Support NeoGAF

[mortal]

Not as in DLC or episodic content, but standalone titles. With a price range anywhere between $15-$30 at launch.
I personally would love to see more developers & publishers renowned for their big budget games explore this market more.

Sony has done this to some extent with games like Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, but I would like to see more original IPs as well.
I also believe this will give more developers the opportunity to take more creative risks they otherwise might not have while working on games with exceedingly larger budgets.
For instance a title running on the same game engine and similar pipeline of $60-$70 game, but developed by a smaller team.
Similar in scale or length (not style) to titles developed by Playdead or Thatgamecompany, but instead developed in-house by a team within Sony Studios, Xbox Game Studios, or bigger 3rd party developers.
It's more commonplace within the indie sector of the industry, but I don't see why that same model can't be utilized by bigger studios as well.

When it comes to video game production, it's well known that developers go through multiple iterations and ideas before arriving at their final concept for a project.
There are likely more games that get cancel during pre-production than ones that make it to the market.
Or even ideas that get scrapped because it would be too unconventional to implement in expensive large budgets games.
Whenever I see concept art for certain games post launch, I tend to always feel like I would've enjoyed those scrapped concepts or mechanics just as much if not more in an actual playable release.

On the consumer side, this could provide options for those of us that may enjoy gaming but no longer have the free time to indulge in the bigger, lengthier titles.
Between my day job and working on personal projects, I sometimes need to make time to catch up with the latest AAA titles. Because of this I tend to play much of them long after launch, in some cases 2 or 3 years later.
The downside to that is I sometimes end up missing out on lots of interesting discussion and discovery during the launch period of new titles, with the worst case scenario in being exposed to spoilers.

What do you guys think? Is there a potential market for shorter/smaller & cheaper priced games made by AAA developers? "AA" games, if you will.

 

[Outlier]

Yes.

But NOT COD short.

20 hours MAX for action-adventure games.

40 hours MAX for RPGs.

So and so.

I'm just losing patience with super long games, these days. I'm not enjoying them when they ask so much of attention for lame objectives.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

If the game design calls for it, sure. If mid-tier AA games fall into that category designation, then definitely. There are plenty of IP I'd love to see come back like Panzer Dragoon, Tomba, Outrun etc. that could do with some nice budgets but don't need to be AAA to be successful IMHO. Mid-tier exists for games like that.

If it means AAA games done chapter-style, again it depends on if the game design makes due with it creatively. I don't think games like Walking Dead series pulled it off perfectly because your choices meant shit all and those were heavily story-driven games with very few or limited game systems to interact with. Something with more actual gameplay to it, could be decent. I would personally prefer if the chapters were more like "arcs" in nice condensed story segments so each one still feels like it has a beginning, middle, and end. But maybe you can get certain items in one that transfer back and forth between them, and some reoccurring characters and supplemental plot lines being continued, just...nothing where you would be REQUIRED to play the earlier parts to get in and enjoy it.

For AAA I think each episode would need to provide at least a solid eight hours of play, a bit more with side content thrown in there, multi-episode story and side items that can be carried back and forth between episodes (could open up some cool gameplay ideas), secondary story plots that build on each other between episodes but aren't required to enjoy the main storyline, etc.

 

[CeeJay]

Creating anything new from scratch is costly. A new engine, new ip, new tooling, new sound effects etc. It wouldn't be cost effective to create a shorter, cheaper AAA game as it would still cost nearly as much to develop as a full price one. Creating a shorter and cheaper AAA game using existing stuff from a pre-existing game is about as close as you are going to get.

 

[mortal]

Yes.

But NOT COD short.

20 hours MAX for action-adventure games.

40 hours MAX for RPGs.

So and so.

I'm just losing patience with super long games, these days. I'm not enjoying them when they ask so much of attention for lame objectives.

Well in the cases where a game is less than 10 hours, you would be paying less money for it. That's the idea.

For a solid 20 hours action-adventure title I'd be willing to pay an MSRP price anywhere between $20-$30.
Even it were shorter than 20 hours, I'd even be willing to pay on the pricer side of that depending on the developer.

 

[ShivinN]

I don't think it's going to happen, but sure.... AAA games are getting shorter, but not getting much cheaper. I think I'd actually like more content with less "production".

 

[Ornlu]

Yes. AA and indies have been way better than AAA for a long while. Shoestring budgets force people to innovate, or knowingly sacrifice power/graphics for great gameplay.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Yes. I don’t mind shorter games. In fact, I would probably embrace them. I don’t have time for so many 80 to 200 hour adventures these days. Unfortunately, most gamers associate length, content and bloat with quality and I think it’s hurting gaming.

