Length and "Value for Money"

[Jebus]

That's still the length. You're basing the its perceived value on how much time you'll spend with it, not how much fun you'll be having during that time.

Isn't that his right to do so?

There's a lot of outrage in this thread, but it's every individuals right to decide what THEY percieve as value for THEIR money.

Getting upset about that is kinda ludicrous to me.

[toythatkills]

Isn't that his right to do so?

There's a lot of outrage in this thread, but it's every individuals right to decide what THEY percieve as value for THEIR money.

Getting upset about that is kinda ludicrous to me.

That still doesn't answer the question: why games but not other similar media?

[Jebus]

Why should something be compared to something else? Games are games, not films. Would you want to watch an 8 hour film over several sittings?

Nowadays gamers are used to buying a game, having an 8-10 hour campaign and then countless multiplayer modes. That is percieved value for money.

Also, once upon a time you'd buy a game and it'd have to last you a long time. When I was growing up and was buying Spectrum tapes, I wouldn't be getting 5 a month, I couldn't afford it. They had to last me.

[Number45]

How on earth were 30 man-years accrued in four years? How big is the studio?

I agree that the quality of the experience is as important as its length, for what it's worth (In fact I'd argue that the length of the experience is often adversely proportionate to the quality of the game), although I can see both sides of the argument. I don't think the film analogy is entirely worthwhile, because it suggests that people never come out of the cinema and bemoan the money they've just wasted on a film.

It's not as if a demo equates to a trailer either. A demo almost always directly represents a significant length of a single section of the game, whereas a trailer for a film can (And often does) condense all of the most visually striking sections of the game into a very short reel.

The most accurate comparison you're going to be able to find is with other downloadable products. Lots of people game on a budget and need to get the most bang for their buck. CoD gets away with it because people can dismiss the single player out of hand against the multiplayer, physical media can be traded and some of the cost recouped - single player digitally delivered content doesn't offer any of those benefits which is why length or replay value is considered by a lot of people.

[charlesr]

These days, I'd pay more to have a game that I can actually finish. I've given up on Zelda and stuff like that because I can't complete them. Finishing a game is important to me, especially if it's a good one.

Would I pay £35 for LIMBO? Not as a download, but on disc I would. Weird eh? I wouldn't play it again. But I'm old school, still finding it difficult to pay for something that doesn't really exist (I don't download music, even lossless - always buy the CD, but immediately rip it to my PC for streaming). I paid full price for Portal (yes there is other stuff on the orange box, but I never played them - just got it for the portal). I've never gone back to Portal, but the time with it was cherished and well worth the money.

I used to look for replay value, but these days with so much good content coming out, it's the bottom of the list, because I prefer to experience something once and move on, leaving the time to experience more things. I'm the same with films. I stopped buying DVDs because I only watched them once, always wanting to sample something new, so changed to LoveFilm to ensure a constant stream of new content.

[spagmasterswift]

You will always reach the end of a film

Are we not including 'The Postman'?

[merf]

I didn't mind a short game like Flower as it was a unique experience, Limbo though from what I've seen doesn't seem such, it's a trial and error 2d platformer in fancy pants that seems to be getting some people a bit excited when it's criticised.

It's not about length for me but perceived value, which can be derived from a long playtime and replay value (mass effect 2 say) or a short sweet unique experience (pixel junk shooter, flower)

[spagmasterswift]

I thought the demo was a fantastic experience, bit short perhaps but its free so...yay!

[rmoxon]

Things are worth different amounts to different people.

For exmaple, the reason footballers get paid obscene amounts of money is becuase thats what the team sees as their value (usualy).

The above example is a good point to prove that you dont always get what you pay for as well, but then what one person sees as value for money will always be what another sees as a waste of cash.

At the end of the day, and ive said this in the Limbo thread already, I feel the game in question is worth every penny becuase its absolubtley fantastic, but not everyone is gonna agree with that, everyone will always have different ideas about what value for money actualy is.

[Skull Commander]

At the end of the day, and ive said this in the Limbo thread already, I feel the game in question is worth every penny becuase its absolubtley fantastic, but not everyone is gonna agree with that, everyone will always have different ideas about what value for money actualy is.

And thus ends the thread

[ezee ryder]

I don't get why such a big deal is being made out of this. I thought primary reason most people didn't buy LIMBO was cos they didn't enjoy the trial, nothing wrong with that. Sure, the price and length were both mentioned a few times but no-one really moaned about it.

I think Charlie got it spot on when he said this.....

.....really, the whole issue concerning value is a dead-end street because something's worth is wholly subjective and entirely dependent on the pleasure a purchase provides.

The phrase "mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind. Some people just don't want to purchase LIMBO or didn't enjoy it as much as other people, get over it.

[charlesr]

I didn't mind a short game like Flower as it was a unique experience, Limbo though from what I've seen doesn't seem such, it's a trial and error 2d platformer in fancy pants

I seem to remember you championing World of Goo which has almost nothing to tax the brain at all (I think there were 2 difficult puzzle levels). But it was a super game because it was presented so smoothly that you just HAD to play through it all, even though 98% of the levels were spent just plugging things together in an obvious way. i.e. the gameplay was pretty unsatisfying, but the overall experience was great.

For me, LIMBO is far superior because you have to engage the brain. I don't agree about the trial and error, as demonstrated by people playing for ages without dying.

Perhaps because it looks like a platformer that it's not being enjoyed. You can't run along and jump like in mario or Cave story because you will die. You have to go slow and think.

But clearly lots of people would prefer World of Goo to LIMBO, so why is that? Perhaps people want the easy life.

Games I wished were lots harder but still enjoyed them and would pay even more if they provided more challenge:
Dig Dug DS
Super Prince Peach
Ninja Town DS - omg what a shame - I completed every level in the whole game with the same combination of units first time apart from one (or 2?). Why on earth couldn't they have had less levels but harder, so you had to experiment and iterate solutions to get to a combination of units that worked. Still had fun playing it, but this obsession with shoehorning a plot into everything means pumping out enough content to support the plot.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I like harder games that take some thought but don't take long to finish (like Sin and Punishment 2).

http://www.ntsc-uk.com/feature.php?featuretype=edi&fea=TryHarder

[Charlie]

http://www.ntsc-uk.com/feature.php?f...&fea=TryHarder

Not read that before. Good article.

[rmoxon]

Its true, alot of people these days seem to want an easy life as far as gaming is concerned.

This is completely fair though. I'm sure alot of the people on here grew up gaming but now have families and work and dont have time to put hours upon hours into it so would like a quick fix. I realise that this is pretty much just a politer way of saying that people are getting softer in their old age as far as their attitudfe towards gaming goes, but I still feel its true.

Personally however, these days I generaly find myself sticking games on the hardest difficulty possible stright away and breezing through them simply becuase they are so easy to someone who plays the amount of games that I do. This thread was started becuase of the reaction to Limbo, but thats where I'm confused actualy, Limbo isnt really a hard game, i have just completed it and only got stuck in two places, for a puzzler thats hardly what I'd describe as a frustrating experience really.

[ExtremePabs]

Would I pay ?35 for LIMBO? Not as a download, but on disc I would. Weird eh? I wouldn't play it again. But I'm old school, still finding it difficult to pay for something that doesn't really exist (I don't download music, even lossless - always buy the CD, but immediately rip it to my PC for streaming). I paid full price for Portal (yes there is other stuff on the orange box, but I never played them - just got it for the portal). I've never gone back to Portal, but the time with it was cherished and well worth the money.

This I could of written myself. I completely agree I do not like buy download material at all. I too buy cd's and pc games (then just use the code on steam)

Very well put indeed!