Think about it this way, you spend £10 on a film, this film is an hour and a half long. Therefore you divide 10 by 1.5 which equals £6.67 for every hour of entertainment. However apply the same for a game £40 divided by a 6 hour long campaign and you get... well would you look at that, £6.67 for every hour you play, plus that doesn't include multiplayer
Length does matter!
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
$80 per game? Where are you shopping? Australia?
On topic: I find it helpful to compare value to that obtained from movies. The really good, AAA movies - the kind games are trying so desperately to be, things like The Dark Knight - cost about $8-$10 to go see in a theater. They last somewhere between 1.5 and 3 hours. That's about $3.50 or $4.00 per hour.
Expensive, yes?
Compare to games. If you play multiplayer - and that's a big if, as a sizeable portion of people don't! - you'll probably be able to get more hours out of the game than you put dollars into it, making it relatively cheap.
If not, though, you're paying $60 for a 5-hour game. That's $12 per hour. Three and a half times more money per entertainment-hour than the Dark Knight.
And that, friends, forms a quantifiable scale on which to measure the value of the games you play. Are they thrice as good as the Dark Knight? As The Lord of the Rings?
The market is built around multiplayer - around World of Warcraft, around Xbox Live, around Halo and Call of Duty and Killzone. All the publishers and producers chasing after that holy grail, trying to snare the biggest fish in the ocean - the multiplayer gamers. Sadly, that fish likes to bite at every hook that comes its way - it's just really good at letting go again after it's nibbled. So we get a long line of short campaigns tacked on to hefty multiplayer suites, all beckoning to that fish, all urging it to bite, to spend its $60 - and an equally long line of empty lobbies and dead servers as the fish moves on.
It's a self-destructive practice. You can't build a WoW killer, no matter how much you try, and you can't snare that multiplayer-gamer fish for good. He'll always go back to the hooks he likes most, or move on to the next hook that happens to catch his eye. And every dollar you pour into building more hooks only stifles the industry.
On topic: I find it helpful to compare value to that obtained from movies. The really good, AAA movies - the kind games are trying so desperately to be, things like The Dark Knight - cost about $8-$10 to go see in a theater. They last somewhere between 1.5 and 3 hours. That's about $3.50 or $4.00 per hour.
Expensive, yes?
Compare to games. If you play multiplayer - and that's a big if, as a sizeable portion of people don't! - you'll probably be able to get more hours out of the game than you put dollars into it, making it relatively cheap.
If not, though, you're paying $60 for a 5-hour game. That's $12 per hour. Three and a half times more money per entertainment-hour than the Dark Knight.
And that, friends, forms a quantifiable scale on which to measure the value of the games you play. Are they thrice as good as the Dark Knight? As The Lord of the Rings?
The market is built around multiplayer - around World of Warcraft, around Xbox Live, around Halo and Call of Duty and Killzone. All the publishers and producers chasing after that holy grail, trying to snare the biggest fish in the ocean - the multiplayer gamers. Sadly, that fish likes to bite at every hook that comes its way - it's just really good at letting go again after it's nibbled. So we get a long line of short campaigns tacked on to hefty multiplayer suites, all beckoning to that fish, all urging it to bite, to spend its $60 - and an equally long line of empty lobbies and dead servers as the fish moves on.
It's a self-destructive practice. You can't build a WoW killer, no matter how much you try, and you can't snare that multiplayer-gamer fish for good. He'll always go back to the hooks he likes most, or move on to the next hook that happens to catch his eye. And every dollar you pour into building more hooks only stifles the industry.
I guess I should rephrase. It does matter to me if it's a shooter, if it's super short and does an ok job of telling a story, then I probably won't bother, it's a rent. I can play really long games only if the story is really good, if it's ok then I might still play it. If it's long and painfully drawn out, I might play it, but I will have some reservations about it.Vault101 said:really? the point I was making was that length does matter when taking a game into account and weather or not im justifyed in not buying it,Fiz_The_Toaster said:Oh good, and here I thought I wasn't the only one that thought that.Random Fella said:Wow misleading thread name is misleading
OT: Length doesn't really matter to me, but if it's really short and the selling point is the multiplayer then you lost me. This is why I don't buy many shooters, the campaign is super short and they expect you to play the multiplayer.
I mean seriously which is abetter purchase in my case?
a game that ill finish in two sittings, like a FPS or a game like DA2 where ill be playing happyly for many hours, my $80 goes to DA
In your case, I'd go with DA 2, but then again I'm more of a RPG fan than I am of a FPS fan. So I'm a little biased in my opinion.
