Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick interview — Not every game has to last 100 hours

Strauss Zelnick, CEO of Take-Two Interactive, talked with GamesBeat about Borderlands 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, esports, and other topics at E3 2019.

[Felix_Argyle_Catbro]

AA games would be doing great if every developer wasn't aiming for 100+ hours.

[rainslacker]

Started playing Calarius Blaze I got on sale. The game is short. 6-8 levels of SCHMUP action...all lasting around 5 minutes. 8 characters to choose from. Tons of fun, and I've easily played it 20 or so hours now going for the trophies. Focus on the fun more than the length....to which I feel there is some other euphemism in life similar to that, but in this case, it's actually true.

[JaY_B1012]

Yes! I'm so burned out from all of the open-world games. I truly want to finish Days Gone, but in the back of my head, I think of how much more I have to do to get the complete story.

[CrimsonWing69]

Yea he just thinks they need 100+ micro transactions.

[The_Blue]

This guy is a genuinely genius, I thought all games last 100 hours s/

[Fishy Fingers]

It’s a non quote from a more complex question and answer.

[CBaoth]

really sad they chose this piece of irrelevant info given the topics Mr. Zelnick elaborated on. Solid interview which will undoubtedly be broken down into several articles over the days. I can see them already, "Take-two CEO thinks subscription services like Gamepass may not be the future" or "Sony, Nintendo, and other big publishers are failing E3 says Take-two CEO"

'"

[UltraNova]

"Take-two CEO thinks subscription services like Gamepass may not be the future" "

Of course these services dont make sense for T2 when most of their games produce billions in revenue, each!

[CBaoth]

@ Nova

No, he actually ponders whether the entire industry could support it, not just his company. He is of the belief that interactive media (video games) shouldn't be lumped together with passive entertainment (music and film). He basically stated that by and large most consumers generally play 1-2 titles a month. Data has shown consumers utilize passive entertainment subscription services far more frequently. More consumers may not find the inherent value in it; thus subscription services for interactive entertainment may not be viable long-term.

[killswitch80]

A lot of games suffer from being too long. I am ok with shorter games but the price tag should reflect that.

[Arty84]

Exactly

[UltraNova]

If shorter games run time has to reflect their prices then overly long games should too. If say the global average in games run time is somewhere around 15-25 hrs (guessing here) and the accepted price set at $60 then shouldn't games running over 40+ hrs be more expensive?

Maybe we shouldn't go there...

[The_Hooligan]

I see what you are saying but what would be a starting price for 100 hrs game? $60? Also just because a game is 100 hrs long doesn't necessarily mean the overall package is worth the full price. God of war was 25 hrs (thats how long it took me to do 100%) so does that mean it won't be worth $60? I mean i understand what you are trying to say but there are to many different variables to factor in to come up with a proper price to justify the price of a game based on the amount of hrs.

[rainslacker]

I'd rather take a focused game which made less content more appealing, than a long game that has a bunch of added content which isn't even worth playing, or gets old fast.

I guess it's a fine line, but the push to make everything more open has caused many games to be more expensive to make than they needed to be, or less fun than they could have been.

I respect the games and devs that can find the right balance, and just produce a good game regardless of length.

[Godmars290]

Given that they make games with DLC and MTs in mind, you'd think the base game only had ten hours.

[DaGR8JIBRALTAR]

Exactly!!! sheesh! I'd rather play a fully fleshed out game that was 25-30 hrs anyday over one that's 100+. I need to move on to the next game...

[Kabaneri]

100 hours in Borderlands is ok because that game is made for grinding, but RDR2s story got dragged out way too long. It wouldnt have been so long either had they just included a real fast travel system.

[JackBNimble]

Well Rdr2 wasn't 100 hours it was 65 if I remember correctly.

[GrizToof]

I didn't read the article so this might be out of context but I dont know a single gamer that expects every AAA game go be 100 plus hours. I would say between 12 to 30 hours is fine for most games and 30 to 60 for rpgs. That is just my opinion and is a subjective question to ask. People that dont have a sound argument for a legitimate question like to use exaggerations to make there terrible answers seem correct but actually makes you look foolish to most people that have common sense.

[Enigma_2099]

... and yet you're pushing for games as a service.

[Grown Folks Talk]

I'm perfectly fine with 20-40 with excellent replay value myself.

[milohighclub]

True, like max Payne 4???

[Einhander1971]

This is the problem with today's games to much pointless grinding for the sake of it. 100+ hours of boring. Games like Vanquish which got slammed last gen for being to short or no online, was a complete gem of a game. Developers need to go back to basics and realise its quality over quantity.

[NeoGamer232]

Completely agree. Not every game has to be an epic commitment in my life.

[ShadowWolf712]

I don't think Strauss thinks anything beyond disgusting levels of monetization are necessary for games. Guy's a creep, as is the way he looks at players as ATMs just waiting to be tapped.

[ShockUltraslash]

Oh?
Devil May Cry 5 has 1000+ hours of gameplay.