Should games that last less than 7hrs to finish be cheaper?

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Recently I completed the story mode of Kirby: Rainbow Paintbrush and it only took me 6h40m to finish it and given the disinterest to play the challenges I'm pretty much done with the game. Thankfully I paid about 10€ for it so didn't get the feeling of being ripped off for such small amount of content.

Don't get me wrong, the game does have replayability but in my opinion it's not all that much fun so it tends to limit what it has to offer (being touchscreen-only doesn't help either). I reckon that The Order 1886 might be similar to this issue too.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

It really depends on the game and the person playing, so it'd be impossible to just say "yes".

You'd be hard pressed to find games that only have 7 hours or less playtime altogether that are also "expensive" (full game price like $60 or $40 or whatever). It occasionally happens, like with The Order 1886 (though I wouldn't even count it IMO, the price dropped like a rock probably a week or two after release), but it's not really so common that it's some big issue.

 

[Clydefrosch]

its not the games fault you dont want to spend another 7 hours completing the challenges.
and a game also isn't meant to be played just one single time. even if it literally has no replay value. which is a very subjective matter

we live in a time and place where you have every opportunity to inform yourself about games you might buy, with everything having a video review available. if you dont feel a game is worth the price, you can opt not to buy it at release.

 

[Pleng]

its not the games fault you dont want to spend another 7 hours completing the challenges.

Then who's fault is it???

and a game also isn't meant to be played just one single time. even if it literally has no replay value. which is a very subjective matter

How can something be both literal and subjective? And how can something which literally has no replay value, be meant to be played more than once???

 

[Tigran]

It depends. A good short game.. is a good game and deserves the money.

A game with a story.. like a -LOT- of RPGs.. need to be shorter. They just go rambling on just to pad out the hours for a big number (in most cases).

However there are also games that can last forever like Pokemon and Digimon and Mario. They are technicly short.. but a good game is one you can go back and play through again and again.

Replayabilty is something that has.. In my opinion seriously hurt the game industry. Now instead of making the game fun enough to go back through and play again, or just pick up for a few moments to play *Mario, Sonic, Crash, Spyro just to name a few* they have stupid objectives... again just to pad out numbers, not actually be fun.

So no.. I don't think shorter games should always cost less. In fact I'm sure a lot more effort goes into making some of the shorter games than they do the longer ones.

 

[Veho]

If we were to pay games according to the amount of time we spent playing them, I would owe the creators of Tetris one gazillion dollars.

And how can something which literally has no replay value, be meant to be played more than once???

Have you ever watched a movie more than once?

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

its not the games fault you dont want to spend another 7 hours completing the challenges.
and a game also isn't meant to be played just one single time. even if it literally has no replay value. which is a very subjective matter.

The challenges just aren't fun and they're entirely optional. In my opinion of course, but you don't need to get angry about it.

we live in a time and place where you have every opportunity to inform yourself about games you might buy, with everything having a video review available. if you dont feel a game is worth the price, you can opt not to buy it at release.

One thing is actually playing while the other is seeing, not the same thing. It just gives a vague idea of what to expect.

And how can something which literally has no replay value, be meant to be played more than once???

Getting the hidden items on the story mode stages but that's about it for me.

If we were to pay games according to the amount of time we spent playing them, I would owe the creators of Tetris one gazillion dollars.

Tetris is different. Tetris relies on high scores, connecting the bricks together and it's a timeless game for all its lifetime.

Have you ever watched a movie more than once?

I've lost the count of how many times I've seen Dumb and Dumber, Arrested Development Seasons 1-3, My Name is Earl Seasons 1-2, The Office (US) and other shows/movies but then there are shows/movies which I just can't stand to watch. The Wedding Ringer and Dumb and Dumber To are painful to watch to the end. Ride Along 2 is watchable, though.[/QUOTE]

EDIT: [/quote] code added.

 

[Hells Malice]

Nintendo games should often be cheaper, yes. The whole reason I started pirating them is because there was no way I was going to pay full price for a game that has barely any content. Super Mario 3D land burned me pretty good in that regard. Same with games like the 3DS Mario Tennis game. Since none of their titles ever really go down in price, it's either shell out full price or pirate. Good options Nintendo.

But otherwise I don't think it should be a thing that has to happen. Most games that are shorter DO cost less or the price drops pretty quickly.

 

[Patxinco]

Do NOT get One Piece: Unlimited World Red

Seriously main story can give you like 4 hours, then you can play with mini-missions/Colisseum, but well, is just that...

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Do NOT get One Piece: Unlimited World Red

Seriously main story can give you like 4 hours, then you can play with mini-missions/Colisseum, but well, is just that...

I actually got that for Wii U mainly because it was a collectible game I wanted but you know what, I've had fun playing it although the gameplay controls do seem rather very limited and scripted. Just have to wait for One Piece: Burning Blood (it'll be similar to how Tenkaichi 3, Raging Blast 2 and J-Stars Victory Vs+ were as it's also developed by Spike Chunsoft) on PS4.