As long as the game is enjoyable, who cares how long it is?
I like your posts. You make great threads. And your avatar totally rules. But there's one thing that bothers me; Why don't you use the spellchecker? People would take you way more seriously and actually pay attention to what you have to say if you did.Vault101 said:
OT: I think every campaign should be a decent length. But then again, I rarely play online anymore. (With the exception of TF2)
You know, this came up in the RSS feed, and I automatically though someone made a penis joke.
Personally, I prefer the long sandbox games, so, minecraft, x3, fallout, etc. Everytime I've played through short campaigns, say, COD, I've always had a moment of satisfaction, then utter boredom finding another game to play.
Personally, I prefer the long sandbox games, so, minecraft, x3, fallout, etc. Everytime I've played through short campaigns, say, COD, I've always had a moment of satisfaction, then utter boredom finding another game to play.
My computer shut down in the middle of writing this post so i can be bothered writing it again in full.bushwhacker2k said:
basically.
He is complaining that he is buying multiplayer games for their single player components thats as silly as buying chocolate milk and complaining it doesnt have enough strawberry flavouring.
there are single player games (bioshock) and multiplayer games (cod). dont buy a multiplayer game for its single player cause a single player game can have a multiplayer component added on but its not the purpose of the game and vice versa for multiplayer games.
I understand that games such as COD and the like are pretty much considered multiplayer titles (even though some of us would prefer it if they didnt bother with the single player at all if they werent going to make an effort with it, or mabye put some kind of rating on the box that clearly shows where the games intentions are focused) see thats why no one complains about the lack of single player in team fortress, its clear that multiplayer is the focusMerkavar said:
but my complaint is that nearly all FPS seem to suffer from this, in regards to homefront it apeard to be somthing refreshing...a story focuses FPS that we havnt really seen the likes of since half life 2 or Bioshock, however you cant imagine the dissapointment when I found it suffered from the "5 hour" curse, same with bulletstorm and I wonder if it will be the case with duke nukem
it seems that FPS's are trying to replicate the COD sucess, mabye its easyer than putting alot of effort into a singleplayer campagn
ps: btw Im a "she" (Apologise if I sound like an attention seeking gamer girl in pointing that out, not my intention, honest mistake really)
man I thought this was about subway 5 dollar foot longs. But yeah I do miss long single player FPS games, it would be nice if Epic made an Unreal 3 or something.
This is something I really hope to handle if I succeed as a game developer though. I really like the idea of story driven FPS and really want to bring back buddy gaming, with co-op. I'm thinking back to the good old 2 player Contra days. But...with actual story substance and first person.
This is something I really hope to handle if I succeed as a game developer though. I really like the idea of story driven FPS and really want to bring back buddy gaming, with co-op. I'm thinking back to the good old 2 player Contra days. But...with actual story substance and first person.
what? my terrible spelling or the comments about the game?witness51 said:
because yeah I type too fast
on the other side thats the whole Idea behined any game,movie or book you know, to get you involved in the story and to have a staisfying conclusion, it depends but that feeling is better when the game is longer (hmmm that may have gone somwhere horrible)
Rent the game when you hear it's short and single player only.
But seriously, what does it matter if you add multiplayer when 9 times out of 10 it's complete crap and even if it's moderate, everyone leaves the multiplayer within a month.
And what if the game is made so that it has replayability? Vanquish, for instance. It keeps scores between your friends and has difficulty levels that only unlock after you beat the game. Resident Evil 5 is a good example of a game where you want to play it again after you beat it to max out all the guns and unlock that tribal outfit for Shiva.
But seriously, just rent or borrow or buy it when it's price dropped or buy it used or any of the sane things that rational people do when there's a game they don't quite see as full priced.
But seriously, what does it matter if you add multiplayer when 9 times out of 10 it's complete crap and even if it's moderate, everyone leaves the multiplayer within a month.
And what if the game is made so that it has replayability? Vanquish, for instance. It keeps scores between your friends and has difficulty levels that only unlock after you beat the game. Resident Evil 5 is a good example of a game where you want to play it again after you beat it to max out all the guns and unlock that tribal outfit for Shiva.
But seriously, just rent or borrow or buy it when it's price dropped or buy it used or any of the sane things that rational people do when there's a game they don't quite see as full priced.