On this episode of Quick Time Event, the team discussed the top that has light the internet ablaze the past few days – whether or not a game’s length should determine its worth. The game specifically in question is The Order: 1886.
Well going by past discussions and opinions, a lot of people on this site and elsewhere said Titanfall was not worth the 60 dollar price tag because it lacked SP and basic modes found in other FPS games of its genre. So we could apply that logic to The Order since it lacks a MP and has NO other modes.
Titanfall also didn't require a huge budget to make a new engine, pay a lot for composers, actors, writters and so on. There is a good chance that TF was a lot cheaper to make. I think that budget costs should determine the price.
And there's a good chance that it wasn't since more time could have been spent for netcode, weapon balance, multiplayer QA, extra content. Titanfall is still being supported and played to this day. All that support still takes time and money from the developer. Also I am pretty certain Titanfall has voice actors and a music score ;) "I think that budget costs should determine the price." Really?! You do know that almost all triple A titles are upwards a million plus right? It's the main argument right now on why Evolve has so much DLC. If a game is going to have a bigger budget then it should offer more content or at least some sort of replayabilty. A bigger budget to just look gorgeous doesn't sit well with me, it didn't for Ryse and it doesn't for The Order.
So GTA5 should've cost roughly $300? Well, I guess I got a bargain! I bet 'the Order' cost more to develop than 'Bloodborne' (nevermind the marketing budget), but I'd pay more for Bloodborne, 'cause I know I'll get my money's worth (multiplayer, randomised dungeons, multiple classes etc). I'm currently 212 hours into Dragon Age: Inquisition and I've still got a way to go before I'm done, so for me $60 was great value. But $60 for 6 hours and nothing else? That's pretty steep... and you just know they've got some $30 dlc waiting in the wings.
There wouldn`t have been much reason to make a new netcode. The source engine has a very reliable and solid netcode, so it would just be modified to suit the needs of Titanfall. Weapon balance is changing specific numbers in the code to influence, weapon damage, reload speed, fire rate and so on. That`s as simple as changing a line from 0.30 to 0.40 to increase the reload speed. For QA you can spend just as much money for a singleplayer game as on a multiplayer game or as on a game that has singleplayer and multiplayer, it all depends on the studio setup. Additionally if you look on the internet for the average salary of a QA tester you will find that it`s not very high and wouldn`t play a very big part on the budget. I didn`t say Titanfall doesn`t have a soundtrack or voice actors, but to a much lesser degree and also to a much lesser degree motion capture if any. Upwards a million plus is a far underestimation for AAA games. As for Evolve I don`t think all the DLC is valid, but on the other hand they decided to use the CryEngine and that one is grossly overpriced. I would place the game as a mid range game instead of high range (AAA). As a personal user you can get it for a tiny amount, but for professional use in full games the price is very high. The only reason why Ryse would have a very high budget would be because it was in development since the 360 and originally planned as a 360 game. The engine wouldn`t cost them anything, they made the engine already for Crysis and it`s only a modification. I also like to add that CryTek always had problems with delivering great games in all aspects. far Cry was good, but the story was often not that great, the gameplay was a normal FPS, the first Crysis improved on some of the stuff but again it was more of a showcase on how to make something look good. After the first Crysis game they completely lost their plot. Ready at Dawn actually has proven that they can make good looking games with good gameplay and a good story. Yes that was on the PSP, but that doesn`t matter. The first demos of the game had been recieved very mixed, with framerate issues and problems that the gundplay would not feel good at all. From the most recent demos all of that has been resolved according to the people who played it. Developing a completely new engine from the ground up for a completely new IP on a completely new system compared to what you worked on before is extremely costly. Just to throw a random number around. 60 million spent where the IP and all the tech is new versus 30 million where it`s a known IP or a new IP with licensed or updated tech doesn`t mean it will get your more content. It means a lot more money needs to be spent to get anywhere near the ballpark where the 30 million game is in regards to content. Mind you that`s just random numbers to illustrate that you need to spend a lot more money when doing something from the ground up to get a similar result compared to something that isn`t new from the ground up. What is there currently to go by to say that The Order won`t be good? A video of some dude that finishes the game in 5 hours and it`s taken as a fact that everybody else will require the same amount of time. Yes it has a higher amount of cutscenes and yes it`s a linear story driven game. So what? It`s like when people complained about MGS having too many cutscenes. There is nothing wrong with having cutscenes even if they are lengthy. People complained about Destiny not having enough cutscenes and I didn`t mind that just as I don`t mind if The Order has a lot of cutscenes.
