Support NeoGAF

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Nobody wants to spend $70 dollars on a one and done game you can beat in a weekend. Can we collectively move on from this embarrassing talking point once and for all? People clearly don't want this.

I'd rather have a "one and done" $70 experience like TLOU than a bloated 100 hour game like Assassin's Creed by the same price, thank you very much.

And by "one and done"...i'll play it multiple times anyway because there's games like that with a great gameplay loop.

 

[rhodesianshepard]

Every 70$ game should have a minimum of 20hrs of content. It has to do something truly special to make me purchase it if it is less

 

[StereoVsn]

Just look at how actual players who voice their concerns feel about God of War 2018 vs Ragnorok, Spiderman 1 vs 2. These longer games are bloated as shit and drag on.

However, these long games sell a lot so they won't change anytime soon.

Are the sequels much longer? I thought GoW 2018 and SpiderMan 1 were pretty good length wise.

 

[Laptop1991]

I'm someone who loves open world games and play those the most, TES/Fallout etc, i'm not sure why i would pay higher prices for shorter games, and it depends how short, i like Dishonored, Bioshock , Half Life 2 etc game lengths, but any shorter i don't think is value for money , as i won't be playing for very long.

I'm really looking forward to playing the Fallout London Mod on St George's day, it has hours and hours of packed content and gameplay and is the size of Fallout 4 and Far Harbor combined and it's completely free, funny how modders can do that for free but billionaire and millionaire companies can't make long rich content games without saying it cost's too much and they can't afford it. etc,.

 

[WoJ]

Take the 60 hour AAA games with 40 hours of bullshit fetch quests that are rinse, wash, and repeat and give people a 20 hour focused campaign with maybe 5 to 8 hours of good side content.

 

[Three]

Every 70$ game should have a minimum of 20hrs of content. It has to do something truly special to make me purchase it if it is less

This is why this talking point is coming up again. It's a way of reducing budgets without changing things. Short games for the same price and likely split into episodes for subs too. People generally do not like short games and don't pay full price for them. The Order had a bad launch because of the controversy regarding its length.

This talking point of doing shorter games to reduce budgets goes all the way back.
For any French speakers:

 

[MiguelItUp]

Games just need to be approached with what's best per project. Games don't need to be short for the sake of being short, just like they don't need to be long for the sake of being long. I'd always just want what's best to be done.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

A. Get a job
B. Come back when you have a family

Imagine pitching this argument to any decision maker at a large successful publisher. You'd be laughed (and escorted) out of the room.

 

[Punished Miku]

It's a cope talking point for people not grappling with the problems facing the industry. We had short games 20 years ago. People did not feel that was sufficient value at full retail price. This is when we had the era of pre-order bonuses, and tacked on multi-player modes to add value. Worked for a short time, but ultimately failed at full retail price. This is when we moved to the era of larger open world games with more content. These sell. Problem is they are getting to be too expensive to make and one or two misses and you're toast.

The only thing that could have helped popularize shorter games is a viable sub model (Gamepass / PS+) that can spread the cost around to everyone, and help distribute the game to more people. When you don't have to consider retail pricing value, shorter games actually are a benefit in a sub model. You can play it and enjoy it with correct pacing, and then play something else. The publisher doesn't lose and the consumer doesn't lose.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Also, let's be real. Short games have always been fools gold. They just end before their gameplay loops get exposed for being shallow, repetitive, and boring.

If you want a game to end, it's because the looming threat of "suck" is about to hit.

Some people are just willing to admit that.

 

[Efren is G.O.A.T.]

Man, I'm tired of the excuse "I don't have time to play 50-hour games". Bro, if you can play 5 10-hour games a year, you have time to play a 50-hour one. The math is the same! Now if your attention span or interest level don't allow it that's totally fine.

 

[winjer]

The issue is not the length of a game. It's how much of it is filler to pad game time.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Man, I'm tired of the excuse "I don't have time to play 50-hour games". Bro, if you can play 5 10-hour games a year, you have time to play a 50-hour one. The math is the same! Now if your attention span or interest level don't allow it that's totally fine.

Bingo.

This is said all the time and no one ever questions it.

Efren is G.O.A.T. is the GOAT

 

[Arachnid]

I will never advocate for paying for less. There is a sweet spot. People who argue in favor of full priced 3-5 hour games are braindead. So are people who argue in favor of 100hr grindfest bloated messes with a loop consisting of you doing the same ubisoft tier trash. For most single player experience, 16-25 hours is the sweet spot (RE4, TLOU2, etc...).

