I don't recall ever paying $50/60 for a game under 10 hours, so I guess I'm in agreement. RPGs being my favorite genre, any game I bought day one for full price has most likely been at least twice that in length, not even counting goofing off/filler/side content. Steam has also lowered what I will pay for a game, even (especially?) on consoles. $40 for my console exclusive RPGs is max anymore.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
4-5 hour campaign? 29.99-39.99 price. Fair?
- Thread starter bishoptl
- Start date
Major Zero
Banned
Because its not that easy? Creating a 20hr game with ZERO filler?
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
This is what I said about Kane & Lynch 2 when it came out.
CrunchyFrog
Member
I can't speak to the quality/value of these games per dollar, but at the very least I agree that there needs to be an openness to a more dynamic pricing model. I'm unsure as to why pubs haven't opened up to this, as steam/humble bundle sales have shown that price reductions can significantly expand the addressable market and the resultant gains well outstrip the losses from the reduced price, ESPECIALLY in the currently pressed economic climate. Hell this is exactly how Wal-mart got its business done, selling in bulk at reduced prices.
I think K&L2 might be a special case, though I agree. Recently played it and it only took me 2 and a half hours to beat. What the heck? Luckily I bought it on Steam for $2.50 or whatever so I was completely fine with it. While many games are short, I don't think most fail to reach 3 hours like K&L2 did.
There's always the first Portal, although that's a game that really wouldn't benefit from being longer than it already was.
Having never played Kane & Lynch 2, was it an abrupt 3 hours, or did it somehow manage to feel padded even at that length? I know that a lot of people complained about the length of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2, both in how short it was and all the padding it suffered.
K&L2 launched at $60, Portal didn't. Which is pretty much the point.
Though, I will say K&L2's ending felt very abrupt. If anything it felt like the middle of a typical story. When I saw the credits start rolling I actually said "what the fuck" out loud.
Nowadays, the only thing I look at is quality. Length has zero impact on my purchasing decision (a game being padded with filler to be longer will even work as a negative).
I've had fun with some 100hr+ games, and I've had fun with 1-5hr games. I've felt like I've had more of my money's worth from some of the latter category than some of the former, even if they cost the same.
I've had fun with some 100hr+ games, and I've had fun with 1-5hr games. I've felt like I've had more of my money's worth from some of the latter category than some of the former, even if they cost the same.
Games like Vanquish and Lollipop Chainsaw are misleading with length.
Sure, if you go through the game once, and just play, its 5 hours or so.
But if you replay it for collectables, or because, you know, you enjoyed it, its longer.
In Australia most games are $100. I spent $60 on Lollipop, and I'm satisfied. It was kind of short, but I've replayed it twice so far. And it was fun as hell. Vanquish was a christmas gift, no ides how much my wife paid. But once again, replayed it a few times, plus challenge mode. Very happy with the game.
I rarely pay $100 for any game. So I guess in a way I'm agreeing about not paying full price. But its not just for short games, its for all games in general.
Sure, if you go through the game once, and just play, its 5 hours or so.
But if you replay it for collectables, or because, you know, you enjoyed it, its longer.
In Australia most games are $100. I spent $60 on Lollipop, and I'm satisfied. It was kind of short, but I've replayed it twice so far. And it was fun as hell. Vanquish was a christmas gift, no ides how much my wife paid. But once again, replayed it a few times, plus challenge mode. Very happy with the game.
I rarely pay $100 for any game. So I guess in a way I'm agreeing about not paying full price. But its not just for short games, its for all games in general.
Chuck Norris
Banned
Value gamers just need to go away. Period.
The people complaining about games that are too short are generally the same people with a backlog of unfinished games as well, which is just hilarious.
The people complaining about games that are too short are generally the same people with a backlog of unfinished games as well, which is just hilarious.
rangersfan414
Member
The walking dead game episode one was about 4 hours of content for only $5. I would never have paid $30 or $40 for that.
Pachterballs
Banned
depends on the production value. Isn't specs op a multiplayer affair as well?
yeah. a bit of this.
expecting a game to be cheap because the campaign is short is a bit... um
yeah. a bit of this.
expecting a game to be cheap because the campaign is short is a bit... um
Silly.Mikey
Banned
Yes well that would be nice if those were the only 2 options in real life and theyre not. Ive played 100hour games that ive enjoyed and id be real pissed if i had to pay it 39.99 per 5 hours.
I haven't read through the thread, but most of the games that have launched at a lower price point have pretty much failed just as hardly as they would've at $60. I think there is a bigger issue at hand. Most people don't want to pay anything for an average game.
I have never seen a correlation between the length of a game and the quantity of sales. It seems like people complain about length on the internet, but the general public (and most of you guys) will buy it if the quality is there and overall interest as well.