If you take the video as evidence that the game is boring, mundane or something else I can`t help you. I can watch any video for any other game like GTA, Gears of War, God of War, Shenmue, Uncharted, Halo and so on and it will be boring and mundane because I only sit there without having any interaction at all for something that is designed for user interaction. Even if that user interaction is only a QTE. I will make up my mind about the game after I played it not before and certainly not by watching some videos. @ Pop I didn`t say where the clear cutoff point would be and I certainly didn`t imply that the costs should go up but the highest should be 60 bucks and after that go down. Yes GTA5 was very expensive to make, but it had also an insanely huge team, just like the AC games have. So there should also be a correlation between the budget and team size. Obviously if you have one thousand people working on an AC game it will cost a lot more then some other game where 150 people work on. Why can`t you get your money worth on a game that lasts 10 hours? I like DA:I as well but how much time do you actually spend by just running around or doing side missions that have no impact on the story? If you take the story alone you would come up with a lot less time. The game has a lot filler and padding just like a lot of other open world games have. I hope Bioware doesn`t do that for the next ME. Games in the past had been a lot shorter, had been a lot cheaper to make and you actually payed more for them compared to what you pay now, so where is the issue exactly? Edit: 13 disagrees and 0 agrees also shows what people come to look into the article. It`s sad what the "gaming" community turned into over the last 20 years. Sure you had the Nintendo versus Sega people, N64 vs. PS1 and so on, but it wasn`t such a cancer before as it is now.
Why do you defend Sony in every thing they do? I have both consoles and prefer my PS4 but no MP or co-op and short game length cannot be defended,I am buying the game day one but blind fanboy loyalty will not stop me from calling out BS,this game is perfect for MP and co-op,not all games need it but the Order does.You keep blindly defending Sony if thats what you feel like doing but people are right to be critical of a £50 game with no replay value or added game modes that has been in development for a long time,and if reports are correct the campaign minus the cutscenes is pretty short,keep on defending this crap I wont
Pokemon averages 36 hours to beat, to 200 of playing time with out getting boring lol that's my standard lmao
I think a lot of people want this game and the Sony Playstation 4 to fail. Jealasy, Fanboyism, Stupidity. Basing your opinion on a speed run of the game is ignorant and stupid. Grow up people
No replay value no added game modes,no co-op (4 main characters perfect for it) a short campaign,I prefer my PS4 over my X1 but this game would of been Gears all over again only this time on Playstation,open your eyes before you tell people to grow up,I love MP and I am devastated this game does not have it,will I enjoy the game? Definatly,will I miss hours of fun on MP or playing co-op with friends and getting my £50 worth 10 x over? Definatly,you keep your head in the sand buddy but people are right to be pissed,ask yourself if I was trolling the game would I have it coming day one and would I be so dissapointed that theres no online? Singleplayer only gamers are covered,TPS online junkies like me are screwed end of story
^^^^^ Yes. This. Dark Souls was speed run in less than 30 minutes. Nuff said. Case closed.
Except I'm not basing my opinion on a speed run. I am actually basing it on what this site viewed the features and options of Titanfall and applying them to this game.
Look at the flip side at evolve it has less than 1 hours worth of content yet nobody cares about it as they so hung up on DLC. You literally do the same thing each game either from the hunter or monsters point of view. People will argue every game is different but isn't that really the same for single player games these days? With 3d games advanced AI and collectables. I'm not advocating short games HELL no but there's shorter games out there than the order the differnce is there not exclusives to the highest selling console right now so people aren't pointing them out. Theres been open world games with less time than the order too but since they open world people ignore it and also use collectables and side missions as a reason to. Yet the order has collectables.. But my point is still a game is as fun as the player gets out of it and as long as you find the fun from it. Some people can and will replay it multiple times and love it each and every time. For them it will be a 40+ hour game... You cannot say its a 6 hour game as its a 6 hour story as thats treading dangerous waters as then we could say forza and gt is a zero hour game as it has zero story. Damn politics ruining gaming..
you're right, the order should have a lower price point. I said the same before that games with only one mode should be going for less. Prices have gotten a bit crazy this gen but as long as people pay the prices nothing is going to change :/
Jetpack Joyride price: o US$ 999.999.999.999.999.999...
Most games aren't worth $60, The Order:1886 definitely isn't an exception.
