Should Publishers List Game Length On The Package

The play length of a game has been in much debate recently with some consumers worrying that shorter games are the wave of the future. As such, Skewed and Reviewed have posted an opinion piece asking of game companies should list the average play length on the packages of their products.

[crazychris4124]

No because every person plays differently. Some people wanna rush through and beat it as fast as possible while people take their time, look for collectibles, easter eggs and other secrets. This isnt like movies, music or tv shows where the length is the same everytime you play it.

[Garethvk]

I admit it would be tricky but if they said say 6-10 hours, 11-15, etc for normal play that would be a nice indicator.

[crazychris4124]

I would just look at gameplay on youtube, ask people who play the game and look at reviews from trusted sites or channels. This would only work for linear single player games. I beat GTA Vice city in about 10 hours but I put in many more just screwing around or looking for hidden packages, jumps or easter eggs. Games with multiplayer would also be tough since you can spend hundreds of hours playing them. I see where the author is coming from but it just wont work out.

[Fez]

I don't like the idea in principle.. since it assumes shorter games have less value. Sometimes this can be true but there's nothing worse than hours of padding which only detracts from a games enjoyment.

Then again we have sites like how long to beat which does this. Probably good for the consumer if they have more information to base their decision on. I would hate developers to start padding games or force multiplayer to up that number though.

I think I'm the opposite to most.. if a game will take up too much of my time I probably won't play it. Anything over 10 hours to complete the main mission has to be pretty special e.g. I'm not going to play rainbow moon for 50 hours even if the gameplay is pretty fun.

[bintarok]

You can also determine the longevity by peeking at http://howlongtobeat.com

[morganfell]

You cannot determine longevity by going to howlongtobeat because that is still an average and not an indicator for all people. Resolute matters are the sort of items that should be listed on the box - Number of players, output resolution, etc. Longevity is still subjective and as such is not a one size fits all even if you list averages.

If you list the a play time on the box, then you have to list the fact this is an average. Eventually you will be forced by circumstance to print on the package on what the averages are based. It becomes a never ending issue, a rabbit hole. Best to let matters stand. If something needs to be corrected it is our dependence on reviews and the manner in which some allow themselves to be manipulated by media.

[MegaRay]

This crazy guy make sense. It wont work unless they say 10+ hours or 3+hours...etc

P.S. I was just joking, dont be offended

[OrangePowerz]

True.

I also think that it's irrelevant for the enjoyment of the user. A 20+ hours game can be more boring than a 10 hours long game or the other way around, but it's not influenced by how long it is (unless it's padded out). In the eye of some people it would also devalue shorter games to some extend.

The media and others need to stop with their crusade of "short games are bad" or "should cost less". You know what we get if people continue with that and push for longer games? Games that are artificially longer with unnecessary padding to hit a certain mark of how long it takes to finish it.

[3-4-5]

Dragon Quest 9 takes about 55 hours to beat.

It took me 71 hours to finish the Main Story.

I played at my own pace, took my time, leveled up my characters how I wanted, expored, and just enjoyed playing the game and everything it offered.

Did I take more time than needed? Yes

Did it matter ? NO

I still had a great experience that was customized...in real time....to my wants and how I wanted to experience the game.

* I don't care if you beat Dragon Quest 9 in 35-40 hours.....I had a GREAT time beating the game in 71 hours and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Same applies for other games.

If I LOVE a game, then I'm going to be taking my time in said game,because I don't want it to end.

Rushing through most games isn't that enjoyable.

[Garethvk]

My question would be why should consumers need to do so much research when manufacturers should be willing to list basic play length and not hide it in order to drive up their sales.

They used to same the same about content, well do your research on if the game is right for you or your kids. The rating system pretty much was forced on them as they opted to create the rating system to avoid regulations being passed requiring a review and rating process. It has been a valuable tool for consumers.

[from the beach]

It would only be a vague guideline anyway.

And if developers started 'padding' games to increase the number on the box, that can only be a bad thing.

[Kryptix]

No they shouldn't because...

-Every gamer goes at their own pace

(Some like going through the main game and consider it finished when they hit the credits while others enjoy exploring and picking up every side quest or collectible that they can as they play)

-Publishers can take advantage of this

(You really think publishers are going to admit that their game is too short? They can put any number on that box and you expect us to just believe it?)