I have never seen a correlation between the length of a game and the quantity of sales. It seems like people complain about length on the internet, but the general public (and most of you guys) will buy it if the quality is there and overall interest as well.
I just bought Akai Katana for $50 and beat it in 30 min. Should have been $2 tops. Yes I'm being incredibly sarcastic.
Meanwhile, I spent 20 hours on Red Dead Redemption and would gladly pay $60 to have that time back. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
Money should be spent on quality, not quantity.
Meanwhile, I spent 20 hours on Red Dead Redemption and would gladly pay $60 to have that time back. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
Money should be spent on quality, not quantity.
Missed the point I fear.
At this point in the gen, $30-40 debuts should really be pretty commonplace.
Games like Spec Ops: The Line and Bodycount are this gen's equivalent of Pariah and Cold Winter. But those had the wherewithal to debut at lower prices to combat a well-saturated market and a waning interest in their current gen. They weren't always successful, but they certainly wouldn't have fared any better at $50, and there was the occasional wild success story like Katamari or the ESPN/2K line (too successful, alas).
This gen's 7 years in and everyone is still pricing their B-tier stuff like it can hang with and/or dethrone the established genre kings. And then everyone's scratching their heads as to why sales are going down the toilet. That ship's sailed. You can get away with still charging $60 for a Halo or a Resident Evil at the tail end of a gen, but a Sniper Elite V2 or an Asura's Wrath? Get the hell out.
Games like Spec Ops: The Line and Bodycount are this gen's equivalent of Pariah and Cold Winter. But those had the wherewithal to debut at lower prices to combat a well-saturated market and a waning interest in their current gen. They weren't always successful, but they certainly wouldn't have fared any better at $50, and there was the occasional wild success story like Katamari or the ESPN/2K line (too successful, alas).
This gen's 7 years in and everyone is still pricing their B-tier stuff like it can hang with and/or dethrone the established genre kings. And then everyone's scratching their heads as to why sales are going down the toilet. That ship's sailed. You can get away with still charging $60 for a Halo or a Resident Evil at the tail end of a gen, but a Sniper Elite V2 or an Asura's Wrath? Get the hell out.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
The issue might be that the game cost a lot to make but poor management might inflate the "development costs".
Like I bet they put in millions to make Star Wars Kinect. Doesn't justify a $60 when it's a shitty $10 game.
Vice Versa, I'd pay a thousand dollars for Journey, which is probably a low cost development game.
cereal_killerxx
Junior Member
I think for some people it's the perfect length. A lot of us work all the time and don't have the spare time to dump 80 hours into a game unless it's one of the few games we're playing that year. =/
I honestly don't buy games at $60 any more.
$29.99 is the magic number for me, regardless of how long the game is supposed to be.
I've got kids to feed, my gaming habit needs to be affordable or I'd simply have to give it up completely.
And honestly, 6 hours is pretty much the sweet spot for me in terms of length too, otherwise I rarely finish it.
So in that regard, I'd say 30 bucks for 6 hours is just right for me.
$29.99 is the magic number for me, regardless of how long the game is supposed to be.
I've got kids to feed, my gaming habit needs to be affordable or I'd simply have to give it up completely.
And honestly, 6 hours is pretty much the sweet spot for me in terms of length too, otherwise I rarely finish it.
So in that regard, I'd say 30 bucks for 6 hours is just right for me.
As an aside, and because I wanted to brag a little, I just bought Sleeping Dogs on PC for $35 today and it doesn't even come out for another month and a half. Sony and MS, console retailers, publishers...whoever is in charge of this stuff really needs to wake up to the amazing sides of PC gaming. I think they'd find they would make more money in the long term.
Psy-Phi
Member
Retail, Packaging? Digital distribution should be quite a bit cheaper. And if the game is published by the same company that owns the platform, that licensing fee should be able to be cut too.
Clearly for games to reach $30 at launch there would have to be cuts all around, but I think a significant portion could be cut from the boxed copies for digital ones (I know it's not free to host data, but if they designed the system around Torrents, it would significantly cut digital distribution costs).
Simple. Spend less developing games.
HigherLevel
Member
This definitely needs to happen. I would purchase way more games with short campaigns if they were cheaper. I don't have the money to spend $60 on every game I want to play. That's why I have to stick to the known quantities like Halo, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect etc.
Said like the 13 year old you probably are.
Consumers are so entitled these days. If less was spent, the quality of many of the games you love would drop dramatically.
I don't get who most of the people in this world are. Anyone that produces a good of any sort knows that it should have a value that makes it worth producing. Most consumers also understand that you get what you pay for, but they still seem to insist on the impossible crossroads of low price x high quality.
There is nothing about that formula that is sustainable.