 

[junguler]

no, i'm already a picky gamer and enjoy less and less genres of games as i get older, if anything i want those games that i really like to be longer.

 

[mortal]

Creating anything new from scratch is costly. A new engine, new ip, new tooling, new sound effects etc. It wouldn't be cost effective to create a shorter, cheaper AAA game as it would still cost nearly as much to develop as a full price one. Creating a shorter and cheaper AAA game using existing stuff from a pre-existing game is about as close as you are going to get.

Well that goes without saying. There is a cost to doing everything as games aren't made from thin air.
I don't necessarily agree with your assessment here. I think that sort of mindset is predicated on the current AAA model.
One where more creative risk is avoided, and understandably so, and it becomes more of a gamble as budgets increase due to consumer standards for better visuals and quality content increases.

The indie market has shown there are plenty of consumers willing to pay money for smaller scaled or shorter unconventional experiences.
A well established brand or IP will garner more attention than an original new IP, but that's the case with literally any form of media.
Every popular franchise started out as unproven new IPs. I'm convinced this would work off the strength of reputable AAA studios.

Things are changing. Now with digital storefronts become more of a norm, this allows even smaller developers to find relative success and dedicate audiences.
In some cases contending with the likes of big publishers and AAA developers.

 

[BadBurger]

It's the kind of games I already look for. 12 - 18 hours total core playtime with a few hours of optional side content / trophy hunting / collecting is fine for me.

And I am good with 30+ hour RPG's but the pace needs to be maintained. If it has to be padded out with excessive grinding or mindless fetch quests I usually end up checking out around the 20 hour mark. No regrets.

 

[Moogle11]

For sure. I love long games, but like shorter ones as well as there's only so much time and I tend to get burnt out on long games and like to play some shorter ones in between to add variety. It would be nice to have some AAA production values in shorter games, but it's hard to stomach paying $60-70 for say an 8-15 hour game when there are plenty of 20-40+ hour games that I feel are free of bloat, fun throughout for the same price.

I mitigate that generally by either buying shorter games physically so I can sell after I'm done, waiting for them to hit $20-30 in a digital sale, or waiting and playing if they hit Gamepass, PS+ etc. I'd play a lot more day one digitally if more shorter AAA games were $30-40.

 

[Mediocre Arachno-Lad]

Not just shorter but smaller scale too. Stop creating a bunch of dead space with thoughtless filler content.
More Outer Wilds and less No Man's Sky please.

 

[Jeeves]

Sure I guess, but I'd be more interested to see them make full-fledged games with lower budgets -- in other words 'AA' games. With a lower budget and less at stake, they won't be as afraid of having an original idea and I might even buy one of their products.

I'm way more likely to spend a full $60 on a neat AA game than some graphics showcase AAA blockbuster.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Fuck.

Yes.

Games are way too long as it is, and way too formulaic.

 

[GametimeUK]

Stop creating a bunch of dead space

We need MORE Dead Space!

 

[AmuroChan]

Yes absolutely. I would have much rather paid $40 for a shorter FFVII Remake with all the bloat removed. Time is the most valuable commodity in my life. I much prefer games that are tightly designed and respect my time than games that are full of things specifically designed to slow me down.

 

[mortal]

Yes. I don’t mind shorter games. In fact, I would probably embrace them. I don’t have time for so many 80 to 200 hour adventures these days. Unfortunately, most gamers associate length, content and bloat with quality and I think it’s hurting gaming.

I agree 100%. It's really about execution and value.

Inside developed by Playdead is one such example. I don't even think I paid $15 for it at the time, but I do recall it being considerably cheaper than a "AAA" title with a $60 price tag.
Although it was shorter in length and cheaper in price, it left an impression on me to this day. Where as there were several "AAA" games I paid considerably more for that I struggle to recall anything memorable about them.
I completed it one sitting and never felt like I was didn't get my money's worth. If anything the fact that it was short enough to complete in one sitting was part of the appeal for me, as strange as that sounds.

From the quality of the presentation, to well designed puzzles & level design, it felt like solid self contained experience.
I would love to see these bigger studios assemble smaller teams to make their own smaller scaled titles.
It doesn't really make any sense to always go for the big AAA gamble, which comes with certain limitations.
It always a shame when all of that talent and tech just goes to waste because a studio has to close their doors because they weren't able to compete in the AAA market.

