Fans Are Tired of 100 Hour Long Games, Says Former Starfield Dev

A former Starfield developer has stated that the industry has found itself moving away from big games due to fan fatigue.

[LG_Fox_Brazil]

I am pretty sure I invested more than 100 hours to beat Dragon Age Inquisition and almost all that to finish Metaphor Refantazio, I felt like an orphan when I beat both, had a ton of fun. That said, I rushed as much as I could in quite a few games that lasted 50 hours or less because I coudn't bear to play more. Tons of padding. The game just have to be fun and with great stories. That's it

[-Foxtrot]

I don't mind long games, I just don't care for the ones which are only long because they've padded their games with the same repetitive padding and it's super obvious.

[isarai]

Wrong, were tired of 100hrs of filler and low effort fetch quests and 500 useless collectibles with little to no reward. Anyone would be ecstatic to have 100hrs of gripping side quests and interesting stories, but you stopped delivering on that.

[P_Bomb]

I’ve grown to hate collectibles. It’s the uninspired padding that kills it for me.

[isarai]

Rememywhen collectibles were like 8 armor pieces to unlock a legendary armor set? Now it's 200 letters to get a trophy/achievement

[BlackOni]

I could play another witcher 3, baldurs gate 3, level of depth easily.

[Knightofelemia]

I don't mind throwing long hours into a game. As long as it has a great story, fun to play, great characters. Last game I threw 100 plus hours into was AC Odyssey. I don't have much time to throw in that type of hours into a game my back log is too long plus work interferes with gaming. There are fans out there who love 100+ hrs there are people who still believe in getting every bang for your buck. $80-90 for a new game that is short is pointless and can piss people off.

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

I think I got about 70 hrs in Starfield. Most RPGs and big action adventure game, usually put in about 50-80hrs. I think in the past decade, Elden Ring and Witcher 3 were the only RPG titles that I played for over 100 hrs.

[Ethereal]

Yup.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

100 hour games are fine as long they're entertaining

[porkChop]

Long games aren't necessarily the problem. If the 100 hours is mostly quality content it's fine. The issue is 20-30 hour games with 70-80 hours of bloat, grind, meaningless fetch quests, etc. Those games would simply be far better as 20-30 hour games, just cut out all the bloat. I would gladly take a shorter but sweeter open world game instead. Then, if the community wants it, use all the time and resources you saved to make high quality DLC/expansions to build on the experience.

[RiseNShine]

Says the company that got rich with 100, even 1000 hour games like Elder Scrolls games or Fallout games. The problem is not game length, the problem is the quality of those long hours, and that's the big problem of Starfield.

[CrimsonWing69]

I just finished Witcher 3 and dropped 140 hours into and loved every second. I’m now into Baldur’s Gate 3 ready for the long haul and I am enjoying my time with it. I can only speak for myself, but how long a game is never gives me fatigue.

Time spent in a sh*tty game gives me fatigue. I dropped 5 hours into Starfield and was bored out of my mind… so no matter how short my time was with Starfield none of it was enjoyable and that’s where time becomes an issue for me.

[LiViNgLeGaCY]

Yeah, I'd say I put about 20 hours into Starfield, just HOPING it would get better. It did not, sadly.

[Goodguy01]

Depends. It needs to be a good quality 100hrs.

[DarXyde]

This kind of takeaway says a lot about the siloed thinking of developers that don't spend enough time talking to gamers outside of their bubble. Layden said the same, and they're just misdiagnosing the issue. There is an incredibly simple interpretation.

The 100-hour game is not the issue. A 1,000-hour game is not even the issue. The issue is, very simply, when a good game overstays its welcome.

[jznrpg]

If it’s good I’ll play as long it lasts. 200 wouldnt bother me. So it depends if it’s good

[dveio]

I don't mind lengthy single player games.

I am a patient player who doesn't need to progress through the story the fastest way possible.

But I despise side paths and side missions put together effortlessly like they were only created to ramp up the playtime without being encouraging and fun or even logical.

Such as getting a spoon from across the map burried under a bridge in a desert with radioactivity and an army protecting it with tanks, horses and a "mini" boss fight.

Only in order to help the NPC who gave me the side mission to stirr its cup of coffee while he could logically do it with every other item laying around, too.

Because me completing the mission allegedly ensures his brother's wife's illness to suddenly stop growing and so they could go and visit the "Miracle's Shop" to buy dishes and cutlery.

Which is situated only a length of a football field away around the corner, 24/7, but its owner now suddenly lost the keys which happen to be found at the exact same location like the spoon.

But about which he doesn't tell you until you got that spoon back.

[XBManiac]

No, it is not true. We are only tired of 100+ hours games badly designed or GaaS titles with bad content.

[Z501]

100% disagree.
I've put over 1300 hours in Monster Hunter World.

[anast]

It needs to be clear that a Starfield developer is stating this. There is a serious lack of talent and management at Bethesda to be able to pull off a long game successfully. Fans are tired of cheap looking 100 hr. experiences where when we go to explore something we get a PNG file.

R*, CDPR, Larian, and lately FromSoft are all about making the most successful "100 hr." games. Believe it or not, fans even like Ubisoft games. They only thing that sunk them was the way the framed politics in game design choices not the length of their games.

