Oh no, sixty dollars for eight hours? Just ... shut up

Destructoid: 'It seems that gamers are getting more and more obsessed with length. I never felt it was important, yet I am now having to make sure I include at least a rough estimate of a game's running time in every review I publish. While not a problem on its own, this fixation on length has brought with it some arbitrary guidelines that I feel are starting to endanger our perspective.

I'm talking about the, "I'm not spending $60 for eight hours" crowd. Apparently, a game that lasts eight hours is now a failure, and not worth paying full price for, no matter how good it is. This new emphasis on length over quality smacks of middle school essay requirements, where your word count was more crucial than your writing ability.'

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
GSpartan7772878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

Although I agree that $60 for 8 hours is good compared to other form of entertainment, we used to get more hours of gameplay for last gen for a lower price. But whatever, I don't care.

GamerSciz2878d ago

Keep in mind that nowadays gamers are all about graphics. In turn developers try and push the hardware to the limit but because of that it takes up that much more RAM/Processor power so the game can't really be all that long because space is taken up primarily with graphics.

A game today with graphics of say Gamecube stanards could be 100's of hours long because graphics wouldn't be that hard on todays technology.

ComboBreaker2878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

We all know that length doesn't matter.
It's how the game used it.
Or so they claimed.

LightofDarkness2878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

It's not about how "hard" they would be on our tech, it's about how much detail you want to exhibit. Modern tech can display many times more detail than the last gen of consoles, so developers like to take advantage of the extra headroom (well, some of them do...). This means that all the content you create for your game, ie. models, textures, maps, characters, faces etc. get a LOT more attention to detail. This means it takes more time to create them, or more people. That means more money has to be spent creating them.

Factor in development cycles that haven't changed much from the previous gen (they've seemingly gotten shorter, even) and increased pressure to release early and make more money, games as a result are shorter. if projects run on for too long, they run over budget, and multi-million dollar publishing giants REALLY hate to lose money.

Hope I wasn't being too patronizing there.

That said, a few games are pushing their length a bit more, like Deus Ex and Skyrim this year, both of which I cannot WAIT to get my hands on. Rage is supposedly above the 20 hour mark too.

AAACE52878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

I don't know where people got the idea that games were somehow going to be as long as games used to be! With all the processing power these consoles can do now only equal better graphics and sound!

Somehow, people got it into their minds that we were going to have great graphics, sound and longer games without paying extra for it!

If it bothers people to pay $60 for a game, look at it this way. You can go see a movie which is an hour and a half to three hours for 10-30 bucks(with snacks). If you take someone with you, it's about double that! You'll probably remember about 15 minutes of the movie and you will walk away empty handed.

At least with games, you can replay it if the experience was fun or if it has multiplayer. Or you can sell it and get some of your money back!

More importantly, keep in mind that games were rumored to cost $75-$100 before this gen got started. All of our complaining about high prices put us in the situation we are in!

TheFact0032878d ago

Maybe on the 360 that's an excuse, but not for PS3 :) Look at MGS4

kaveti66162878d ago

"so the game can't really be all that long because space is taken up primarily with graphics."

Please don't talk about things you don't know.

ChrisGTR12878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

guess im part of the problem? i dont buy a game unless it has good multiplayer. either that or the SP is over 20 hours. its just called buying games worth buying , renting games worth renting.

Anon19742878d ago

Let me guess, another "insightful" piece by Jim Sterling?


Yeah. It is. The guy just won't rest until he's firmly planted himself as the geraldo rivera of videogame journalism. "Let's compare videogame prices to money spent of prostitutes! Woo Wee! I'm a journalist!"

Also the length of this non-issue article just goes to show that ole Jimmy seriously needs an editor. Again, Destructoid continues it's descent into mediocrity.

GamerSciz2878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )


So explain to me how high end graphics, realistic physics, and large resolutions don't affect the amount that can fit on the disk. Besides just saying "Please don't talk about things you don't know" explain to me how I am wrong. Rather then putting a comment that has no use except to be annoying, put a constructive comment. One that maybe teaches me and others why I am wrong.

Edit: Nvm, after looking at your comments 99% are pointless little remarks like the one above. Spare me the explanation I would rather not hear it from you.

AAACE52878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

You guys can't really be this thick headed...

Quit turning everything into a 360 vs Ps3 debate! What I meant was high quality graphics and sound plus longer gameplay will drive the budget of a game up! For instance, Uncharted 2 cost around 100 million to make if i'm correct! Great game with the best graphics and sound. Long story and good multiplayer.

It's hard for a lot of other developers to take such a big risk on a budget like that with no guarantee on seeing an even higher return, unless it has the name Call of Duty attached to it or something!

kancerkid2878d ago

Plenty of games with the feared SP-only of only 8 hours that I would pick up over multiplayer only games (like CoD).

HolyOrangeCows2878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

We're consumers, Jim. Plenty of games do better than that. Capitalism and Competition, my foolish friend; another guy offers me more, the standard increases.

I won't accept 8 hours for $60 b/c I can do better.

