Length and "Value for Money"

[Sigourney Beaver]

I don't tend to like games to be too long if they aren't RPG-ish in nature. And the pacing is all important too. For example, I finished Army of Two on the 360 yesterday. It wasn't very long but certain parts were a bit tedious and made it feel a bit of a chore and longer than it actually was.

Basically, all games should be made well to ensure vaule for money.

[Welrain]

I went out for a meal the other day...it cost £30 and latest just over an hour. RIP OFF.

Length doesn't bother me as long as I enjoy the game.

[buster_broon]

Recently bought Split second velocity and spent around 10 hours on it and that was ?25

also played through GOW collection and spent around 40 hours on that just playing the games through on Spartan and then on GOD plus a speedrun on GOW2 God level and that was only ?17. 9 hours each game with original playthrough on Spartan with just over 8 hours playing on GOD then messing around with speedruns which was just under 4 hours

next is GOW3 and im sure i will play that on Spartan and then GOD, that was a gift so its all good and i guess this will have around 9 hours in it as well

prior to me playing those games i probably put 20+ hours into liberty city stories (PS3) and im still not finished it and that was only ?22

so those games are definately value for money with only split second velocity being shorter than the others, but that game is so frustrating that i dont need to play it or want too any more

[Kubrick]

XBLA games that cost 1200 need to be a decent size or have significant replay value before I'll buy them. Despite liking the demo, I doubt I'll buy LIMBO until it gets reduced.

[Matt]

I've been away a few days, and have found great amusement in the Limbo and this Limbo related thread. Some people seem to love the game so much, and not understand why everyone doesn't. I've not played it yet, hope to in around 6 weeks when I can spend an evening on it (if I enjoy the demo, lol).

Value for money? OK....

Comparing films to games is usually very silly. Going to the cinema (a tenner, seriously? That's IMAX price!), you're going out, getting the full experience. If I buy a game for a tenner that only lasts a few hours, is someone going to come to my house, give me a huge TV and sound system to use for the duration?

And on the whole, games cost significantly less to make than films; ignoring downloadable titles, games cost say £40 on average. Why should that be the case? I can watch a $200m film for a fiver.

Some good points raised here on replayability. Depends greatly on the type of game. Story drive titles, I don't replay at all these days - had the experience, move on, not like I've got the time or too few games. Though I've kept GoW3 and KZ2 with the ambition of replaying one day - not likely though Something like Burnout though, even though I've technically not "completed" it, I can always turn on and spend 30 minutes having a great time. Then there are the multiplayer titles like BC2 I wasted a load of time playing. Great fun, and great value.

Now, specifically onto Limbo - sure, a tenner may be worth it. Imo for the price, a 4 hour game seems fair if it's a great experience. Replayability doesn't come into it for me, for that price. On the other hand, I'll spend the money, play it once, and that's it. I can't resell the game to make half my money back.

A big problem here is MS set 400, 800 and 1200 as Live pricepoints, and we've seen 1200 become the "standard" price. So of course people are going to question the price. They've created a "premium" tiering system, and what people see as "premium" titles will vary greatly.

End of the day, we all perceive value in different ways. Someone earning £100k a year will have a HUGELY different perception of value to me, struggling on a NHS salary with 2 kids and a girlfriend.

Just like to add, I've actually been taken back at some of the backhanded venom being spat at those who dare not fall in love with Limbo. Very surprising to see people on this forum doing that, not just getting precious about the latest flavour of the week, but actually insulting those who don't think It's The Best Thing Ever

[EvilBoris]

You should know just as well as anyone that comparing film budgets to game budgets in a no go area. The business models are significantly different.

Also, £5 for the a cinema ticket?!
Where do you live? Eastern Europe?

My biggest gripe with the Limbo thread was that many of the people commenting on the game hadn't even played the full game.

