-
If you have been following the news, you should be aware that the people of Lebanon have been under a violent bombardment that has recently escalated. Please consider donating to help them if you can or trying to spread word of the fundraiser.
-
Asheville and Western North Carolina at large are in crisis after Helene, please consider contributing to these local organizations and helping the people whose lives have been destroyed.
Shawn Layden: "I would welcome a return to the 12 to 15 hour AAA game"
- Thread starter Deleted member 51691
- Start date
I used to be very dollar/hour focused, due to money being tight. However within the last couple of years I have shifted that stance...there are just too many huge AAA games just filled to the brim with pointless filler. I would must rather play for a tighter, 10-20 hour long DOABLE experience.
Well for some of us it's definitely a factor. I know I don't have unlimited gaming funds, if a title can keep me entertained for a couple weeks vs a couple days, I'd be an idiot not to consider that in my purchasing decisions.
I'm sure it's tough trying to make people happy when some people want a 12 hour game and others want 100+ hours. And always people complaining that 12-15 hour games they finish in a day. That's... not normal at all for 99.9% of the population.
Anyway, I agree with Shawn here.
Anyway, I agree with Shawn here.
I've been saying this for years. They could make more polished experiences, or just release games more often, if they made them shorter. Lower the price a bit and we're good. I don't need all my games to be 30+ hours. In fact, I appreciate shorter games more, lately.
I'd welcome a $60 game for a good 15 hours of content rather than a bloated 40-60
This is where I am at. Between FF14 and just life in general I don't have the time nor attention span to play the same 80 hour long AAA open world game because it would take me actually months to do so. I will make exceptions for series I really enjoy, like Persona, but thats about it. I usually only like to play a game for an hour or two at a time, so these games just take forever, and it is worse when a really enjoyable story is stretched out over that time too. And in the time it would take me to finally beat one big game, many smaller ones would have released; which only furthers my waning interest.
But that's not typical of a general gamer, it would also mean shorter dev time. A 15 hr game takes me weeks to beat as I can't really sit and play for hours at a time. And there's so much to play that I have to slot these games in.
So would I, but I appreciate that (as a husband and a father with some disposable income but vanishingly little free time) my needs differ from a lot of other gamers.
Hindsight is 20/20. He's looking at it as a former exec, and probably would do it differently if he was still at PlayStation.
The thing is though, most people (beyond this forum and my personal experience) that play games care about how much time do they spend on the game if they spend full 60 USD / 80 CAD on the game rather than appreciate the amount of craft that goes into them.
So if they see a game that is 10 hours but they pay full price, they'll dunk on that fact. And the prices won't go down either because the production costs keep going up and up.
For open world games, 50h+ is fine because you need time to explore the world. For narrative driven games, 12-15h is perfect. But open world games and narrative games are compared on the same level so bloat is necessary to justify the price.
So if they see a game that is 10 hours but they pay full price, they'll dunk on that fact. And the prices won't go down either because the production costs keep going up and up.
For open world games, 50h+ is fine because you need time to explore the world. For narrative driven games, 12-15h is perfect. But open world games and narrative games are compared on the same level so bloat is necessary to justify the price.
Then pace yourself? It can take me a couple of weeks to beat a 12 hour game.
It took my fucking 3 months to beat Red Dead Redemption 2 and Breath of the Wild.
Not where I live (Finland). Early PS3 games could go even over 70€ (I remember seeing Heavenly Sword with price tag of 72.99€). PS4 games have been 60€ since the launch (actually a lot of PS2 games even costed 60€ here).
Would welcome that. With some exceptions of course. And stop the fucking grinding for Platinums where you have to repeat the same patterns over and over again. That's not an achievement for me. That's a waste of time.
And 12-15h games would really fit the dynamics of the present time right now. Attention span is r
And 12-15h games would really fit the dynamics of the present time right now. Attention span is r
You play 12 hours per day?
I play maybe 2hours and finish any Assassins Creed is utopic for me.
... and this is the line of thinking that got us to where we are in the first place.
OP
OP
Yep. The longer a game is, the less likely I am to give it a chance. Time is a bigger issue than hours/dollar for me. I prefer a focused, well-paced 10-hour game to a padded-out 100 hour open-world monster.
Unnecessary bloat is a plague that should be erradicated, it even tarnished franchises that were always almost perfectly paced like Mario. Odyssey could have less than half the moons and it would be a far better game if it did, it didn't need 880 forgettable objectives in a checklist to justify the price tag.
I disagree. I am not bummed if finish a game in a day... especially if I spent the entire day playing it.
In fact I enjoy my occasional short game.
First post nails it. I don't have the patience for long games nowadays. Some of us, are getting old.
Capcom's been good with that, lately.
Yup, Resident Evil 2 Remake felt like a great length to me for a game that is meant to be replayed.
Lost Legacy launched at $39.99, which SM:MM has been officially (?) compared to. I imagine it will too.
I welcome this. Working full time, wife, kids and other responsibilities means I get one to two hours of game time per week. I stopped buying games that require more than 20 hours of game time.
To those using TLOU2 as an example of a game with filler and bloat - pick a better example, 'cause this ain't it. Not since Resident Evil 4 has a non-open world AAA action game fully justified its longer than average runtime.
Interesting take by Layden. New entries in Sony franchises increased dramatically in playtime while he was CEO of SCEA. I guess he also had to give in.
I agree with him. Just charge $40 so the expectation isn't there. Or include them in a subscription service like Game Pass. Not saying we shouldn't have these huge expensive games, but it'd be nice if every game didn't try to do it. I like completing games too.
This x 10000.
The game was literally twice as long as it should've been. Whoever greenlit: "let's keep going" and then "nah, let's keep going" and then "no, more" and then "not enough yet" and onto whatever final product we got needs to be checked.
I mean, if it's genuinely 15 hours of content. I don't mind full price. But often time, when they say 12-15 hours, they actually mean 9-12 hours.
But I'm just one opinion.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind. Games need to pace themselves better and know when to end.
For example, I still hold Chrono Trigger as a paragon of JRPGs, but you know what it also is? A short JRPG. 20-25 hours and you're done.
It's much rather have a short, better experience than a long padded one. Unless, of course, the long experience is the point. A slow burn game made to deliberately be slow? That's fair, too. But they don't all have to be this long. Go long if you need to, keep it only as long as you have to otherwise.
For example, I still hold Chrono Trigger as a paragon of JRPGs, but you know what it also is? A short JRPG. 20-25 hours and you're done.
It's much rather have a short, better experience than a long padded one. Unless, of course, the long experience is the point. A slow burn game made to deliberately be slow? That's fair, too. But they don't all have to be this long. Go long if you need to, keep it only as long as you have to otherwise.