So utterly sick of being called "spoiled" by "journalists" for being a smart buyer.
"Duuuhhhh, people pay for my gamez and to play and review them, but you're spoiled for thinking $60 is too much for 8 hours of gameplay!"

kaveti66162878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

Gamersciz, I refuse to explain to you this very basic of concepts.

Edit: Do you think taller or fatter people have more genes?

jetlian2877d ago

is all the old games were longer coming from start naming them please!!!! RE5 longer than the first 2 games combined

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 2877d ago
RememberThe3572878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

"we used to get more hours of gameplay... for a lower price"

Thats my biggest issue with the prices of games. We used to get more for less. I completely understand why games cost more, but that does mean I have to like it.

And it's hard to complain when the Aussies have to pay sometimes double what we pay.

@above: Gamers now days aren't all about graphics, N4G is all about graphics. Look at how well COD sells, those games consistently look mediocre yet blow the doors off sales records.

GamerSciz2878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

Gamers as seen by the gaming community are graphics whores. Only reason COD does so well is it has a large following since MW and is very easy to pick up and play.

Also on your price of games issue, original Nintendo games cost around 70$-80$ at launch and that was way back when. Not to mention game development costs have more then doubled in the past ten years. In fact average multiplatform games cost between 18M-28M.

And to be fair Black Ops is not that horrible looking of a game. It's no Crysis but its graphics are better then you make them sound.

Pozzle2878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

You're right about Aussies having to pay more. If I recall correctly, we've always paid about $100 (sometimes more) for our games.
Heck, I remember my parents used to complain about buying Nintendo 64 games for me because they cost freaking $100!

Conker's Bad Fur Day was the first game I remember ever being $110. @[email protected]

RedSky2878d ago

It's no doubt partly being caused by the costs of developing modern games far exceeding older ones, but even then it's hard not to feel butthurt when:

1 - Developers/distributors are selling you additional hours of gameplay you would have otherwise gotten free previously as DLC.

2 - Instead of making a longer game, they hit a nice arbitrary number, ship it, and then release a game 6-12 months later with the same engine, graphics and virtually the same gameplay. Why do it any other way when you can halve development time and almost double the profits?

It's not fair to compare different genres, I'll give them that. FPSs by their nature are always going to be more expensive than traditional Final Fantasy style RPGs to make per gaming hour.

IcarusOne2878d ago

"we used to get more hours of gameplay for last gen for a lower price"

Did you read the article? He mentions this complaint specifically. Because it's bullshit. Ever since the NES days, games have always been around the $50-$60 range. And they weren't that much longer than they are now.

Hoje03082878d ago

People are obsessed with length (ahem...), because not everyone gets their games sent to them for free by the publisher. Some people are on a limited budget and want to get as much entertainment for their dollar as possible. That being said, DS2 is a game just begging to be played more than once, so the initial length doesn't quite tell the whole tale.

espiritu6042878d ago

sure you get more hours for a lower price but is the quality as good as it was today? I mean im see ing killzone 3 and uncharted 3, they are mona lisa compared to last gen games which is like a picture of a stickman.

GSpartan7772878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

I can say KZ3 and UC3 justify $60 but most games that come out don't. So then the question becomes, as 3D technology continues to advance would it justify us having to pay $200 for 1 hour gameplay in the future while having our characters look almost exactly like us?

NeoBasch2878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

Which weren't nearly as good. I'll take games like Heavenly Sword and Uncharted 2 over any 40+ hour game: unless that game happened to be Shin Megami Tensei or Final Fantasy because, unlike most, they're actually worth it. Everything else deserves to be cut.

For instance, Resistance: Fall of Man was a 15+ hour game. IMO, this is way too long. At least, for that game. The first half of the game could have removed upwards to three levels, reducing the play time to around 10 hours, but the experience would have been that much better because of it.

Either way, it's arrogant for developers to think we have all this time on our hands. If you have a 40+ hour game, it better be good all throughout.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2877d ago
Octo12878d ago

I don't mind paying $60 for a game that may as well last only 8 hours or shorter. I car about re-playability. I don't just mean FPS either. My examples of a game that has great re-playability MGS series, Batman:Arkham Asylum. Games that can be played in a few different ways.

ActionBastard2878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

PS3 owners who got DS2 and Extraction are looking at around 14-16hrs combined. Not bad at all.

And this is the only time I'll ever agree with Jim Sterling.

visualb2878d ago

yes but don't you NEED Move for extraction?

in which case, if you don't have move, you are left with 8-9 hours unless you dish out 90$+ for Move n stuff

HeavenlySnipes2878d ago

You can play it with the DS3 if I remember correctly.

Honest_gamer2878d ago

no, no you do not need move, just turned the game of it would be better with move thought the game is to fast paised so hard to kill everything and get amo before the guy moves!

visualb2878d ago

OH sweet =) cheers for replies =)

thehitman2878d ago

with game length if you want the game to last longer dont play it on easy/normal.

El-Fenemeno12132878d ago (Edited 2878d ago )

replied to wrong person -_-

gamer20102878d ago

Dead Space 2 is worth the $60 and then some.