Length and "Value for Money"

[Brats]

I explained why I think something like an action/adventure or RPG needs a (genuine) longevity simply to allow the player time to immerse themselves in the created gaming world.

You did, but that doesn't explain why games are viewed differently.

I also think people do take into account film and book length, particularly when they're considering buying them. DVDs/Blu Rays are usually packed with extra content, increasing their longevity, for the very reason that this is seen to improve their percieved VFM.

But very few people buy films for the extra content - I've never heard anyone say 'For £15.00 I wasn't going to buy that Blu-Ray, but because it has deleted scenes I will' .

Books, not that I've bought one for years, are, or at least used to be priced within certain categories usually determined by a combination of their length and printing/production costs. A 600+ page John Grisham novel would therefore cost more than a 175 page classic of English literature. I assume this is still the case.

Classic English Lit has no copywright, so like classical music, it is very cheap. I have a few Martin Amis paperbacks on my shelf at varying lengths. The RRP on all of them is £5.99.

IMHO it should be the same for games - a cheaply made or short game, however good, should cost less than an epic and/or high production value, expensive game that has been years in development.

What about a short game that took ages or a massive game that took no time at all? I don't believe input plays any factor in value when in comes to art and entertainment.

I take length into account with films. Sometimes I'll rather watch for example an 80-minute action flick or a comedy than a 200-minute historical epic, especially if I'm renting a film with friends.

Sure, but that's not the same thing. There's a difference between wanting to watch a short or long film and what you are prepared to pay for them. Given that Pixar films are amongst the best selling of all time, it suggests that length just isn't a factor when it comes to the value of films.

Same thing with games, if I can get 100 hours of entertainment from a 40£ game, how could it not be better than getting 8 hours?

Simple, if the 8 hour game is 8 hours of sheer excitement but the 100 hour game is tedious.

It makes absolutely no sense to compare incomparable mediums, it's something that's done far too often on gaming sites for some reason.

But it makes perfect sense to cross compare them, which is what we are doing. They are all entertainment mediums vying for our cash, thus when we are talking about the economics of the mediums, it's perfectly valid. They don't exist in their own bubble.

Opinions are not obliged to follow set guidelines however much the original post seems to want us all to base our feelings about the game on them. I do like that people are passionate about things but let's also be passionate about people's right to make their own decisions without being told they've not understood what they should be basing those decisions on.

I don't think it is quite true - this thread is more about trying to understand why some people think a certain way and a frustration that it appears to make no sense, not necessarily trying to convince them that there is only one right way.

I accept that everyone has the right to choose and have opinions as they please, but there is a big lie in 'the wisdom of crowds'. It has been proved on several occasions that large groups of people do behave irrationally when it comes to buying decisions. the best example being that people will go to another shop to save £1 on a bag of apples, but wouldn't make the same journey to save £5 on a luxury item, everything else being equal. That's illogical, but it's true.

Before someone goes all 'We're not allowed to be ourselves on this forum', I'm not saying those who state the importance of length are illogical, but it is fair to question it. I don't think anyone has quite explained why length is such a big factor for some people with games - the only explanations being to say that they do look at books and films in the same way (but I'm not convinced by that at all).

No-ones mentioned the varying prices of full price games yet - they can differ in price quite a bit (by around £8 to £10) yet very few people post in full price game threads they would have bought Game X at £4 less. There are plenty of people who'll say they will wait until a game is £20 or less, but that's not the same thing.

Yet there are plenty of people who will say 'I won't by game Y at 1,200 points bit I will at 800', yet the price difference here is actually less than the price difference between full price games, so what's going on? I think it is due to the percentage difference in price being much higher, yet percentages are actually worthless when it comes to personal economics (no-one says, if I buy this game, I'll have 59% of my salary left). It's the amount that's important.

