Gaming Needs More 10 Hour Single-Player Games

Shorter single-player games aren't dead yet, but hopefully that doesn't change because there's an important space for them in video games.

Read Full Story >>
william_cade1955d ago

they need to be cheaper than 100hr games

Nyxus1955d ago

I disagree. I'd rather pay for 10 hours of quality than 100 hours of filler. Not saying it's either / or, but I don't think it has to be reflected in the price. Quantity should not be tied to a game's value.

Potnoodle9991955d ago

Exactly, it’s about balance. Very well said friend 👍

william_cade1955d ago

your right quantity and quality go hand and hand. I would rather pay 60 usd for a quality and deep game than 60 usd for a quality short game. What I said, has nothing to do with what you are stating. But way to go bat. rah rah!

bouzebbal1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

I think in general this gen single player campaign length greatly improved over last gen..

SuperSonic911955d ago

Its all about the quality not quantity.

nommers1954d ago

As long as those 10 hours aren’t of the FPS variety that plagued the previous gen. We need more games like Super Metroid.

Imalwaysright1954d ago

Why? Regardless of the quality, quantity always has an impact on the price of a product. 2 bottles of water are more expensive than 1 bottle of water.

Nyxus1954d ago (Edited 1954d ago )

@ Imalwaysright: a game is not a bottle of water.

NotoriousWhiz1954d ago

Two bottles of water are not always more expensive than one. But comparing games to a bottle of water is a terrible analogy.

Cobra9511954d ago

And I'd rather pay $60 for a brilliant 100-hour game. You present a false binary choice. Both quality and quantity matter. A spectacular bite-sized steak won't fill my belly.

Nyxus1954d ago

@ Cobra: I specifically said it's not either / or. I just don't think it should be a requirement.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1954d ago
Potnoodle9991955d ago

NO they do not. 100 hours is not the requirement. Most of these 100 hour games are full to the brim with so much boring crap filler. Whereas a 10 hour (or 15-20 is much more to my liking actually) has quality content throughout. At least the good ones do. 100 hour games with a shit ton of filler should be cheaper as they are a complete waste of your time. When did game devs stop caring about people’s time???

william_cade1955d ago

Did I say it was a requirement? Are you all really that stupid or just playing dumb?

Nyxus1955d ago

@ william_cade: you said yourself you think shorter games should be cheaper. People disagree with that because the game's length says nothing about its value.

Fist4achin1955d ago

5-15 hours seems to be a sweet spot for a games length. There are always exceptions to make it longer with rpgs and their stories, but SP games such as FPS, platformers, action games, etc... seem to best fall into that range.

kneon1955d ago

You mean those 100 hour games where 95 hours are spent rehashing the same small set of missions with only tiny changes to make then seems slightly different?

william_cade1955d ago

Or those 100 hr games with great content. So no I don't mean those. You can't be this dumb.

isarai1955d ago

That's like saying gourmet food should be cheaper than fast food cause the portion size is generally smaller.

william_cade1955d ago

no it's not - no where in my statement did I mention quality over quantity etc. Knee jerk much?

Imalwaysright1954d ago

2 portions of gourmet food are more expensive than 1 portion of the same exact food. Same with fast food. You are all twisting what the op said.

NotoriousWhiz1954d ago

Sure, and if I buy 2 copies of the exact same game, it will cost more than 1 copy of that exact same game. Thank you, captain obvious.

Imalwaysright1954d ago (Edited 1954d ago )


Exactly. Quantity and quality have a direct impact on the price of a product. Not just quality. Not sure why it needed to be explained but I'm glad we cleared that up.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1954d ago
Double_O_Revan1955d ago

Stop being a total A hole just because people don't agree with you.

Kornholic1955d ago

That's extremely stupid.

A high quality, gripping 10 hour single player experience as content is worth more than 100 hours of grindy open world borefest. Easily.

Gamehard1955d ago

The problem with that statement is it's hard to judge how much replay value you can get out of a 10 hour game vs a 100 hour game. Alot of people are more likely to replay a 10 hour game multiple times and get a hundred or more hours total out of it, as opposed to playing the longer games one time through and never again, possibly not even finishing it.

Ragthorn1955d ago

Absolutely not! That's like when people argue that a game should cost lower because it is only multiplayer or only singleplayer. The dev time put into it is not lowered by any chance, neither is the effort put into them! There are too many games to spend 100 hours in, so I'd rather spend my money on a quality 10 hour experience than a decent 100 hour game. Who knows, that 10 hour game could also have a lot of replay value too! Not every game needs to be like Destiny, Monster Hunter World, or Red Dead Redemption 2.

KickSpinFilter1954d ago (Edited 1954d ago )

I would gladly pay $60 for a stellar game like Inside, than spend 30 on something like Crackdown 3, or an Anthem.
Just make an amazing game SP, MP or Co-op and we will come.