[IAMRealHooman]

Fans are tired of empty 100hr games. I fixed it
Have done 2 BG3 Playthroughs waiting for patch 8 for the third.

[hard joe]

long is okay if good
but if repetitive boring grinding, players will quit before finish

[Futureshark]

says Dev who made a (rather dull) 100 game...

[isarai]

With "1000 Planets" of absolutely nothing

[gold_drake]

maybe they are just tired of broken games,

i dont mind long games at all if its fun.

[FPS_D3TH]

“Former Starfield Dev”

Well if that’s the game they’re basing this opinion on, I can see why they’d think this.

[BlaqMagiq1]

I put 100+ hours into Atlus games and wish they could've went on longer. Don't equate every fan as the same.

[Fonsecap]

I'm not definitely tired of 100 hour games, what I'm tired of is the repetitive game mechanics and tricks that Devs use to make me spend all that time doing nothing. A 100 hour game like the Witcher 3 or cp2077 is much more enjoyable than a 100h game like starfield, imo

[FinalFantasyFanatic]

As long as the game isn't garbage, I don't mind putting in 100 hours, it's when the story/characters/gameplay are crap, or you have empty/lifeless open worlds. Off the top of my head, the last games I put 100 plus hours into were Persona 5 and Super Robot Wars 30th, both games were so fun that I just kept playing them.

[blacktiger]

Another word cruis'n usanis better then gran turismo wnd forza

[GrmpyolGamer]

A subjective opinion

[MinnesotaFatts]

Starfield is NOT a 100-hour game. It's a 10-hour game with abyssal, flavorless filler.

[lucasnooker]

Let’s see if people share this same sentiment when GTA VI releases… lol

[tay8701]

I'm tired of 40 hr games. I'd much rather have a non-bloated, polished 18-25 hr game.

[MetroidFREAK21]

I like 15-20 games mostly, but I'm still interested in longer games

[SinisterKieran]

baldurs gate 3 says hi

[GamingManiac]

Starfield would have been way less than 100 hours if it wasn't for the ridiculous amounts of loading screens lol

[HyperMoused]

Space Marine 2 was short but a great game, as long as its a good story and gameplay and not hours of filler to give the illusion of value, im good, i havnt seen many stories that need to be a hundred hours long.

[chicken_in_the_corn]

I never have been a fan of them.

[Guitardr85]

ummm...not if they are GOOD games lol

[TiredGamer]

I’m one of this old school gamers that use to be elated at the thought of a game lasting a long time. But I also enjoyed the shorter titles of the 8/16/ and some 32-bit generations that were just a couple of hours long and could be replayed numerous times.

I still enjoy short burst games that can be wrapped up quickly but am still compelled to play over again because the entire concept hasn’t been worn out over the initial play. On the other hand, by the time I reach the end of modern epics, I am so fatigued with the concept, even if it was mostly enjoyable, that I can’t psychologically motivate myself to ever playing it again.

An example is Zelda BOTW. Had a ton of fun early on, but 30-50 hours in, my motivation to jump back in really started to wane. It was still fun, but the freshness and addictive lure of learning new mechanics was gone. The novelty and excitement had worn off. Not only did I never finish the quest, but now I have to live with dissatisfaction of yet another incomplete game in my backlog.

[BlackOni]

Fans are tired of poorly paced, sloppily designed/implemented 100 hour long games. I enjoyed Starfield for what it was, but the length of it was the least of its worries.

[Demetrius]

Depends on how thoroughly fleshed out your game is. I dont mind a 80hr+ if it's well crafted also full of lore

[MrNinosan]

There are plenty of amazing 100+ hour games where I wished for even more.

I already put close to 100 hours in the upcoming Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 and hope it last for at least 100 more.

FFVII Rebirth was 200+ and amazing all the way through.
Other great games I've put 100+ hours in last few years are Elden Ring, Baldurs Gate 3, Like a Dragon, Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth, Metaphor, Dragon Age Inquisition, Core Keeper, V Rising, Palworld, Death Standing, Assassins Creed Valhalla, Hogwarts Legacy, Final Fantasy XVI, Horizon Forbidden West, Cyber Punk 2077 and many more.

When it comes to Starfield however, the sole reason I bought a Series X, I was tired of the game after 10 hours, and only forced me to see the credits.

Some games are just not good enough or meant to be 100+ hours.

[bigfish]

that’s why I mix it up by playing shorter games in between

[Christopher]

If it's a good 100 hours, I'm all in. The problem? It's usually just filler. I don't think much of anyone was complaining about BG3. Just make better games and stop putting in bad filler content and unnecessary traveling.

[Retro1986]

Same here. I play a typical nintendo game length, or something online. Running around for hours doing chores is not my cup of tea.

[jarek98]

Finally, I’m not alone then ;-).

[terstomp]

When game reviewers say a game take 50 hours, that is over 100 hours for me. But 50 hours is just too long anyway. When game reviews say 20 hours, then I'm in.

[garos82]

nonsense, im waiting to finish black myth wukong as im getting excited to jump into metaphor re fantazio. if the game is good , more than 100 hours is no problem.
games like starfield are too boring to last more than 100 hours