 

[Taleweaver]

I'm baffled at the amount of people voting yes. There's a plethora of reasons to stop playing a game, and the majority isn't even caused by the game itself (the amount of free time you have, the amount of similar games you've played, how well you do in a game, the reason you play a game, and so on, and so on). Games that are the holy grail to one person are "meh" to another.
...and you're making a poll that basically says "Should you have to pay less if you don't enjoy the game enough to your own standards?". I would argue that this is something like "should you be paying less if you don't enjoy the meal you've ordered in a restaurant?", but it's even worse than that.

As many gamers would attest: the amount of effort you have to do to get a game usually correlates directly with the amount of fun you have with it. In other words: you'll never put the same amount of time in the dozens of giveaways, humble bundles and the like as you put into games you've spent hard-earned cash on. In other words: reduce the costing price and people will change their attitude toward it (roughly said: cut the price of a game in half, and the audience will just buy two games and split their available time in gaming between those two games).

And even if this was to go through...how would you think developers would react? Rather than look for the optimal game experience, they'll add in levels (or make them larger) that are basically filler. Or they make cutscenes unskippable. Or find other things to distract you just in order to keep you occupied rather than entertained. This is already an issue with some games (due to, indeed, people measuring their time to completion rather than going with the impossible-to-measure amount of fun to be had in it). Putting a monetary value on it would just bring it to the next level*. And that level already exists, by the way: they're called DLC and 'free to play'.



*though I see you fail to notice the very flaws Veho points out: that would mean that games with a LARGER game time (and movies you watch more than once, for that matter), should actually have a higher cost. But you think that games should be cheaper, even though they are often retardedly cheap as they are.

 

[quackstar84]

Yep.

 

[Daggot]

I think that auto discounting a game because its short would be wrong simply because the question doesn't mention replay value. I can beat metal slug 3 in a short amount of time and the same goes for other games like the new dariusburst chronicles saviours(which released for $60) but how much time will I spend just trying to 1CC them or explore every route?

 

[YayIguess]

If I can 100% a game without any multiplayer in 7 hours without pulling off glitches, speed running or otherwise shortening my playtime, in this day and age, I'm not paying $75 for it, no matter how good it it.

 

[Attacker3]

Journey, a short but ABSOLUTELY beautiful game, deserves the money that they charged for it, but it also came with other games, so...

 

[portugeek]

A game should be priced whatever price the Publisher/Developer thinks it should be priced. They were the one's that invested X amount of dollars into their product, so it should be up to them to charge whatever amount they think they'll need to charge, in order for them to see a return on their investment. And if they overcharge for their game, and it happens to NOT be any good, then people won't buy it. Effectively forcing them to lower the price until the consumer see's the value in it. The market does eventually balance itself out.

It's nice to believe that videogame designers make all these experiences for our benefit, but at the end of the day it's always going to be about their bottom line. And honestly, it HAS to be, otherwise why do it? You wouldn't show up to work everyday if you knew it was going to cost you more money than you were going to make.

You can't place a price on an individual's time of completion. Simply because replayability is different for everyone. Some people play a 7 hour game once, and never touch it again. While others will play a 7 hour game multiple times for months on end.

If a gamer feels like the game wasn't worth the price they paid for it, then it sounds to me like they need to learn how to make more informed purchasing decisions.

Gamers need to...
- ...stop buying into the hype generated by gaming media outlets. (The people reporting on gaming sites are gamers like you or I. Just because they're in the spotlight doesn't automatically make them more qualified. No one knows more about your likes or dislikes than YOU.)
- ...not allow their peer's to influence their purchasing decision's. (Just because your friend is a codependant gamer, who needs someone there to hold their hand while they game, doesn't mean you should waste your money on something you don't really want.)
- ...develop a better understanding of themselves as a gamer. (If you don't already know, sit down an actually think to yourself, "What are my favorite games? What is it that I like about them, and why?" And don't just figure out what your likes are, try to pin point exactly what it is that you dislike about games. You'll eventually be able to make educated decisions simply by watching in-game footage, or gameplay videos.)

Another good practice is to NEVER watch game trailers. I know, I know, but hear me out. A game trailer's only purpose is to make you believe that you NEED that game in your life. To build up that hype train. And if the trailer is successful in it's job, then it'll have you successfully convincing yourself (in the months leading up to the game's release) that you "Sooo need this game!!" -- So that by the time the game is actually released, you will already have made the decision to buy it without even knowing if it's truly any good or not.

 

[Touko White]

I'm going to go for 'Maybe'.

While there are short games, some of these may be excellent, and some may not - it all depends on the replay value.
Personally I think games should be priced through what people (that doesn't mean the paid scum at IGN) think of the game, then they can discuss whether to rise the price of a game or not. At least, if I was running a store, I'd definitely charge more for a game people think is good, then people will be able to see a better view by seeing better games as more and worth it, perhaps. Maybe people don't see the logic I'm adding there, though.