So I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the next 'tier' of pricing with XBLA games is 33% lower than 1,200 points and the difference 'seems' huge, whereas with a £36 game compared to £32 game the percentage difference is much smaller. Which is why with full price games it goes unspoken whereas the price of XBLA games becomes such a big issue and then people start dissecting the value, length of the game, etc...

I have no idea if that makes any sense.

[Guts]

Sure, but that's not the same thing. There's a difference between wanting to watch a short or long film and what you are prepared to pay for them. Given that Pixar films are amongst the best selling of all time, it suggests that length just isn't a factor when it comes to the value of films.

The difference in duration of films is so small compared to video games that I don't think they can be compared at all. A commercial film is (almost) always going to be between 80-200 minutes, most are between 90-120 maybe. When you go to the cinema/pop in a DVD you know that it's going to take a couple of hours of your time. In games the duration can range from anything between few hours to many days or even years.

But like I said earlier in the thread, people want different things. Some people want more substance from their games than others and that's fine, I'm not saying either way is "right".

Simple, if the 8 hour game is 8 hours of sheer excitement but the 100 hour game is tedious.

I should have elaborated a bit more. If the first game offers me 100 hours of entertainment and enjoyment and the second one offers me 8 hours, surely I'll get more for my money from the first one, no?

[Strider]

I thought NTSC had stopped defending its reviews years ago? I can't see any other reason for this thread to exist. You've giving it a great score and that's enough to make me interested in it as I want to see what all the fuss is about. As far as length goes I couldn't care if a game take 10 minutes or 10 years to complete, I just want to enjoy it and from the sound of your review, I will be doing just that.

And as for not being able to have an opinion if you've not played the game? What a crock of crap. I've never personally met David Cameron, but I certainly have an opinion about him

[JP]

But it makes perfect sense to cross compare them, which is what we are doing. They are all entertainment mediums vying for our cash, thus when we are talking about the economics of the mediums, it's perfectly valid. They don't exist in their own bubble.

There are innumerable entertainment mediums vying for our cash, some of the many entertainment mediums that vie for and win my cash are films, good whiskey, music, books, games, rugby, hiking, writing, wrc, etc, etc.

Each of those experiences will of course have certain things in common by the very nature of them being entertainment mediums that are vying for my cash. Although they, and every other form of entertainment will have some things in common the experience of each and every one is wholly different to the experience I have with the others.

Each of these have different factors that needs to be assessed before I decide if and when I can take part in them and if I think the experience is worth the expenditure and time involved. Many of these factors will be things that I'm not even aware I'm assessing.

I've not once felt the need for one experience to be assessed using the same criteria as the others. If people do want to compare varying experiences using a set assessment, although it's very different to how I do these things I'm very glad that those people do have the option to do that even if I don't understand the theory behind it.

However, when people who don't do that are asked questions along the lines of...

"WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?"

...that is something that I find even more difficult to understand.

[Brats]

I believe that comment was very tongue in cheek.

[cutmymilk]

I wish every game was 5 hours with no flabbage.

[marcus]

In many cases I agree. Bayonetta without those godawful long racing/shooting sections and its endless cut-scenes would of been pretty much perfect. The need to satisfy at any cost whats deemed to be a satisfactory game length just to hide whats a short core game-length is something that frequently disappoints me.

[Kaido]

what is wrong with me is that i am typically ?10 out of pocket after playing through an AAA title for avg 10 quality hours and selling it on but i am ?10 out of pocket for Limbo after 4 quality (no worse, no better than typical AAA titles) hours.

Blame the resale market if you want, but since my taste in games includes an extra 10 hours of filler it typically costs me ?14 a week to play AAA titles, but would cost me ?70 a week to play games priced like Limbo for my 28 hours or ?35 a week to play games like limbo 14 hours a week and read the dictionary half the week for my filler cravings.

?14 i can afford
?35 i cannot, plus gaming filler feels more satisfying to me personally than the dictionary

Certainly there is a market for 'expensive' / short pure high quality games though - If i only played games for 4 hours a week then I'd be in it.