mindlesspuppet said:
That about sums up what I was going to say here. I'd facepalm but I'd need to be Vishnu in order to have the appropriate amount of palms to match the situation.inu-kun said:
Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes Reportedly Just Two Hours Long
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
I normally don't care about lenght, but i was kinda hoping that the game would be just as long as a normal game, but shorter than a MGS game, like 8 hours or something like that. I'm not sure i want to pay that much for a glorified tutorial (aka the boring part of the game). But i'll keep my eye on it, some say Peacewalker was short, but i found it to be quite long, if Ground Zeroes is something similar then i'll be fine. But if it's just an opening cutscene a short gameplay segment and an outro cutscene, then i won't go for it.
Yep, I agree. And unlike other developers, this is Hideo Kojima. Metal Gear has always been a really good product (admit it, even MGS2 with Raiden was a good solid game, even if you didn't like Raiden himself) so I have already pre-ordered this. Getting some early MGS is great, and it gives my PS4 something to do now.AzrealMaximillion said:
Plus, I support games like Metal Gear Solid and tiered pricing, so I'm gonna vote with my wallet, as I hear so often about.
It's a shame they set the Ps4?/One Price at $90 Aus ( I know they said it will be slightly lower) but from what I hear that's the price the vendors here are setting so selling under it would be at a loss.
Anyway let's see is 2 to 4 hours 6/7 for trophies and that's if it has a platinum, ( I hope they do) worth $90au. Nope no way, better of at Ozgameshop where $52 Aus doesn't feel like I'm getting cheated out of my money, well not quite as much.
Anyway let's see is 2 to 4 hours 6/7 for trophies and that's if it has a platinum, ( I hope they do) worth $90au. Nope no way, better of at Ozgameshop where $52 Aus doesn't feel like I'm getting cheated out of my money, well not quite as much.
So to get the physical version for the PS4 in Australia, you're looking at paying $90 -- it's a 2 hour long game.
It makes it a bit hard to feel it's worth it, no matter how much I love Hideo Kojima and trust the quality of his titles which have yet to disappoint me.
It makes it a bit hard to feel it's worth it, no matter how much I love Hideo Kojima and trust the quality of his titles which have yet to disappoint me.
Kojima is a programming genius but everything else he does is so fuckin' stupid. He's an idiot. How the hell could he have thought that this was a good idea?
I find this a ridiculous price for this length of content. I am looking extremely forward to this game, but was never really thrilled with the idea of two separate parts of this game, but I could accept that, but now they are asking this much money for this little content? Why not scrap Ground Zeroes as a separate release and just make MGS V. They are saying that the content of the phantom pain is hundred times the amount of GZ, so do they expect us to pay 4000 Dollar for that release? Of course not, but they do expect the pay 2/3 of full price for a small part.
Leon Declis said:
Not TL
R-The tiered pricing is cool. It shows people are listening to what we're suggesting, and that's a good thing.
But from this information, we're essentially paying $10-20 per hour for a video game. Which, comparatively speaking, is ridiculously expensive. Compare it to others, like, say, GT5 - $60, approximately 25 hours for story mode. That's about $2.40 per hour, and that's minus the side quests. Assassin's Creed is about 15-20 hours, which means about $3-4. You start going indie, you start getting into things like Minecraft and BoI, which can offer theoreticaly hundreds of hours (though not really in a story mode, so it may be a different expectation of length, but still) for much cheaper then $40.
As for the idea that Indie Devs get away with just releasing unreplayable 1 hour experiences for $20, that kind of ignores that a lot of people had a complaint of poor value for money for Gone Home, which was only $15 for an hour. That's basicaly the complaint - not that it's Hidio Kojima doing it and not some indie dev with only 5 cents to their name, not that it's tiered pricing and that sucks, it's a case of it being - as of now, at least - comparatively poor value for money. That may change if the sidequests offer a lot more extra content then would be expected in a Metal Gear game, but as it stands, 2 hours isn't really enough.
Just to clarify, though: I'm not saying you're wrong for voting with your wallet, Leon, I'm just saying it's a fairly comparatively expensive vote for what you're getting back. Some people are willing to make that sacrifice, some people aren't, and some people think the sacrifice is bullshit and must be moaned about.
$20 is the price of a season pass of the Walking Dead Season on release.
Given that you can probably beat the entire first season in under 2 hours if you rushed (instead of "exploring the optional bits"), and you also don't actually get all of it at once, it seems pretty hypocritical for anybody in here to be whining about the length if they paid money for the pass for either season.
I imagine the side missions in Ground Zeroes account for much more of the content than the main story mission. Hell, look at GTA V. Rush through the main story missions; might not take you more than 6 hours if you're fast. Meanwhile, do the sidemissions and you're looking at dozens of hours, or hundreds if you enjoy the multiplayer. Did you buy it for full price on release? Is it fair to call you a hypocrite for complaining if you did?
Hell, I can recall plenty of indie titles that barely hit 2 hours if you rushed while priced at $20.
Just food for thought.
Given that you can probably beat the entire first season in under 2 hours if you rushed (instead of "exploring the optional bits"), and you also don't actually get all of it at once, it seems pretty hypocritical for anybody in here to be whining about the length if they paid money for the pass for either season.
I imagine the side missions in Ground Zeroes account for much more of the content than the main story mission. Hell, look at GTA V. Rush through the main story missions; might not take you more than 6 hours if you're fast. Meanwhile, do the sidemissions and you're looking at dozens of hours, or hundreds if you enjoy the multiplayer. Did you buy it for full price on release? Is it fair to call you a hypocrite for complaining if you did?