These people hadn't physically experienced the same things as the people who had played the game beyond the tiny demo area.
Fair enough there were people who had played the full game and didn't like it, but at least they were qualified to do so!

Back on topic, I don't personally think that lengh : Price is a good indication of value for money anyway. You have games that take 100 hours to complete but I wouldn't say they were particularly good experiences from start to finish compared to a very focused game that takes 8.

As I get older and find less time for gaming even a game that I have supposedly clocked 20 hours on can seem too long and for those games that are maybe shorter, there is literally nothing to stop me replaying
Replaying probably isn't even a very good word to use when playing a game as what you do can vary tremendously.

I'm always ditching games knowing I haven't seen 100% of what the game has to offer, there are always more things to do or objectives to meet and boxes to tick.
I'm slightly envious of people that can sit and milk the same game for months on end and just enjoy playing it.

[gunrock]

As an old fart who has too little time and too many distractions, I'll actually buy Limbo because it's appealing and part of it's appeal is it's short length. I'm fed up with 20 hours+ games, as I rarely get to see the end of them and that saddens me.

Not the majority view perhaps, but brilliant games that last 4-10 hours suit me fine!

[Skull Commander]

Also, ?5 for the a cinema ticket?!
Where do you live? Eastern Europe?

As I mentioned in this thread earlier it's ?5.10 at my local Vue as standard. It's normal as far as I'm aware.

[fallenangle]

For me game longevity usually isn't an issue because even the allegedly short games I seem to be able to extract 10 - 12 hours entertainment. That's what I think of as acceptable longevity.

Sometimes that might include a replay at a harder difficulty setting or, where relevant, trying to unlock stuff or acheive a higher score in a particular level or task. But if a game is good I'm loathe to leave it if there's something more to do and which doesn't feel like cheap padding.

I am a slow player by choice and in the action/adventure and similar games I prefer, where it is possible, I'm always spending time 'exploring' or just mucking around as I play rather than shooting straight through.

In general though my ideal game length is one that keeps me entertained for 1 to 2 weeks and if it does that think it value for money, within reason, whatever I've paid for it.

But there are limits - I remember paying full price for Xbox TR: Legend and 100% completed it in 4 days play. I felt ripped off particularly when you compared it to the PS TRs and their ilk which usually averaged 18 - 24 hrs first time through.

I suppose Legend's ?3 to ?4/hr entertainment doesn't sound bad value but IMHO an action/adventure game just has to have real longevity. A game that I'm dawdling though yet can complete first time on Hard in 6 hours is simply too short. It just does not give enough time to get immersed, an element, I think, is essential to the success of this sort of game.

Even with 8 hours overall decent quality entertainment, it is well below what I would consider acceptable value for money from any full price price game. As sure as beans is beans I wouldn't pay the current RRP ?40+ for any game that I knew was that short however good.

[Matt]

You should know just as well as anyone that comparing film budgets to game budgets in a no go area. The business models are significantly different.

I was not drawing the comparison. It had already been made, I was pointing out it's not a fair one. Did you not read my post?

However, for gaming to truly be mainstream, I believe game prices need to be hitting the £10 mark - like a trip to the cinema. If the film industry can keep putting hundreds of millions into films, charge relatively little and make money out of it (except MGM, lol), no reason games can't. You don't see cinema prices jump up every 5 years because "Costs are increasing". Well, not including the recent 3D fad

In fact, I believe Rein recently said something similar about getting prices down. Something like "I'd prefer to sell 10 million copies at $10 than 1 million copies at $50." Such a simple concept.

Games are uniquely different because of the huge buy-in price to get the kit before you even start on the games.

Also, £5 for the a cinema ticket?!
Where do you live? Eastern Europe?

No need to be obnoxious.

I actually pay £14 or so a month and have unlimited access. Round here, day time is around a fiver, £6 maybe? Evenings maybe a few pounds more.

My biggest gripe with the Limbo thread was that many of the people commenting on the game hadn't even played the full game.