-Get a bad perception if they didn't hit the average length mark right

(How do they correctly estimate? What if a publisher tried being honest, but failed because the general gamer population are actually faster at beating their games? What's on the box cannot be fixed instantaneously, they have to live with their mistake)

-The internet exists

(You can quickly get all the info on the internet, in the comfort of your home. You're making it sound like going through a few forums or pages takes up all of your energy. Stop being lazy and do your own research if you're skeptical about a game. Talk to friends, read/watch reviews from trusted people, or just buy the game without going through all that and live with your purchase)

With those reasons that I listed, I believe that the idea is terrible. Also, length has nothing to do with labeling a game good or bad. Get that correct... They don't hide it to "drive up their sales," they don't tell you because they don't need or have to. If you really are that skeptical then wait for the game to come out. Simple.

[Volkama]

So tell me, how long is Skyrim? How about Titanfall?

[Garethvk]

Titanfall is 5-6 Hours and Skyrim would be listed as over 25 hours of play.

[OrangePowerz]

So everybody who finishes Skyrim in under 25 hours can file a class action lawsuit against Bethesday for false advertisement?

Why would any company open themselves up for lawsuits because people can finish a game faster than what's written on the box?

I'm not saying that your point is invalid that consumers can only buy a certain amount of games per month or year, but that didn't matter before. Before the internet you had basically no source because most magazines didn't list in their reviews how long it took them (at least the ones I was reading didn't). So why does it matter now? Especially since we life now in a world that is a lot more fast paced with less free time than in the 80s or 90s? You can also trade games in to get most of your money back again so in reality when you buy a 60 bucks game you spend like 20 bucks for it because you can get around 40 back from trading in for your next game and if you want to keep it you clearly have no issues with paying full price for the game.

[DigitalRaptor]

Gareth, honestly why are you asking this question, and why are you writing this article? You are a seasoned older gamer. You've lived through the times where many games have ALWAYS been this short for full price, and never needed anything of the sort that you are suggesting here. It seems redundant and more likely that you're trying to drive attention to your website than really focus on the things that matter. The question of length vs. price never came up over the years to drag down the perception of a single game, because it was never a problem.

... Until The Order was an easy target.

Having said that, even if developers and publishers put down the length. They'd be accused because of lying due to BS early speedruns, and then even more controversy would surround that particular game and developer. It's a bad idea and very thoughtlessly constructed.
-------

Oh, poor consumers... They are so oppressed by the publishers not telling them the length, like they pretty much never have and shouldn't feel obliged to.

Oh wait.... no they're not. The rental industry is still alive and kicking, and the consumers who are "oh so concerned", have the choice to RENT the game like they have been able to for years. If they are unsure, they can rent it for a fraction of the cost they would have bought it for. You're talking as though Microsoft's anti-used games stance actually went ahead as planned.

[Garethvk]

I am sorry you think that but we have had many people write us and call the radio show asking why game companies are so hesitant to tell consumers how long a game is. Sony said The Order was 10-12 hours yet many gamers have said they did it in 5-6 hours. If a consumer only has enough money for one game every couple of months, I think they have a right to know ahead of time without having to jump all over the net to know if the game they are getting is 5-6 hours of play or over 10 hours of play to help them make a better decision. Look at Call of Duty. Without multiplay that is a 6-7 hour game at best. The only other option is for consumers just to accept that a game has a short campaign as lets be honest, more and more are going that way and putting the emphasis on multiplay.

[OrangePowerz]

My question would be why does it matter how long a game is and why should shorter ganes be devalued? What matters is how the game is and not how long. If you buy a movie do you only buy movies that are at least 2 hours and not movies that are only 90 minutes long?

Not to mention that any time given would be nonsense. What do you stick on a FF game? 15-100+ hours? What would be the point of that?

Edit: To touch on one part from Kryptix. If users would be faster to finish a game than what is stated it would mean that "funny" americans would throw one class action lawsuit after another on games because of wrong advertisement.

[BabyTownFrolics]

Jesus Christ stop beating this dead f$cking horse. The order is a really good game, your game time will vary depending on how you play just like every other game that has ever existed.

[Clown_Syndr0me]

It's not just the order. Ryse was the same. The short play length made it feel like it should of been a cheap digital game.

[DLConspiracy]

I think you are missing the point. It seems that people don't trust developers very much lately.

In all fairness though movies state their length on the box. I don't think this is a necessarily bad thing. They are selling a product.

[OrangePowerz]

And the movie will be the same length for every person watching it. If we both watch Avengers it will take the same amount of time to watch for both of us. If we play the same game I might finish it a lot faster then you.

Movies are also things that you watch in one sitting so you need to know how long it takes because people make plans to do stuff before or after watching a movie. Most of the times you wouldn't play through a game in one sitting, you play some take a break and continue the next day or at some other time so it doesn't really matter how long it is. I believe that's the main reason why movies have the length advertised so people can plan their time accordingly for when they watch it and don't start a movie at 11pm that takes actually 3 hours when they plan on going to bed before 1am.

