Support NeoGAF

[Rikoi]

Putting this into perspective, 67% of Americans play videogames in some fashion. Of those people, 13% play less than one hour per week, and just 7% play more than 20 hours.

You are in the vast, vast, vast minority. And I'm grateful for that.

Those statistics include mobile gaming btw. 90% of that 67% is constituted of smartphone/tablet players.
We are talking about buyable games here which the vast majority of mobile "gamers" will avoid like plague being used to play freemium games.

 

[magaman]

Those statistics include mobile gaming btw. 90% of that 67% is constituted of smartphone/tablet players.
We are talking about buyable games here which the vast majority of mobile "gamers" will avoid like plague being used to play freemium games.

Good point. So we're talking about even more of a minority than originally thought. These gamers who pay $60 and feel they're "owed" 100+ hours is the very definition of entitlement. Sure, who wouldn't want to spend nothing and get everything? Sadly that's not how this works.

 

[Rikoi]

Good point. So we're talking about even more of a minority than originally thought. These gamers who pay $60 and feel they're "owed" 100+ hours is the very definition of entitlement. Sure, who wouldn't want to spend nothing and get everything? Sadly that's not how this works.

Actually, no. You can't include as gamers the average guy/girl that plays only candy crush while waiting for the bus to go to school. Of course that will lower the average time spent on games.
You also can't include gamers that only play free to play games, because nobody would mind a game lasting 30 minutes if you haven't even paid for it.

You can only include buyable games, because the discussion is about length of the game compared to the price asked, and I'm sure those numbers you brought here would be very different.
Also the statistics don't tell us if the person that finished the game is happy or unhappy about the game length, playing 7 hours a week doesn't mean I want to play short games.

 

[Bkdk]

That depends on the price point, also different people finish the game at quite different time, so it’s hard to do any minimum required hours.

Though I’d say if the game doesn’t include somewhat open levels with multiple story branching options, I’ll usually not shell out 60 dollars for it. I’m certainly someone who accept a lower bar quality wise, but do want content to be robust. Certainly quantity over quality as long as quality is probably 6.5/10 or above.

 

[Dark Star]

The length of game doesn't matter much to me. It's the quality of the experience.

I'd rather spend less than 8 hours absolutely blown away and totally engaged on the edge of my seat, than spend like 80 hours bored, tried and confused by an excruciatingly slow story, pointless side missions and character arcs, and enormous open world.

I usually buy games on sale, like a year or two after they come out, so cost isn't really part of the equation for me. Sure, I'd rather pay full price (60 dollars) for a AAA game that will give me a ton of content to enjoy, but that's only if the game is actually fun to play (The Witcher 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, Dark Souls, etc, etc). Likewise, I'd rather buy used / on sale (less than 20 bucks) for a game that is very short, but sweet to play (Resident Evil games in a nutshell). Either way, quality is much more important that quantity.

 

[Clintizzle]

Including cutscenes?

 

[magaman]

Actually, no. You can't include as gamers the average guy/girl that plays only candy crush while waiting for the bus to go to school. Of course that will lower the average time spent on games.
You also can't include gamers that only play free to play games, because nobody would mind a game lasting 30 minutes if you haven't even paid for it.

You can only include buyable games, because the discussion is about length of the game compared to the price asked, and I'm sure those numbers you brought here would be very different.
Also the statistics don't tell us if the person that finished the game is happy or unhappy about the game length, playing 7 hours a week doesn't mean I want to play short games.

Actually, you can include gamers who play CC, because they're still gaming. Otherwise, you leave out a key segment of the gaming population. The average 'gamer' doesn't want long games, and you could argue that the average person doesn't even want a console. Sure, 100 million PS4s have been sold, but...

• Globally, Casual Single-Player games such as Candy Crush, Angry Birds, and Spider Solitaire, are the most popular
• First-Person shooter games including Call of Duty, Destiny 2 and Overwatch, are the second most popular type of video game played, and they increased in popularity by more than six percent in the past year.

THE STATE OF ONLINE GAMING – 2020

A new category of online gaming is included in this year’s survey – Console-less Gaming Services (such as Google Stadia).

www.limelight.com

.

So yeah, 'mobile gaming' is where the money and attention is. To discount it is to ignore the largest segment of gamers. Can't do that bucko, sorry.

 

[Cynical_Aries]

I'd prefer to wait on a sale for games that less content without replayability.