Now you see, I do think that's silly. A demo should always be enough to convince people to buy the game, or convince them it's not for them. You shouldn't have to pay to know if you'll enjoy it or not. And you should not expect people to buy a title just to see if they'll enjoy it.

It's like those posts you read, "so and so game has only been scoring low marks, but I'll make my own mind up thank you very much!" To me, that's stupid. If a game is scoring low, I'd not spend money to "see if the reviewers are right" but maybe that's just me.

OK, so people should buy a game to see if they like it? Regardless of them not enjoying the demo? That's stupid. Don't like the demo, it's unlikely the ful game would change your mind. Why take the chance? Before financially and from a time perspective, it's stupid to buy a game if you didn't like the demo.

I think you have to accept people may not like something you do; and people's values are likely to be different to yours.

Could see this coming a mile off - Limbo being a critical darling and certain people getting all precious about it

[ezee ryder]

Well said Matt.

Just because I played the demo it means I am not allowed to express my views on the game?! That makes no sense.

Funny thing is though, no-one actually said the game was awful or anything. Some people just said they don't see what the fuss is about or it's just ok.

[Matt]

Well said Matt.

Just because I played the demo it means I am not allowed to express my views on the game?! That makes no sense.

Funny thing is though, no-one actually said the game was awful or anything. Some people just said they don't see what the fuss is about or it's just ok.

Yeah I know. It's highly amusing. Very protective of it

I'd like a decent discussion about perceived value, but maybe that will need to happen once there's a new "GOTY" next week

You know, most of my friends rarely touch XBL/PSN titles. Many say "I'd rather put the money into a full price title!" I find that baffling, but you know, I accept their position

[JP]

I have to admit that I'm not really understanding this thread.

You can't simply break down qualitative worth into quantitive data such as numbers. They both have their place in making the decision to buy Limbo but you can't just compare one to the other.

I played the demo, I've read quite a bit the game and from that I decided that it was worth it for me to spend that much money on it. I've not had the chance to play the full game yet, once I have done that I'll more information to add to whether I feel Limbo was worth the cost or not and that could of course change my mind.

It's not the sort of thing I'd normally write down but these are what I would have considered before handing over the points.

Quantitative

• 1200 Microsoft points
• Michael Mann is **** director*
• Approximately 3/4/5 hours from start to finish
• It's monochrome

Qualitative

• Pretty game
• Even better audio
• Hidden death was frustrating and poor design
• Nothing particularly new
• I had fun
• Is 3/4/5 hours too short?

I know people will vary in how long it takes to complete the game but the quantitive reasoning are facts and are not really worth discussing.

I'm sure some people will disagree with the qualitative reasons I've listed above, after all they are MY qualitative reasons. I imagine people would have very different qualitative reasons if they were as stupid as me and decided to list them here but it would be their list and just as correct as mine.

I have absolutely no need for people to agree or disagree with my opinions, I don't feel I need for my opinions to be the opinions of the majority for them to hold any value.

For lack of a better way of putting it...I don't really care what anybody else thinks about the game.








*This one doesn't really have anything to do with Limbo but hey, it really needs to be said!

[Adam Stone]

Personally, value for money comes down to the experience and the impression that is left with me. For example, i may pay £10 on a game and complete it beginning to end, spend fifty hours plus doing so, and yet never really caring... Value for money? No...

On the other hand i can spend £10 on a title that only takes me three hours to complete, yet i find myself inspired by the title, totally engrossed with the experience, left in awe. Value for money? Absolutely.

Value for money is very unique to each and to all of us

[EvilBoris]

Well said Matt.

Just because I played the demo it means I am not allowed to express my views on the game?! That makes no sense.

Actually Demo's are meant to have a seperate thread....

but whatever, have it your way, You'll find me in the 'Christoper Nolan's Inception' thread commenting on the quality of the plot and action film despite having only seen the trailer