Hell, I can recall plenty of indie titles that barely hit 2 hours if you rushed while priced at $20.
Just food for thought.
This is the biggest danger. If this thing sells, everyone will start doing it. Just like every other abysmal thing that came with the last gen.Brian Tams said:
Brian Tams said:
Yes, because Metal Gear Solid is most certainly a trend-setter in the gaming industry...Adam Jensen said:
Or, rather, if someone like Kojima thought to do this business move, you can damn well be certain that everyone else had already thought of it as well. Isn't that what people tend to complain a lot of DLC is nowadays anyway, just portions of the game shamelessly removed to get more money from the customer?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not going to pay $40 for this either and I'm a massive Metal Gear fan (though I don't own a PS4 or Xbox One in the first place, so that point goes a little moot), but reign it in a little bit. If something like this becomes an epidemic, it's not going to be because of Hideo Kojima and Metal Gear Solid.
A triple-A game that has a cheaper digital version than the physical version? *headsplosion*
If it's only 2 hours long, is meant to be the tutorial/prologue to Phantom Pain and we don't know how long it will be for the rest then I'll probably just wait for the inevitable 'Complete' version of MGSV that bundles the two together and play them back-to-back. So long as Konami don't decide to bump the price up $20 for (by that point) old content. Plus $20 for what is basically the tanker mission from MGS2 is kind of offputting, they could have released it for free as a demo/marketing ploy to get more interest in the full game but I guess development is just too expensive these days to give even a crumb away.
If it's only 2 hours long, is meant to be the tutorial/prologue to Phantom Pain and we don't know how long it will be for the rest then I'll probably just wait for the inevitable 'Complete' version of MGSV that bundles the two together and play them back-to-back. So long as Konami don't decide to bump the price up $20 for (by that point) old content. Plus $20 for what is basically the tanker mission from MGS2 is kind of offputting, they could have released it for free as a demo/marketing ploy to get more interest in the full game but I guess development is just too expensive these days to give even a crumb away.
Eh, I think it's a little shaky to start breaking down price points by hours of play available. By that logic, JRPGs should have the best value of any game out there, since the average JRPG is anywhere from 40 to 60 hours long (not counting side-quests), which means you're looking at $1.50-$1 dollar an hour. Personally I like JRPGs quite a bit but they don't sell very well, despite having the 'best value'.TAGM said:
This is the also the logic that encourages companies to tack-on needless multiplayer, since you can theoretically get hundreds of hours out of a multiplayer mode.
You have a point there - quality is just as important, if not more so, then quantity. At the same time, though, quantity does play a part in things all the same. Personally my reasons for not buying the game are less value for money and more not really being into Metal Gear or stealth games in general, but at the same time, I can see why some people might bemoan having to pay $40 for 2 hours. Especially since this is coming from a series that's (apparently) well known for it's long game lengths and equally long cutscenes.Sheo_Dagana said:
In other words: I may not agree with the logic, but I recognize that it's there, and to talk about tired pricing and indie developers is to pretty much ignore it in my book.
There is already a precedent for this sort of thing from Japan - for titles like Gran Turismo, and Final Fantasy. "Gran Turismo 5 Prologue" e.g. Just a glorified expensive demo, it's reserved for highly anticipated games from Japan, marketed towards "fans" and people with no patience and the wallet to compliment it.Adam Jensen said:
I think I'll wait and see some other reviews on Ground Zeroes before I believe this two hour report. I mean, I could spend two hours on the first stage of MGS4 if I wanted to dick around (which I have done), or I could finish it in 10-15 minutes if I just blitzed through. Also, I think GZ and PP are supposed to be mission based, so there's likely side missions in GZ that GameInformer didn't have time to play.
I haven't finished it, but Peace Walker had the main storyline missions and then a bunch of side missions. If you just did the story missions, you'd miss out on a lot of gameplay. I think the same thing is happening here. I believe GZ is going to be more like 10-15 hours of content, more if you try for a perfect run.
I'll wait until March and see, but I'm probably going to pick this up as the demos I've seen look amazing.
I haven't finished it, but Peace Walker had the main storyline missions and then a bunch of side missions. If you just did the story missions, you'd miss out on a lot of gameplay. I think the same thing is happening here. I believe GZ is going to be more like 10-15 hours of content, more if you try for a perfect run.
I'll wait until March and see, but I'm probably going to pick this up as the demos I've seen look amazing.
Guys. It's $30. Not $40. Hell, I can even get it for $20. On release. I still don't understand why people feel cheated if there's a lack of padding in a game, though. If he can give me a satisfying experience in that amount of time, I'm perfectly fine with it--the more concise, the better. I'm honestly not worried about being bored after finishing, because I have other, more time intensive games in my library, like Planetside and Civilization. Not to mention the work I have to do.
Judge its worth upon release people. Jumping the gun is stupid and ignorant. I'm not defending the practice or anything, but rather saying you are using low information to cast your vote on whether or not something is worth it. You have not definitive context on the experience or the actual content, whether or not this is just the main story.
And pre-judging it by a press statement is just stupid. I don't know what we'd be getting for the price, so I'll hold off on an opinion until it is released and I would think intelligent folk would also take that stance. Of course though if being cynical floats your boat, then your joyless existence must be fulfilling in some weird way. I'll never understand this perpetual cynical attitude anytime news comes out about a game not yet released.
And pre-judging it by a press statement is just stupid. I don't know what we'd be getting for the price, so I'll hold off on an opinion until it is released and I would think intelligent folk would also take that stance. Of course though if being cynical floats your boat, then your joyless existence must be fulfilling in some weird way. I'll never understand this perpetual cynical attitude anytime news comes out about a game not yet released.