you want to read? Probably not right? Yet specifically gaming you do? If time were a consideration then guess what almost EVERY entertainment fails based on dollar to hours enjoyment. So you match up dollar to time ratio for games in opposite genres? Like Bloodborne will have 'more' value even though grinding RPG or MMO will always be an unfair comparison? Do you do this before you go to the movies and consider the other 12 awesome movies which might offer more value before walking into the theatre?! Do you split your steak and compare dollar per ounce comparison to the other food options on the menu before you order that steak? Even though nutritional value may be more important? You probably don't have ridiculous standards for movies, books, amusement park rides or virtually any other entertainment media, but, you do for games right? All I suggest is temper your expectations. Otherwise Uncharted, Quantum Break, Tomb Raider and most of the new awesome games won't be passing your dollar per hour enjoyment regardless of how great they may be.
the way that you are justifying price and game length makes you associate money with time, in this case game length. @mhunterjr very good point but you are still associaitng game length and price as mutually exclusive which it shouldn't really be. i may find a 10hr game more enjoyable than a 40hr game, we all percieve time as different, i could have spent that extra 30hr working or studying. not saying if one thing or the other is wrong. i just think that we should try to enjoy something without the cost of things affecting our mood. if i go to a restaurant i dont really like looking at the price. i also dont compare a mcdonalds burger to a high quality burger.
I'm not suggesting time and value are mutually exclusive at all. You'll have to Read it again. I'm saying that time is a FACTOR... A factor who's importance is naturally and understandably going to vary from person to person. A Factor, that many people consider when they walk into a store and are faced with various entertainment options. $60 isn't a trivial amount of money to some people. Whether or not a game will keep their attention for days, weeks, months or years, is a perfectly reasonable consideration to make. One simply can't ignore that factor, and then claim not to understand why a games length is a big deal to others.
Why did you block me after admitting you were wrong?
For 60$ if I can get 20 hours of entertainment ( 3 dollars an hour ) I'm satisfied with my purchase. I usually end up playing games ( even lame ones ) for 30+hours. Does anyone else have a minimum set amount of time they need to feel satisfied with there purchase? As for the article it's true I've played short games for cheap that I find better then certain longer games case in point ico journey ---> knack and yes I have put 30 plus hours in knack for the platinum
i know the whole world pretty much revolves around money, so it is a fair comparison but shouldnt be the be-all and end-all. mgs games are very short in game time and i normally complete the game in one sitting. its dissapointing in the sense that i was anticipating for a game for so long only to finish it in a day but thats my own fault. i do however replay some of my favourite games over and over again. for a full retail game at full price i think i need atleast 10 hrs of a single slow playthrough to think its worth it. i definitely felt betrayed when playing ground zeroes, i probably spent over 20 hours playing that game over nd over again but it felt like a rip off. anyway, games length shouldnt matter too much and actual playtime shouldnt matter aswell. octodad was pretty fun and i enjoyed that more than the big chunk of time i spentlaying black flag(i enjoyed that aswell).
So how are we measuring quantity of content? Hours? That's quite a flawed way to look at it. If you make people walk through the same level 4 times, or just make them walk slower then you haven't really got more content. Unique art and content? Development time invested? That doesn't really count for much if it takes 5 minutes to blast through, and re-using assets or some procedural generation (like speed tree) doesn't necessarily devalue content. There is no good metric for measuring quantity of content, just as there is no solid metric for measuring quality of content. In the end you have to look at a game as the sum of it's parts and decide for yourself if it is good. If a game feels short on content then that's a negative against it. If someone feels that x hours isn't worth their $60 that's perfectly reasonable. Funny thing about money. $60 fits the definition of a fixed value, yet it's relative value will be entirely different from person to person. Makes it impossible for someone to say "this game is not worth the price" as a statement of fact.
$60 isn't a fixed value, it's a fixed price. Value will always be subjective, dependent upon how the person who's spending that $60 views the product they're getting. Example: Uncharted 2, which I put about 25 hours into, is as worth the $60 I spent on it as Final Fantasy X is, though I've played that four 400+ hours. Most people probably look at games- not necessarily the same ones- in a similar way. What does the title offer for its price? In every genre, I'm looking at different metrics, though I have things I prize more than others, overall. A good story, for example, is my number one: if I like it well enough, I can overlook mediocrity in every other avenue. But I'm not gonna be looking for that in my racing games, or even primarily in my shooters(though it helps). In racing games, I often tune out the music, because listening to it can cause me to miss something important in the performance or behavior of my car. Likewise, it's largely forgettable in a lot of games- particularly the shorter ones- until critical moments such as boss battles. In rpgs, though, where I'm likely to hear the same track for hours on end, good music is a must. And even after all this, these things go no further than myself: you obviously won't have the same values as me, because you're not me. They can be similar, but that may not leave certain genres; you may not even like fighters, or like the same ones I do(pretty much just BlazBlue and a few very old entries). As for quantity of content, I think you simplify it too much, even while overcomplicating it. Quantity is quantity: how much of something there is. Whether or not that quantity is of any quality is another matter entirely. Whether we're talking 1000 guns that all do the same thing, or ten extra levels that are an uninspired bore fest, different metrics again come into play, based on what each gamer values, and just how different each piece of that quantity is from the other. Pointless for a fighting game to have 50 characters where 30 of them have the same moveset. None of this is based on one or even two things; there are a dozen directions any of it can be viewed from, and what matters and how much it matters changes based on the person. That $60 price is just the start.
Those are the same thing. A 10/10 2 hour game isn't worth $60. Period. I'm not rich over here, that's getting into hooker price range and I'd rather go that route at $30+ per hour. That said, there's no reason short AAA games like The Order need to ask $60 if they can just ask $40 and be fair. Good game, good price, poor length, perfect balance.
Wrong. Game of length IS one of the aspects of quality. It is however, not the only one. So I do like and can enjoy short games. But what the author states is pure sophistry. Some games give you hundreds of hours, and that extra hundred hours or so you get out of it, indeed, increases the overall quality of the game. So there is no need to confuse reality. Short games can be fun, but length of game does influence quality.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.