 

[mortal]

If it means AAA games done chapter-style, again it depends on if the game design makes due with it creatively. I don't think games like Walking Dead series pulled it off perfectly because your choices meant shit all and those were heavily story-driven games with very few or limited game systems to interact with. Something with more actual gameplay to it, could be decent. I would personally prefer if the chapters were more like "arcs" in nice condensed story segments so each one still feels like it has a beginning, middle, and end. But maybe you can get certain items in one that transfer back and forth between them, and some reoccurring characters and supplemental plot lines being continued, just...nothing where you would be REQUIRED to play the earlier parts to get in and enjoy it.

For AAA I think each episode would need to provide at least a solid eight hours of play, a bit more with side content thrown in there, multi-episode story and side items that can be carried back and forth between episodes (could open up some cool gameplay ideas), secondary story plots that build on each other between episodes but aren't required to enjoy the main storyline, etc.

Well it's not necessary to adhere to a specific style of game design or genre in this case. The main criteria is a standalone game sold at a cheaper MSRP price.
Whatever form that takes it dependent on the developers, whether it be shorter in length or smaller in scale relative to their AAA counterparts.
Although your examples seems to be more in line with episodic games, it does sound interesting. I down for more unconventional game design in general.

Sure I guess, but I'd be more interested to see them make full-fledged games with lower budgets -- in other words 'AA' games. With a lower budget and less at stake, they won't be as afraid of having an original idea and I might even buy one of their products.

I'm way more likely to spend a full $60 on a neat AA game than some graphics showcase AAA blockbuster.

Well that's essentially the gist. "AA" gaming, for lack of a better term.
Specifically developed by smaller teams within studios renowned for releasing AAA budget titles. Whether they be 1st or 3rd party.

 

[Kataploom]

I'd actually appretiate shorter games, tbh... Not everything has to be $60 blockbuster... Actually 20 is the sweet spot for me

 

[NahaNago]

Yeah, I kinda groan when I hear a game is going to be super long these days but folks seem to equate length of the game with the price.

 

[kyussman]

I've really no issue with the price/value proposition that games currently offer....most of the single player games I play these days have plenty of content for the price.If I'm not sure about a game then simply waiting for a price drop is easy enough,which is what I do most of the time anyway tbh.

 

[Stuart360]

The odd one here and there for sure, but thats kind of what the Indie and AA games do now. I'd hate it if these sprawling 50+ hour games,, packed with content and value for money, went away, or reduced in the amount of them.
I appreciate the fact that standards have changed over the last gen or so, and most studios try to give us 'bang for your buck' with full price $60-70 retail games, instead of in past generation where you would be getting 5 hour campaigns for $60.

 

[abacab driver]

After playing Hivebusters and Miles Morales, I'd be good with one high quality 4-5 hour game from top talent every year/year and a half.

 

[SafeOrAlone]

My temptation to say "yes" is mostly driven by an exhaustion with filler content in AAA games.
I'd love to see more developers create games while hardly paying any mind to the game length. I don't think that would go over well with most players .
"How long is this game??" is a trite question devs are constantly hounded with.

I also understand that by ramping up budgets for these productions, it may be necessary to keep people working by developing filler content. So it's probably easier said than done.
That said, rather than 100 sidequests, I still think something meaningful could be developed. Anyone play Spider-Man the movie game? It was awesome being able to unlock and play as the Green Goblin, with his own moves and movement system, after beating the game. What an awesome way to add replay value. I much rather play a 7 hour adventure with something like that than a 120 hour game with less focus on mechanics and design.

 

[DansDans]

Bring back "arcade" games

I know they've moved to mobile, but hey not all of us want to game on mobile (I know the stats say the opposite though)

 

[CitizenZ]

Length should never be a goal or matter(Thats what she said) but all have one thing in common, huge worlds but sort of empty and repetitive(MMO style). Simply, I will use AC and CP as examples, imagine releasing these games, polished, balanced and meaningful but only 1/2 the map they released. THEN in 3-6 mo. they could release the 2nd half new territories, continued story, new possible enemies, vehicles, etc. etc.. It sure would be a helluva lot better than the boring trash AAA spews out day one on release.

I know a lot of people are sleeping on Outsiders but the dev team is focused on one thing on release, a solid game at DAY ONE no plans for DLC or anything else. This IS the attitude devs should embrace instead of here is day one crap its broke, wait for patches, updates, balance fixes, etc.

 

[Fbh]

I'd be fine with games being shorter even if they aren't cheaper. The vast majority of long games can't avoid getting monotonous, repetitive or simply having terrible pacing. And as I've gotten older hearing a game is 60+ hours long has steadily turned from a plus to almost being a deal-breaker.