So I guess this is the new way to drag the game down. First it was the graphics had been downgraded, then it was that the game had too many QTEs and not enough action, and when all of that was proven untrue now people attack the game for not being long enough. There are those people who go from article to article, shouting their agenda as loud as they can because they need people to listen and believe. I remember when this hobby used to be playing games.
They didn't prove too many QTE's to be untrue, and for the record I'm not bashing the game, just answering the question in the title, but I mean let's not kid ourselves here, The Order: 1886 ain't exactly gonna be spinning around inside anyone's PS4 for long...
Really sad, isn't it?
Can't argue with you there. I still wish games were 40$, it was much easier to do an impulse buy back then. Now I wait for most games to drop to 20-40$. And it usually happens within a month or so after releases these days.
I wish games were $30..no wait 15, no $10. I wish all games were $10. Actually $5 is better..no, $3. I'll pay $3 for Witcher 3. How long it Witcher 3 going to be? Might have to drop that down to $2 for games. That Bioshock Infinite took me 20 hours to beat and i bought it on release, payed $59 too much if you ask me..
So get Gamers Club Unlocked. lol I never pay $60 for a day-one release. At the absolute most, $51.54 (that's with tax), but usually only ~$30-40 because they run promos (e.g. $10 in rewards certificates for pre-ordering a game). Lol people **** about games being too expensive but they're not thrifty/resourceful enough to look for options out there that provide a solution.
Quality (if anything) should determine price.
The Order is turning into a religion. Some people hate it, some people love it, some dont care at all, and others worship.
As opposed to any other game? " People hate it, some people love it, some dont care at all, and others worship"
IMO when it comes to games if you don't like it don't buy it & leave it at that . It's not worth getting crazy over . Xbox , PlayStation pc Nintendo , it all won't matter in the long run .
@ sckipt Except that religions consist of worldviews comprised of fundamental truth claims about existence, meaning, and morality. The Order is an artistic, artificial experience produced solely for entertainment - and one which makes no such truth claims. So the only valid point of analogy here is that people have strong feelings about both. In which case, you might as well have said that The Order is turning into a movie... or dare I say... a video game.
Congrats you just described everything in existence.
@sckipt And almost all of them haven't even played the game.
From a practical point of view the budget needed should determine the price of the game. Length shouldn't be taken to determine the price because it's possible to make a 20+ hour game a lot cheaper compared to a 10 hours game.
The end user's experience should determine value. I don't care if a game cost 100 million to make, if it is not going to keep me occupied for longer than a quarter of a day then it isn't worth $60 of my hard earned money. You are determined to defend every aspect of this game and that is your prerogative but fair warning; you are increasingly sounding like a zealot.
I swear we get like 30 articles a day about this game. And it looks like it'll continue until friday... Once the review goes up it'll be talked about until Bloodborne releases.
If a game has a lot of replay value like Bayonetta then its worth the price IMO, if a game is short and lacks quality gameplay and replay value then its not worth top dollar. Ryse was not a bad one time playthrough, but it got repetitive and lacked in the gameplay department, it was only worth picking up at a later date when it was cheaper. If a game has quality gameplay and offers variation people will come back for more.
How entitled we can be... Hard work goes into a game and if it is 5 hours at $60,we complain that we're being taken advantage of. Meanwhile, I'm sure people would moan if Elder Scrolls, GTA, or the Souls games cost more than $60. The vast majority of such games are rated M. It implies you can make good, cognizant decisions regarding your purchases. Buy it, wait for the price to go down, rent it, borrow it, or skip it. Your money, your choice.
"How entitled we can be... " So if we spend $65.00 for a game we should not be "entitled" to content worth the price? We should just except it even if it is super short otherwise we are being "entitled" and unreasonable. Wouldn't you feel jipped if you went to a full priced movie and it looked good but was over in 15 minutes? I don't think it is so unreasonable to want to get your money's worth out of a title. A 5-8 hour game that has a lot of non-gameplay elements taking up much of that time just doesn't seem worth it. If we all just knuckle under and support this then more games will be shorter and shorter. Should A Game's Length Determine Its Price? Well maybe the price should determine the length. If you are going to ask full price maybe you shouldn't stop adding levels until it is a decent length. Otherwise it may as well be a PSN budget download game.