The sad thing is that every single game released is expected to have multiplayer of some sort, because according to many gamers that has intrinsically more value than single player. Personally, I disagree as I play games for the adventure but I realise that I'm truly in the minority there.
I think that the best game length for a single player as a general rule of thumb is in the 5-10 hour range, most games simply don't have the ideas or are able to expand upon the gameplay hooks they've already set up, so in many cases you have one or two hours worth of genuinely good gameplay spread over a 20+ hour game.
So yeah, I actually prefer games to be short, sweet, memorable and well paced rather than the vast majority of games which are bloated, slow, watered down experiences. Once again, I'm probably in the minority, but I have games like Portal, Journey and Mirror's Edge in my favourite games of the generation. I would gladly pay full price for a 5 hour game, and have done many times.
I think that the best game length for a single player as a general rule of thumb is in the 5-10 hour range, most games simply don't have the ideas or are able to expand upon the gameplay hooks they've already set up, so in many cases you have one or two hours worth of genuinely good gameplay spread over a 20+ hour game.
So yeah, I actually prefer games to be short, sweet, memorable and well paced rather than the vast majority of games which are bloated, slow, watered down experiences. Once again, I'm probably in the minority, but I have games like Portal, Journey and Mirror's Edge in my favourite games of the generation. I would gladly pay full price for a 5 hour game, and have done many times.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
Give me a 4-5 hour single player only game for 30 bucks and you have a deal.
Multiplayer added I could see 40 bucks being reasonable, 60 should only be for 15 hours or more SP with MP or epic 40+ RPGs.
Multiplayer added I could see 40 bucks being reasonable, 60 should only be for 15 hours or more SP with MP or epic 40+ RPGs.
blame space
Banned
everyone just stop buying games. can we start a neogaf campaign where we don't buy any game that's not 20 dollars? that would be good. we need to make change. i always thought this would be a decent idea for a website or forum or community where you simply don't talk about games unless they're under $20.
Exactly.
blame space
Banned
we need to create a reality distortion field
Dark Octave
Banned
I agree. I mentioned in both this and another similar thread that if we can ask for $30 for a 5 hour game, why can't publishers ask for $100 for a 100 hour game. It only seems fair right? After all, you are getting way more content than average.
I got ignored in both threads.
Diprosalic
Banned
I obviously would welcome a price cut for shorter games but i would rather see most devs cutting their game to a 4-5h length. Most games these days are so bland that longer than that they will get incredibly boring.
blame space
Banned
you're ignored because it's stupid to think that time invested is directly related to the quality of the game. some games are addictive, some games aren't. some games pay off in the long run, some games pay off in the short term. rather than let the market decide which is which (which it obviously and increasingly refuses to), why not just lower the admission fee?
a day at a theme park costs the same no matter how many roller coasters you ride. a movie ticket is becoming dangerously close to the price you pay to own the movie forever six months later. i don't see why we don't just make these experiences more available to people more often for less money and see what actually catches on.
a day at a theme park costs the same no matter how many roller coasters you ride. a movie ticket is becoming dangerously close to the price you pay to own the movie forever six months later. i don't see why we don't just make these experiences more available to people more often for less money and see what actually catches on.
blame space
Banned
yeah but people paid $60 for rage and i'm going to buy it next week for $2.50.
Monocle
Member
Definitely this. Something's wrong when long games with substantial replay value cost the same as games with sub-10 hour campaigns and no multiplayer or bonus modes.
My friend, you're posting on it.
revolverjgw
Member
You're screwing over the devs when you devalue the games like that. They need to put food on the table too. John Carmack needs to eat, so he'll have the the energy to work on his space rockets.
Length is irrelevant to me. I don't care about spending full price for a 4-8 hour game or a 20+ hour game, as long as the gameplay supports the length and/or the game has replayability. I don't really see the point of a game being long for the sake of being long just so people can say they got their money's worth. Although, I wouldn't mind ALL types of games being at the price point the OP mentions honestly. While I don't mind buying games at current full price I also don't mind buying games at cheap price either.
But the blockbuster games drop in price faster than any other types of games. You'd be better off waiting for those price drops on those. You'd be saving more money in the process too.
I usually buy niche games as soon as I can then wait for price drops on the blockbuster/AAA games as they happen much sooner nowadays, with the exception of any CoD game.
Cuban Legend
Member
I've got a feeling that if Call of Duty didn't exist, games like Spec Ops The Line might be worth buying.
So is the answer to these problems, getting rid of Call of Duty? Maybe. Would it ever happen? Not if the money from the majority of video game consumers has anything to say about it, unfortunately.
So is the answer to these problems, getting rid of Call of Duty? Maybe. Would it ever happen? Not if the money from the majority of video game consumers has anything to say about it, unfortunately.