The Want for Length - Why?

[The Gnome King]

I'm sure this has been asked somewhere before, but I couldn't find it within the last couple years, and I'd like to hear forum-goer responses - why is the sheer breadth of a game's content so vital to it's consideration for purchase or even success?

I suppose there are some simple responses to be had, but I really don't see quite where the focus on it comes from, aside from one or two only-partially formed ideas.
Ultimately: a game may have you sitting at the computer for weeks, but is that really a worthy selling point itself?

Well... if you're talking entertainment value for the dollar, yes, it is. If I played $60 for a new game and it was over in less than 10 hours without the ability to replay it heavily; I'd feel a bit miffed. If I paid $60 for lunch with my wife and it tasted like shite I'd be pissed, too. If I bought a book for $20 and it had 10 pages, even if the words were REALLY cool, I'd be pissed. See where I'm going with this?

Would you be ticked off if you paid $20 to get movie tickets for yourself and your date and nobody mentioned that the film was 15 minutes long?

 

[The Gnome King]

I see helpful answers, and thank you!
Though I'm now starting to wonder if perhaps we accept the whole $50-60 issue too readily. As in: why do all these games /need/ to be $50-60? But that's the topic of a different thread I'd think.

They don't? My wife's favorite game recently was Terraria, and I think she paid $10 for it on Steam?

 

[CulixCupric]

Yes it is. "This game is fun and you'll be blown away for about 6 hours and then that's it, give us $60" is not the best sales pitch.

right, us consumers want to get as much play time for our money. more content, more stuff to do, more play time.

 

[nyysjan]

it's all about money to entertainment ratio.
if i pay you 70?, i expect to get at least 30 hours of entertainment out of it.
And i do mean entertainment (i was not entertained by FF XIII).

 

[jthwilliams]

Not to get silly about it but I usually have a $/hour of entertainment calcuation that I use before buying games, going to movies, theator, buying an audiobook, or other entertainment options. Don't get me wrong, I'll pay more for an unique experience that is going to blow my mind, but if it is just esapism, I want to make sure I'm getting value.

My standard is btw is about $7 per hour of entertainment. So, a game that lasts 5 hours, I would only be willing to pay $35 unless it was something very unique or appealed to me very strongly.

Not to go on about it, but I've put 30+ hours into Skyrim and expect that I'll put 100-400 more before I either beat it or get tired of it. That works out to about 15-30 cents per hour of entertainment, and quality entertainment (for me at least) at that. So I consider it to be a bargin. Don't tell bethesda, but they probably could have gotten a lot more out of me.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

There are good long games and good short games. I would rather play a good short game any day over a decent game that was much longer.

I suppose it comes down to whether people are interested in gaming because they enjoy games or because they have a need to pass the time. I can find a way to pass my time if need be, so spending $60 on a game that is only a few hours long, but is a really good game still seems worth it to me. In fact, if you can cram all of that enjoyment into a smaller amount of time without losing anything, I'd say that's an even better value - I get a great experience and still have time to do other things.

Measuring enjoyment or quality as a function of time spent enjoying something is silly.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

In open ended games (sandboxes and RPGs) it's pretty easy and effective - side missions are expected, so put more of them in. Have fun things to do on the side.
However, in other games (linear games that are heavily story oriented) I do not really consider length. A game like that should only be as long as it has to be - the parts that are important to the story and some sections to bridge them in between and reinforce the narrative.
Many of my favourite games can be beaten in a handful of hours - but I love them so much that I keep going back to them. So a game that I can finish in 5-6 hours seems short, but when I've beaten it a dozen times, I've more than gotten my money's worth. Plus, a really memorable experience.

 

[Vault101]

I'm sure this has been asked somewhere before, but I couldn't find it within the last couple years, and I'd like to hear forum-goer responses - why is the sheer breadth of a game's content so vital to it's consideration for purchase or even success?

I suppose there are some simple responses to be had, but I really don't see quite where the focus on it comes from, aside from one or two only-partially formed ideas.
Ultimately: a game may have you sitting at the computer for weeks, but is that really a worthy selling point itself?

I feel that at least in theory games should be worth thier "relase" price

and I want to get my moneys worth, not every game has to be a 30+ RPG epic...but I dont want to feel riped off, I want an aporpriate amount of content

thats why I wouldn't be satiisfied if portal 2 was the same length as the first portal...IF they were releasing it as a full price game (which they did and the length was very good) as opased to a small "extra" game

multiplayer is a grey area...I dont know if I can fault games like COD or battlefeild focusing on multi...because i supsoe thats where the games strength is..