The thing is, how do you truncate games worth full price and otherwise? Production value? Length? Longevity? The first two are fine, but longevity is incredibly subjective. You can't say fighting games aren't worth full price because you can readily sink 10,000 hours into some like Smash ... I would know. Should we decide based on how long the campaign is? IS this a game with a campaign? I think it depends on too much to be decisive. Short games wouldn't be ideal for all game types, but sufficient for some. In the case of The Order, you get no breaks it seems unless you pause it. I get what they're trying to do by being cinematic and I think a game of this type needs to not drag out. It's not like an RPG where you can do many different things you aren't obligated to in order to uncover more of the lore. It's telling a structured, straightforward story. We'll see how it goes. All things considered, I'm looking at this from both angles: is it okay to make just short games and charge full price? Well, I don't think so, but it's my money to spend where I decide if it's worth it. But you see how long we have to wait between Rockstar titles and the fact that MGSV and The Witcher 3 are massive games all come in at the same price? Let's not forget MW2 costing $70 for recycled assets. I'd say we're all taking advantage of each other in some way, but, as always, our choice. Consumers may vote with their wallets. I'm not happy with the way the industry turned out on some things but we can't win them all. If everyone feels as strongly as you do, this trend will slow down. We'll have less games and longer drought periods, but the trend will likely slow down. Make of that what you will, mate.
YES. If game 1 has graphics 10, gameplay 10, plot 10 and characters 10 and is 20 hours long it get a higher rating then the same game that's 5 hours long!
It would be funny if RAD is telling reviewers to write bad reviews before the release date and like show them wrong at the end just like R* paid the media to write about the violence in the game to get more publicity
It would be funny and also impossible. The entire game video is up on youtube. There are no secrets here, everything is known. Nice dream though.
Replay value/game length is a factor in my decision to pay full price for a game.. but I don't think that it's fair for publishers/w.e to readjust a game's price to match its length, especially considering the amount of production that went into it.
@itsJustEmman That would just be silly, I can't see them doing that to be honest. Rockstar making the violence in GTA known is different because that actually sells, just like sex does. Sorry was meant to be a reply to you, but it went down as a fresh comment. My mistake.
Like I said earlier, it depends on the game. For a game like COD which has a 5-6 hour campaign, it also has MP and that is the bread and butter of why the series continue to sell year after year. Opened world centric games that are single players like GTAV and Far Cry 4 definitely has enough length, great gameplay and the developers also added in Online play as it gives those games even more incentives and value. Single player linear scripted games like The Walking dead are released in episodes and each episode is like $5 so that is the way to release single player cinematic games. For games that is short and has no multilayer or co op, then they should be released at $40 or below to justify the value they contain regardless of how good they might be. That is Why I am looking forward to Witcher 3 and already pre order it at the full $60 but I just rent The Order for a weekend of fun. no need to spend $60 on it when a gamefly membership will do.
It plays a factor next to content. I mean if a game had a multiplayer or some sort of side content (bonus mission, and or side quest/missions) then the length of the main game plays a smaller factor. However, if your game doesn't have a multiplayer and or side content only the main campaign, then it's length plays a higher factor which leads to my next point, is replayability. If a game has a high replayability value to it, then it's length can be looked passed. However, if it doesn't, it lessens the value of the game. So overall with The Order, it all depends on the person and it's safe to say that this is going to a mixed opinion group just like with Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes.
The game is bought...That is all I need to know... I'm getting it... Who on earth is the governing body on what constitutes replayability in a game, anyway? I started playing games when they were lucky to last 2 hrs on a playthrough, & gameplay entailed walking across a screen, with limited up & down movement, as your character performed a grand total of 3 moves, punch, kick & jump. Funnily enough, some of these games are STILL the GOLD standard of there genres, games like Double Dragon, Streets Of Rage, Final Fight... It seems that there is some online forum law of the gaming jungle that a game that lasts more than 12hrs is boring & crap....Yet, a game that last 5-8hrs is WAAAAAAAY too short.. The only thing that is short, is the thinking capacity of these online critics... May even be short man syndrome.....just another thing these short a$$e$ can fuel there constant anger with.... Now, lets start an online betting service that allows punters to guess what will be the next hairbrain, airbrain, critique, that these turkeys will fabricate, from there under oxygenized braincells....
That's dumb to even ask that!!!! Cause you pay a game to play a long story, if it's only 5 mins long u not giving $60 for it,..I don't want it to pay $65 with tax for a 3 hour game....