That's not to say there aren't exceptions though. Witcher 3, Cyberpunk, Red Dead, and Balders Gate 3 are all 100 hours of hand crafted A+ content. If a dev can make that kind of quality and charge 70 dollars for it, fuck yeah.

On the other side of the spectrum, I've never had a 5 hour full priced experience that didn't feel like a rip off. This is never acceptable. I agree with you OP.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

I don't usually buy shorter games

 

[Nydius]

Man, I'm tired of the excuse "I don't have time to play 50-hour games". Bro, if you can play 5 10-hour games a year, you have time to play a 50-hour one. The math is the same! Now if your attention span or interest level don't allow it that's totally fine.

Just like Boxes, you're conflating or confusing "play time" with "bloat".

I have no issues with a 50 hour game so long as it's full of good content. The SNES-era and PS1-era Final Fantasy games come to mind. But when you have a 60+ hour game and a huge chunk of that is, say, "Here's 95 Merlin Trials that are all one of the same nine designs", that's just bullshit bloat. That is what people are tired of.

 

[Danjin44]

Men_in_Boxes threads makes lose brain cell.

 

[DeepEnigma]

"Nobody asked for this" was bad.
"They're just following trends" was worse.

Now we have a new phrase flying around that makes us all look bad. That of course is "They should just make shorter games."

This is always brought up in response to the industries shrinking profits.

As if 10 hour AAA games weren't everywhere 15+ years ago. (They died for a reason)

As if no one making games today has thought "What if we just made a shorter game?" (It's not a novel idea)

As if 10 hour games are generating a ton of revenue right now. (Nobody buys these games)

Nobody wants to spend $70 dollars on a one and done game you can beat in a weekend. Can we collectively move on from this embarrassing talking point once and for all? People clearly don't want this.

They died because a 10 hour game probably cost almost as much as making a longer 30 hour game. When you factor in sales vs. investment. Like or not, the 30 hour games sell 10 fold which is a far great ROI.

You want shorter experiences, it won't be with full fat AAA investment, it will be more on the AA side of things.

And don't forget Gaf back leading up to the PS4/XB1 launch. There were thousands of posts and debates with people saying they were not going to pay full price for an 8-10 hour adventure, and literally -tists breaking down dollar per hour entertainment spend. We have ourselves to blame in the end.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

Man, I'm tired of the excuse "I don't have time to play 50-hour games". Bro, if you can play 5 10-hour games a year, you have time to play a 50-hour one. The math is the same! Now if your attention span or interest level don't allow it that's totally fine.

I want to play more than one game a year though and more often than not, 50 hour games are padded with boring content that pushes me to play something totally different and throw it in the 'never touch again pile'. I want to make the best out of the limited free time I have and it's clear there are a lot of others that agree.

I've no problem with developers making longer games, I ain't fucking buying them though. Not every single game needs to be a 50+ hours. I want to see shorter games that get to the point quickly and don't waste any time fucking around, good pacing is extremely important.

 

[AmuroChan]

For me, it's not about a game being shorter or longer. If the artistic vision of the creator calls for a 50 hour game. Then so be it. What I don't like is when a game has 10 hours of really good content, then gets padded with 20 hours of nonsense and bloat because the publisher needs to justify the $70 price tag.

 

[KXVXII9X]

Man, I'm tired of the excuse "I don't have time to play 50-hour games". Bro, if you can play 5 10-hour games a year, you have time to play a 50-hour one. The math is the same! Now if your attention span or interest level don't allow it that's totally fine.

That is kind of a faulty comparison.

Each of those 5 10-hour games could offer completely different gameplay loops and experiences. If I'm not feeling the gameplay loop and already feeling drained by the 10-hour mark, I wouldn't want to continue that for another 40 hours. I don't have the energy to grind like I used to, and I have plenty of free time. Some people like to play a variety of different games. Being stuck on a long game without moving to another isn't a quality use of my time or energy.

I don't think people are arguing for making games super short but cutting out the fat (padding). I hate playing games where there is 1 hour of exiting content followed by 10 hours of pointless grinding and side content before you can reach the new exciting beat. It feels like work. Instead, I would rather play an exciting 15-hour game that is exciting almost the whole way through.

 

[Represent.]

No. And I take full credit in leading the short game movement on this forum.

Bring back shorter games. Fuck your 300 million dollar, 100 hour bloatfest, once every 7 years.