BUT I dont agree with giving us a 7 hour single player...tacking on multiplayer and saying "there you go! theres your game!" because your essentially giving me half a product, the other half is useless and will probebly be dead in a year or months

seriously...you wouldnt be alittle annoyed if you spend $60 on a game a game and then finished it in two sitting? think about how many DVD's you could get for that

 

[Space Spoons]

Bottom line, games are expensive. At $60 a pop, if gamers don't feel that they're getting their money's worth, they simply won't bite, and I think that's totally fair and reasonable. Games with strong multiplayer components can get away with short campaign lengths, especially in an age when just about EVERYONE plays online. But when it comes to single player games, six hours just isn't going to cut it. That's, what, about 10 bucks an hour? Way too rich for my blood, friend.

 

[Vault101]

Bottom line, games are expensive. At $60 a pop, if gamers don't feel that they're getting their money's worth, they simply won't bite, and I think that's totally fair and reasonable. Games with strong multiplayer components can get away with short campaign lengths, especially in an age when just about EVERYONE plays online. But when it comes to single player games, six hours just isn't going to cut it. That's, what, about 10 bucks an hour? Way too rich for my blood, friend.

EVERYONE playes online?...I dont, and Im pretty sure there is a single player bias on this site

mabye I havnt found the right game...but its just repetitive and i keep thinking of all the bandwith Im using...

 

[Space Spoons]

Bottom line, games are expensive. At $60 a pop, if gamers don't feel that they're getting their money's worth, they simply won't bite, and I think that's totally fair and reasonable. Games with strong multiplayer components can get away with short campaign lengths, especially in an age when just about EVERYONE plays online. But when it comes to single player games, six hours just isn't going to cut it. That's, what, about 10 bucks an hour? Way too rich for my blood, friend.

EVERYONE playes online?...I dont, and Im pretty sure there is a single player bias on this site

mabye I havnt found the right game...but its just repetitive and i keep thinking of all the bandwith Im using...

True, not everybody plays online. When I say "games with strong multiplayer components can get away with it", I'm speaking primarily of FPS games and fighting games. They're the only two genres that get a pass, in my book.

Everything else needs to have, like... A 20 hour minimum, at the very least. Selling a single player game with a campaign that lasts 6 hours is highway robbery.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I came in this thread expecting a discussion on a man's desire to have a larger genitalia.

I was disappointed, both in the thread and in myself.

lol, I was think the exact same thing

 

[Vault101]

Bottom line, games are expensive. At $60 a pop, if gamers don't feel that they're getting their money's worth, they simply won't bite, and I think that's totally fair and reasonable. Games with strong multiplayer components can get away with short campaign lengths, especially in an age when just about EVERYONE plays online. But when it comes to single player games, six hours just isn't going to cut it. That's, what, about 10 bucks an hour? Way too rich for my blood, friend.

EVERYONE playes online?...I dont, and Im pretty sure there is a single player bias on this site

mabye I havnt found the right game...but its just repetitive and i keep thinking of all the bandwith Im using...

True, not everybody plays online. When I say "games with strong multiplayer components can get away with it", I'm speaking primarily of FPS games and fighting games. They're the only two genres that get a pass, in my book.

Everything else needs to have, like... A 20 hour minimum, at the very least. Selling a single player game with a campaign that lasts 6 hours is highway robbery.

which is why I wouldnt pay $60 (or $80 usually) for the first portal, even is somthing like mass effect 2 is "inferior" compared to portal..its still a great game and Im getting more for my money

 

[jthwilliams]

Bottom line, games are expensive. At $60 a pop, if gamers don't feel that they're getting their money's worth, they simply won't bite, and I think that's totally fair and reasonable. Games with strong multiplayer components can get away with short campaign lengths, especially in an age when just about EVERYONE plays online. But when it comes to single player games, six hours just isn't going to cut it. That's, what, about 10 bucks an hour? Way too rich for my blood, friend.

EVERYONE playes online?...I dont, and Im pretty sure there is a single player bias on this site

mabye I havnt found the right game...but its just repetitive and i keep thinking of all the bandwith Im using...

True, not everybody plays online. When I say "games with strong multiplayer components can get away with it", I'm speaking primarily of FPS games and fighting games. They're the only two genres that get a pass, in my book.

Everything else needs to have, like... A 20 hour minimum, at the very least. Selling a single player game with a campaign that lasts 6 hours is highway robbery.

which is why I wouldnt pay $60 (or $80 usually) for the first portal, even is somthing like mass effect 2 is "inferior" compared to portal..its still a great game and Im getting more for my money

But heres the thing, Portal was unique, introduced a completely new gameplay and puzzle solver. Even though it was short the unique qaulity made it worth it to me.

To be fair, I do mean unique and engaging.

If you can keep me smiling and laughing while using my brain for 4-6 hours, I'll pay $60.