Here's a comparison I think is fair: Heavenly Sword. I loved the hell out of that game, but it only took around 5-6 hours to beat. There was some replayability...not a whole lot as the extra content was easy to obtain. So here's a timeline for all of you: I picked up and beat the game quickly at launch in Sept 2007. Finished casually picking up the collectables by the end of Oct that year. Picked the game out of my gaming shelf in 2010 after being disappointed by FFXIII and loved playing through it again. Still sits in my PS3 collection and was recently played through and defeated by my wife. If only there was a trophy patch... So yes, short single player games can in fact be justifiable if the game is in fact good. Heavenly Sword was a masterpiece in my opinion. Really loved the boss fights. And in the end, it's still owned by me just like, say Sonic on my still functioning Genesis and Super Mario World for my SNES plugged in at our getaway cabin. Just food for thought and I think a decent comparison between games (Sony exclusive, SP only, short, new developer to a big, AAA approach).
I think it's more the replay value that should decide the price. If it's a short game that isn't supported by content that stays entertaining through multiple playthroughs, then yeah, it shouldn't be priced at $60. In general, games with online multiplayer that receives frequent updates to content are worth the price tag, but even in that case there are exceptions. The more modes a game has to experience, though, the better the chances are that its replay-ability will be high, though, so that's an easier determining scale to use. Of course, you could also off-set this by making the game GINORMOUS and just cramming it full to the brim with extra content that randomizes itself to an extent, and get a similar effect, if the variety in the extra content is done well.
I think that are other aspects that should determine the price of a game more than a game length, lets just say that 90% of the time reviews don't mention fundamental aspects that break more the enjoyment than the length,i for once would like more focus on technical aspects like how smooth is the framerate does it dips below the minimum expected 30fps or is rock solid , screen tearing,game breaking bugs,LOD and texture streeming,objects pop in,this aspects yes should determine the price of the game and the score more than the length.
short answer: no. because you're still going to get people complaining about the price, regardless of the length of the game.
I beat God of War 1 in just over 6 hrs. Guess what, amazing game.
Something funny just occurred to me. Everyone talking about game length I assume for as it pertains to value. But value is subjective. Whats valuable to one person may not be to another. Case in point, I just spent $70 on a steak on the weekend. It lasted me 10 minutes and I enjoyed it. Is The Order with its 5 to 12 hour play through worth the pricetag to me? If its a good game, Hell Yes.
Length is the least of this game's concern. The constant stream of immersion breaking cut scenes and the staggering amount of QTE sequences is laughably bad. It's as if they decided to dedicate a game to every bad design decisions from Ryse.
I'm sorry, didnt you get the memo? Whining about Cutscenes and QTE's was last week. This week we're whining about game length. Next week it will be the Black Bars again. Every topic gets a 3rd go round. BTW This seems to be what keeps getting copy and pasted on that Gaf thread. OsirisBlack - 14 hours Theman2k - 12 hours Rapier - 9 hours Verendus - 10 hours I dont see the problem because someone rushed through in 5 hours. Others who obviously were more worried about enjoying the game than finishing it quickly didnt.
exactly. value is subjective. like Skyrim... sure, i liked the game, and i certainly got my money's worth out of it, but i've had much more memorable experiences with games like Limbo, which to me felt like it had better value for the money it was going for when it released than Skyrim... if that makes sense...
So, uhh, Skyrim can cost 200 bucks then?????
@Bathyj I think people are talking about game length, but that's not the only issue with certain games. If a game has amazing gameplay that's actually worth replaying then its worth the money, personally I don't think games like Ryse and The Order are worth the money they're asking for them, they look pretty and all, but they lack the most important thing which is rich rewarding gameplay. Its like you say you spent $70 on a steak, but you'd be pretty pissed if it tasted like crap. People can buy what they like and were all different, I ain't gonna hate on someone for spending their money how they see fit. I truly hope people enjoy The Order, just not something I would buy personally.
Determine? Perhaps not. Influence? Yes.
Value is subjective. I don't play mp, co op or buy dlc. My game time is precious due to work/wife/kids/college. I'm happy with the length as the value for me is acceptable. Gives me a chance to enjoy the story and actually finish a game!! I would spend more going out for a meal with family or a trip to the cinema. I can see however others might feel that for them the value isn't there. Day one can't wait!!
10 hr with no MP should be 40.......4 to 6 hours with no MP should be 30....... no SP (single player) but MP should be 30, especially if they have us paying for extra maps games 60 dollars should have a ton of replay, smash bros....this should be poster boy for 60 dollar price games, another is Xenoblade SP with 5 to 10 hours of game play and MP should cost 60
well movies cost more to make and cost less to see in cinema and even when you buy the blue ray, why games can't be like that?
Price is determined by those who sell it and the consumers that buy it.
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.