I'd be perfectly fine if action adventure stuff was 8-16 hours (hopefully with good replay value) and RPG'S stayed in the 25-40 hours range.

 

[RoboFu]

I would like to see more than the same 3 types of games being made constantly.

I mean if some made a game like cyber punk but instead of being a loot shooter it was more akin to a point and click adventure in a smaller city area. I would love that 4000000 times more than shooter # 87888666776566

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Shorter AAA story driven linear experiences like Last Of Us 2? Yes

Longer AAA Open world RPG's? Yes

 

[CatLady]

No I can play a lot of shorter games on Game Pass when I'm in the mood. For the games I buy I want something I can get a lot of enjoyable play time out of. Games like Fallout, Assassins Creed or Elder Scrolls or games I'll replay many times like Halo, BioShock or Gears.

 

[Captain Toad]

I don't even need them to be cheaper. Just make games shorter by removing all the excess filler.

 

[namekuseijin]

yes if VR

but I wouldn't mind long AAA games in VR either

 

[Shmunter]

I’d like to go back to 360 AAA style gaming. 10-15h, no filler, pure joy.

 

[Azaroth]

Yes. Majority of AAA games are bloated and too long.

 

[Phase]

Yes. I've noticed the majority of the games I like are between 10-20hrs. Even better if they have replayability. There's more than enough room for smaller titles that developers could take more risk with.

 

[MagnesG]

Having games that is actually fun to play is a good start. Maybe no walking simulator section/intro for once?

 

[bxrz]

No. Give me a game that I can't finish in 2 days. I just spent 50-70 on it...

 

[mortal]

No. Give me a game that I can't finish in 2 days. I just spent 50-70 on it...

Well the point is that you wouldn't be spending $50-$70 dollars on it...

 

[LordOfChaos]

In theory? Yeah. In practice, they'd just be shorter, not cheaper.

 

[Halo is Back]

Hellblade was pretty dope so yes.

 

[Shmunter]

Last Of Us 2 harkens back to the good old days. Evolving linear game.

Except it’s massive, yet never boring. At least for me.

I’ll take these types as #1 preference.

 

[bxrz]

Well the point is that you wouldn't be spending $50-$70 dollars on it...

I beat Miles Morales in 2 days and that cost 50$

 

[kikkis]

I doubt economics support less than 5 hour games.

 

[mortal]

In theory? Yeah. In practice, they'd just be shorter, not cheaper.

The idea is that they would be sold at a cheaper MSRP tag, not $60-$70 like bigger budget AAA titles.

I beat Miles Morales in 2 days and that cost 50$

Well no one told you to spend $50 on it lol

I doubt economics support less than 5 hour games.

They don't all have to be less than five hours.

Cheaper is really the key here. Whether that game is shorter in length or smaller in scale relative to AAA counterparts.

 

[kikkis]

They don't all have to be less than five hours.

Cheaper is really the key here. Whether that game is shorter in length or smaller in scale relative to AAA counterparts.

Idk call of duty must cost like 100 million per game and those have 5 hour campaigns. Yes there is multiplayer but even cliffyb said that campaign costs the most. Selling that at 20 bucks would mean equivalent of 60 milloin units which is unreasonable.

Another way to think about it is that once you have made core gameplay, assets, necessary tech (not engine) it makes sense to reuse those components to make game longer and price typical 60 dollars.

 

[mortal]

Idk call of duty must cost like 100 million per game and those have 5 hour campaigns. Yes there is multiplayer but even cliffyb said that campaign costs the most. Selling that at 20 bucks would mean equivalent of 60 milloin units which is unreasonable.

Another way to think about it is that once you have made core gameplay, assets, necessary tech (not engine) it makes sense to reuse those components to make game longer and price typical 60 dollars.

You're using COD as a reference for game design. I'm not talking about linear game vs multiplayer games. Not to mention modern COD games have huge set pieces and lots of cutscenes.
Which tend to contribute to their increased budgets.

Sure it makes practical sense to reuse some assets, so in this case developers can make another game, as they tend to do.

 

[Astral Dog]

Like Miles Morales ? Not really

If its like Capcom with the Monster or Revelations series,('AAA' handheld games)sure

 

[THEAP99]

No

 

[mortal]

Like Miles Morales ? Not really

If its like Capcom with the Monster or Revelations series,('AAA' handheld games)sure

Sure I guess. Whatever game you like, but shorter and/or smaller scaled. Thus being considerably cheaper at launch. It's developed by a smaller team within a AAA studio.
Tbh I'm not even sure AAA handhelds are even still a thing outside of Nintendo platforms.