Golden age of gaming was when AAA games were 8 hours long, and studios released 2-3 games a gen. Period

 

[Hydroxy]

I want more shorter focused games without unnecessary padding and bloat because I quickly lose interest if a game is too long or if overstays its welcome. Even short games can feel long if it is not focused and padded. Not to mention there is only 24 hours in a day so its simply not feasible to be expected to complete 50-100 hour games

 

[Griffon]

As if 10 hour AAA games weren't everywhere 15+ years ago. (They died for a reason)

They only died because devs wanted to make those games last 40h. Not because it wasn't successful.

Stupid shit like that happens all the time in this industry, devs/publishers suddenly deciding that what worked before has to be outdated, when in fact it would've worked just fine.

 

[Bombolone]

Something just can’t be made and concluded?

I understand from a business perspective. You spend all this time crafting lore, a world, characters. You want to milk that baby.
It’s a tough spot to be in. Maybe?
From the outside looking in. It seems that even shorter games cost more than they can bring in.
What’s going on with the development model being used?
There seems to be a mismatch. It’s like these games no matter what length… can’t pay for themselves. What other industry/product suffers from this imbalance?
Episodic content? Trimming the fat?

Nintendo should create a consultation branch and offer their services to third parties to get their sh*t on track.

Part of me thinks it’s within these CEOs power to balance the budget. Greed? Risk averse? Expectations of pretty, pretty graphics?
I think the industry doesn’t want to accept reality, in that, they need to cut back on everything being AAA moc-cap, VA, cutting edge…
You extended to far to fast.

 

[daninthemix]

OP not a fan of those whose opinions don't align with his.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

They only died because devs wanted to make those games last 40h. Not because it wasn't successful.

No dev or publisher wants to put in more work at 0 benefit.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They only died because devs wanted to make those games last 40h. Not because it wasn't successful.

Stupid shit like that happens all the time in this industry, devs/publishers suddenly deciding that what worked before has to be outdated, when in fact it would've worked just fine.

Revisionism. There were hundreds of threads and thousands of posts all across the internet where gamer -tists measured what a game was worth by dollar per hour back in 2011-2016. And it was an overwhelming majority that refused to buy games that were 8-10 hours and considered them a rip-off. Devs were forced to tell you how long their games were back then, and held their breath that it wasn't too short.

 

[Sethbacca]

I’ll take a 30 hour game over a 100 hour game laden with 70 hours of bullshit filler to check a marketing box every time.

 

[Bernardougf]

I agree.

If Insomniacs Wolverine comes out and is an 8 hr AAA experience...it's not going to cost 1/5th of what it would be at 40hrs.

That's what these "Just make shorter games" people don't understand.

So again ... thats the only options ? 8hr or 40 ? Sorry. You will have to talk to someone that understand your line of thought , Im at least two cerebral vascular accidents away from being able to get at this level of argumentation

 

[Audiophile]

We need a variety of games ranging from small, to medium, to large in scope and pricing that is reflective of that scope. We also need efficiency.

A diverse range of experiences.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

imo every game should only be like 50 hours for 100%, 25-30 to complete.
There's a ton of games to move on to, and shorter games will lead to shorter dev time, which means even more games to move on to.
Any game gets kinda old after that imo. Days Gone was probably my favorite game last gen, and I'd still cut 5-10 hours of it.

 

[Chastten]

Nobody wants to spend $70 dollars on a one and done game you can beat in a weekend. Can we collectively move on from this embarrassing talking point once and for all? People clearly don't want this.

Nice to meet you! I'm nobody

I like long ass 30+ hour jRPG's as much as the next guy, but I also enjoy action games or platformers I can finish in 5-10 hours. Don't mind spending €60 on those as long as I know I'm gonna have a great time.

 

[DarthPutin]

I don't disagree. People always say that and then these games don't sell well nor become selling points for consoles. Meanwhile it's not clear that they are significantly cheaper. Look how long HellBlade II took to make.

I suspect it's enthusiast minority that wants to keep jumping between many new games, memorizing new mechanics, etc. Majority of gamers have very different consumer behavior.

 

[Punished Miku]

Retail model directly leads to longer games. Higher cost of production. Even if you price it lower, people perceive it as a lesser product. People have proven for 20 years that they factor in value in their purchases, regardless of what anyone here wants.

Digital only and subscriptions directly leads to shorter games. Games can't be beaten in a weekend and resold. Variable pricing is more accepted. Subs directly incentivize distribution of shorter games packaged as a group with other games under one monthly price.

This has been one of the main reasons I have been a supporter of subs for 3 years. What people need to realize is that retail model is an external force entirely outside of the game's actual design that directly leads to the bloating.

 

[nowhat]

No, your thread posting privileges need to die.