[DLConspiracy]

That's fine though. They could put a ranged amount. Doesn't have to be a firm amount. Its just hypothetical anyway. There is no alterior motive to the thought.

[T2X]

I'm still not done with it and I've played a bit each day. Instead of putting times on the box, why don't they put the following questions on the box, 1)How old are you 2)DO you have job or in schools 3)DO you have other titles you play or is this the only game you own. Those questions would be more relevant in my opinion. Example, Me: I am 40+ years old, I have a full time job and am married, and I have 40 other games I can play of which 4 or 5 get regular rotation. See? As an adult I don't mind the occasional 5-6 hour story driven non-online game for only one player. As that 6 hours or so will take me 2 months anyway! LOL!

[hkgamer]

this guy is able to squeeze every bit of controversy out of the order 1886.

no publishers should not state game length at the back of the box, game length is different depending on the player and extra side missions and stuff would make it more complexed.

only possible way is to just count cutscenes but whats the point of that, does cutscenes make up a game? some games may not even have a cutscene. anyway, if game length is important to some people than they should just collaborate and make it database.

[SharnOfTheDEAD]

This didn't matter 15+ years ago. Why does it matter now? Games were short back then and still cost the same amount. I wasn't bitching about stuff like this in the 90s I just enjoyed the games.

[Bathyj]

Jesus H Christ, I'm this close to giving up the internet...

[DigitalRaptor]

You're not alone dude.

The people with this mindset are either kids who have no perception of value having grown up with video games and their varying lengths and prices for many years, or they are opportunist media hounds.

My post from yesterday just about sums up the modern gamer's perception of value against length, and the double standards that completely are dragging certain games down this generation. I won't repost it, but I'll link it: http://n4g.com/news/1681628...

[Takwin]

Game length for some games can vary wildly, but game length is relatively static for other very narrow games that shepherd you down corridors with very little diversion, open world, or side quests.

Yes, all of us HERE know about howlongtobeat.com - but the regular consumer probably doesn't.

I would ok with an honest range, or broken down just like HLTB - "main story" "main story + extras" "completionist"

[Summons75]

No, they really shouldn't. Length doesn't matter in a game its about content and replayability.Anyone buying a game knows what they are looking for and the average time. Story focused games like Uncharted, The Order, Halo, Gears are typically 8-12 hours but have tons of replayability. RPGs are longer because their designed to be a time sink but the stories are still typically 8-12 hours. Portal 2 took me 4 hours to beat day 1 but some people it took way longer, why typical COD stories are 2-4 hours. Game length should be on the back of the box and there are too many ways to factor it. Game length has never mattered before and it shouldn't matter now.

[feraldrgn]

No because there is no set game length.
Everybody plays at their own speed, I for instance will search every nook & cranny, run around the same area, speaking to everybody multiple times, backtracking etc.
Where as someone else won't be bothered by any of that & might just play the game straight forward to the finish line.

[sprinterboy]

Didn't click on the article but gaming journalism is getting real bad, should they put game length on boxes, just lol. I'm surprised some humans even get through life, mind boggles.

[ScorpiusX]

No,No,No consumer just need deal with it, enough with this entitled mentality BS.

[ufo8mycat]

I finished The Order in about 7 hours. Not as Short as people make it to be and definitely doesn't deserve The scrutiny it is getting. In fact, I found it to be an amazing narrative experience. Did I want more gameplay? Sure, but people have to remember there are different types of games. There's games with gameplay, gameplay, gameplay and then there's games with a more narrative focus. Nothing wrong with that.

In fact, if it's done well, I enjoy these a lot. But do I believe The Order is a full price game? No, it felt more like a PSN digital game to be honest and I think that's the problem. If the game was released cheaper, it wouldn't be getting the flak it's getting about length

[mochachino]

That's a horrible idea, every publisher would just list 100 plus hours because depending on how much you like a game, it potentially has a limitless play time if you play it over and over.

I much more likely to replay a short game multiple times (5-8 hrs) than a long one (50plus hours).

All that matter is whether the game is good. Any game can be bloated.

[Shinuz]

Man i remember back in the nes days when games were something like 1 to 2 hours long (and thats because you died a couple of times), I don't remember people complaining that they were too short.

And they costed the same as games nowadays.

[jukins]

Hell to the no. I can just see the crying already happening if a game is 1/10 of a second longer or shorter than advertised

[PiNkFaIrYbOi]

Ummmmm, no.