 

[phil_t98]

All depends on the game

 

[Elektro Demon]

Yeah 8 hours should be minimum, re3 is way too short although it takes the same amount to finish when running through it as re2 which I don't think is that short.

RE2R is almost double the length. But it's also a way better game then r3r, imo.
They even reused assets from r2r in r3r. And there are many locations missing from the original resident evil 3.

 

[TheCrimsnFuckr]

I disagree honestly. I finished both Bioshock 1 and Bioshock Infinite in 8 hours or so each. They were both great games that I immensely enjoyed (though not particularly memorable, I enjoyed my time with them) and I would have had no problem paying full price for those games at launch.

Titanfall 2's campaign, which was easily one of the greatest game campaigns this generation, I beat in like 4 hours and I just left wanting more, but I was also immensely happy with the money I had spent even if I was just going to use it to play the campaign, and considering that I haven't put much time into the MP on account of me having shitty internet, I am still happy that I bought the game.


Pacing, enjoyability and content are much more important to me than length. I gave up TLOU2 20 hours into the story because it was just so horribly paced and not fun, and I feel like if the whole game had been shorter it would be better

 

[xpresstuning]

These are the elements i hold into account and base my purchase on:

1. General appeal (whether or not it's a genre i'm into, the settings interest me, the plot/characters interest me [depending whether or not it's story centric], whether or not the mechanics are stimulating)
2. Price (self explanatory)
3. Content quality and length (how well paced it is, design based on creativity, passion and not on trends, sellability, i don't like bloat and meaningless time wasting repetitive filler)
4. Replayability (ways to experience new content through subsequent playthroughs, multiplayer)
5. Mod-support (awesome)

1. and 2. being the factors that attracts my attention and warrants further research (user reviews and feedback [Steam, GOG, Reddit, Youtube, NeoGAF]), 3., 4., and 5. being the factors that fundamentally decide whether or not i take the plunge and get it to invest time into it. I have an extremely small amount of free time dedicated to video games (usually reserved on sundays), so i am incredibly picky on what i buy to invest that time in.

 

[hariseldon]

Approaching art/entertainment like buying cornflakes at Walmart is just so odd. Imagine choosing films based on length - original Dumbo is only 64 minutes, would not watch, Hitchcock’s masterpiece Rope is only 80 minutes, same for Toy Story, feel free to look at https://www.vulture.com/2016/10/best-movies-under-90-minutes-long.html for more.

We buy things at supermarkets aiming to get the most per £/$/€ because fundamentally the quality is mostly the same but for art, for entertainment, there is no way you can choose in the same way. Many great movies are short and so are many great games.

 

[tassletine]

I think there should probably be a limit for filmic games -- In comparison a film has to be over 40 minutes to qualify for an Oscar, the reality being that no film under 75 minutes (the limit imposed by the actors guild) will ever qualify.

You can make a game any length you want really, but I do think that rules help artists work generally.
If you don't set rules, they tend to emerge naturally -- which costs more money. Pushback from the focus testers or wider gaming community starts making those rules -- but unfortunately like everything else, it's the most vocal and annoying people who get to set those, so it comes out wonky.

I'd much rather an average limit be set franky (I'd say about 20 hours) or at the very least it should at least be mentioned on the box. I almost never get through 70 hour games, usually stopping around 30 -- usually because the gameplay in those long titles is so intermittent, and I can't justify my time with them.

 

[tassletine]

More seriously, TLoU 2 is wayy too long, they could completely remove the Abby section and the story would hold itself together better than it does now.

Personally I think is the second part of the story would have worked so much better as a cut down 8 hour DLC. Finishing the game -- THEN getting to see the other side a few months later would have been so much more effective.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Approaching art/entertainment like buying cornflakes at Walmart is just so odd. Imagine choosing films based on length - original Dumbo is only 64 minutes, would not watch, Hitchcock’s masterpiece Rope is only 80 minutes, same for Toy Story, feel free to look at https://www.vulture.com/2016/10/best-movies-under-90-minutes-long.html for more.

We buy things at supermarkets aiming to get the most per £/$/€ because fundamentally the quality is mostly the same but for art, for entertainment, there is no way you can choose in the same way. Many great movies are short and so are many great games.

But there are limits on that, an example like Dumbo only existed due to when it released, a movie released today that's under 80 minutes would have people asking why they're going to spend 10 dollars to see it in theaters. If you knew a film was 40 minutes long would you think it's okay the blu-ray cost the same as any other movie? Would it release in theaters for regular ticket price? I can't think of any examples.