 

[Strazdas]

I'm sure this has been asked somewhere before, but I couldn't find it within the last couple years, and I'd like to hear forum-goer responses - why is the sheer breadth of a game's content so vital to it's consideration for purchase or even success?

I suppose there are some simple responses to be had, but I really don't see quite where the focus on it comes from, aside from one or two only-partially formed ideas.
Ultimately: a game may have you sitting at the computer for weeks, but is that really a worthy selling point itself?

I cant talk for everyone, but ill talk for myself. being a gamer that saw the times when games shorter than 20 hour would be "booed" out of the market i want it back. i dont want to pay 50-100 dollars for a game i will play for 5 hours and then drop it crysis . i want to make my moneys worth in the game. which is the reason i mostly play rpgs/strategy games. in crysis you pay 10-20 dollars per hour. i get more going to cinema even. in, say, ivilization 4 i got to around 4 hours per dollar, and i still play it.
thing is, MOST of the games out there are NOT worth the money. there are two fw=ays to fix that: stat making good games (hard way) or making them cheaper (easy way). online sales make the second part really easy and perfect example that it works is steam (though i dont use it myself).

seriously...you wouldnt be alittle annoyed if you spend $60 on a game a game and then finished it in two sitting?

most games nowaday only take 1 sitting really.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Ultimately: a game may have you sitting at the computer for weeks, but is that really a worthy selling point itself?

If it was then MMO's would be the pinnacle of gaming, length by itself is meaningless, quality over quantity as we say.
But a lengthy quality experience surpasses a shorter quality experience, and as a customer I do want to get the biggest bang for buck.

And since people got on the multiplayer bandwagon, there the biggest chunk of the experience is brought in by the community the games themselves provide only very little, and as such a multiplayer only game will never be worth $60.

 

[surg3n]

I'd say length is one of the most important factors. Would you enjoy a BlueRay disc if you paid £20 for it, and it turned out to be 20 minutes long?

Of course you have to want to play the game for 40+ hours, it has to be good enough, but personally If I buy a game and get 40 hours out of it, I feel like I've made a wise purchase.

It's part of the reason why Elder Scrolls and GTA games are so popular, because you know that if you buy GTA4 or Skyrim, your in for a full working weeks worth of gameplay. The 40+hours is key - if you can pay £40 and get a workweek load of fun for it, then that's a good entertainment to cost ratio - £1 for 1 hour. We tend not to get that with some games, we tend never to get that with movies or music or any other medium... we'd have to listen to an album 10 times, or watch a movie 10 times before we'd get the same value for money. Sandbox gaming or multiplayer-centric is really the only way to get value for money with games.

 

[Strazdas]

we'd have to listen to an album 10 times, or watch a movie 10 times before we'd get the same value for money. Sandbox gaming or multiplayer-centric is really the only way to get value for money with games.

There are albums i listened to for over 30 times. there are movies i saw 10 times (and i know a person who same one movie 56 times, he counts). and i dont agree that its only miltiplayer games. take a linear racing game - GRID. i had fun for 187 hours in it. it certainly was my moneys worth. take another linear game - Crysis. 5 hour and i dont want to repeat it. certainly not made my moneys worth. Altrogh shortest game i played was Red Faction II, which took me 4 hours, mainly because i had a 1 hour long final boss fight. its pretty bad game dont bother.

 

[])rStrangelove]

I want a game to stay interesting & fun for a long time. Which means you either have a lot of content, randomly generated content that still makes some sense within the game world (hard to do) or - like in Batman: AC - you have content that is randomly shuffled when you play the game again after the ending.

Or just allow mods.

 

[jthwilliams]

I'd say length is one of the most important factors. Would you enjoy a BlueRay disc if you paid £20 for it, and it turned out to be 20 minutes long?

Of course you have to want to play the game for 40+ hours, it has to be good enough, but personally If I buy a game and get 40 hours out of it, I feel like I've made a wise purchase.

It's part of the reason why Elder Scrolls and GTA games are so popular, because you know that if you buy GTA4 or Skyrim, your in for a full working weeks worth of gameplay. The 40+hours is key - if you can pay £40 and get a workweek load of fun for it, then that's a good entertainment to cost ratio - £1 for 1 hour. We tend not to get that with some games, we tend never to get that with movies or music or any other medium... we'd have to listen to an album 10 times, or watch a movie 10 times before we'd get the same value for money. Sandbox gaming or multiplayer-centric is really the only way to get value for money with games.

I disagree with that a bit. If I buy a movie, I'll probably watch 10 times over the life of me owning it. If I buy a song for 99cents US, I'll probably end up listening to it at least 12 times while I own it. Not in one sitting mind you.

I think we tend to get short changed by games when compared to other entertainment with the exception of live entertainment like plays and sporting events. This are at least arguable more engaging and multidimentional