 

[Hohenheim]

Nobody wants to spend $70 dollars on a one and done game you can beat in a weekend.

I'll happily pay 70 bucks for a great experience that can be done and gone within a weekend.
I rather pay 70 bucks for 10 hours of amazing content than for 100 hours that could/should be summed up in half that time.

I also love big games btw. If the content is top notch.

 

[poppabk]

They should be making shorter games because I’m an adult and don’t have as much time to play games anymore. This is all about meeee.

Games never used to be as long though. Jedi Knight Dark Forces II was maybe 10 hours long and that was a really solid campaign length back in the day. The half life game campaigns were 12 - 13 hours.

 

[King Dazzar]

I voted no. But then realised, its subjective as to how long a piece of string is. Too many variables. So I guess it depends on what's considered long and what is short. And what type of game it is and how fun/deep the core gameplay loop is.

 

[Dacvak]

Games never used to be as long though. Jedi Knight Dark Forces II was maybe 10 hours long and that was a really solid campaign length back in the day. The half life game campaigns were 12 - 13 hours.

For real. I’m struggling with Death Stranding already and I’m only like 6 hours into it. I wish modern games would respect my time more. I’m loving the vibe and story of Death Stranding, but they could trim the walking by at least half.

 

[MarkMe2525]

Loaded question that simply just can't be boiled down to profit margins. What about shorter games to increase quality. Shorter games to decrease development time. Game length is a particularly impactful variable with most game designs. Obviously, if your game is procedural, then not so much.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Imagine pitching this argument to any decision maker at a large successful publisher. You'd be laughed (and escorted) out of the room.

I don’t buy their games so it fine.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Imagine pitching this argument to any decision maker at a large successful publisher. You'd be laughed (and escorted) out of the room.

Also - stop pandering to unemployed single people that have no respect of their time. Time is the most valuable commodity, since you cannot buy more of it.

 

[Chastten]

Honestly, I don't even know where this is coming from? Throughout the history of gaming there have been plenty of games you could finish in a single weekend, or sometimes even a single night. On PlayStation alone, from the top of my head, we had Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Medievil, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid... all games that are fondly remembered but could easily be finished in 10-15 hours tops. Most of my favorite games on N64 as well.

 

[MagiusNecros]

I just want games that are fun and make me want to keep playing the game instead of feeling like a one and done movie. Length is a non-issue.

 

[cireza]

Games are padded to no end (pickups, crafting, open-world etc...), many gamers don't want anymore of this shit. Respect players' time. Make an awesome, focused game that you can complete in 10 to 20 hours. 40 hours is really the high bar that I am willing to invest in a RPG. Anything more simply means the developer failed, as far as I am concerned. You don't need 80 nor 100 hours to tell an interesting story.

 

[hououinkyouma00]

I'm of the belief that most games nowadays are too long.

In fact basically all Sony 1st party games now would be better if they were shorter. Both God of War games, both Horizon games, TLOU 2, Death Stranding, and Days Gone would have all been better if they were shorter. The ultimate one? RDR2. That game has so much goddamn bloat while already being slow as hell. That doesn't mean it's not great and that I didn't love it but it didn't need to be any longer than maybe 20 hours.

It also depends on the genre. I generally tend to get bored when shooters are longer than 8-10 hours, and same with horror games. Look at Alien Isolation; it would have been perfect at like 6-8 hours and yet that games drags on and on and on and I gave up after roughly 8 hours.

Pricing for me is about quality. I would much rather have paid $70 for a dense God of War without bloat then what we got even at like $50. I would have loved a 15 hour Horizon that was more focused and less open world and I would say the same about probably 90% of open world games. It's similar to how I want old Zelda back instead of this new open world direction. It works well, and BOWT/TOTK are amazing genre defining games, but I will always prefer something like Wind Waker or OOT?MM.

When I go to the movies I spend a minimum of $20 for 1.5-2 hours and nobody bats an eye at that (well people do but the majority don't) so what makes games different.

 

[Bernardougf]

No, your thread posting privileges need to die.

 

[Bernardougf]

Honestly, I don't even know where this is coming from? Throughout the history of gaming there have been plenty of games you could finish in a single weekend, or sometimes even a single night. On PlayStation alone, from the top of my head, we had Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Medievil, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid... all games that are fondly remembered but could easily be finished in 10-15 hours tops. Most of my favorite games on N64 as well.

Getting together with friends for a nightly play of Resident Evil or Silent Hill was awsome ... this people that grew up collecting feathers in asscreed games to check one box will never understand.

 

[farmerboy]

I hate massive skill trees and collecting 3 different ingame currencies more.