That is content that should have been in the original package, I shouldn't be expected to pay $75 for what used to pass as a standard-length campaign. Sell me GRAW2 for $40, and I'll consider purchasing your next campaign at $15. But you can't double-dip IMO.

OrionTheSmiter

Ah... good catch! I forgot about the money vs. time issue. Ultimately, it's a personal decision -- kind of like how much you think should earn at your job sorta thing.

@macdeth:

I don't think it's so much a right or wrong.... People just don't want to feel ripped off just to enjoy their hobby (i.e. Europeans and PS3).

It's up to us as a gaming community to use informed buying tactics to show what we think is acceptable to publishers & developers.

Ainai

Same here. Funny how people talk about lack of time like everyone else is in the same boat with him.

DigitalHero

laeasperanzapaz

RiceBandit

I just think there needs to be a split. I definitely don't want to lose those epic Zeldas, and I'm often frustrated when a game I spent $60 on turns out to be 10 hours with no fun multiplayer ($6/hour to play that!). Your meat either has to come from long single player, or heavy replayability through multiplayer.

If you have NEITHER of these and you just want a short, fun game, you have to CHARGE an appropriate amount. You cannot charge $60 for such a game. This is the thing that most publishers probably won't get for some time.

Infil

harkonnen

Resident Evil 4 was just on the borderline for me - good that it ended when it did (~20 hours iirc). Mind, it's the only game in recent years that I actually played through twice.

So, yeah, I want games to be 15-20 hours of good. If the developer runs out of good, better to make it 10 hours of good than 10 of good and 5-10 of suck. But best case 15 hours of good. :)

And I don't think you can ignore the cost basis on this; $60 starts sounding like a lot of money if something only lasts a few hours. Episodic games are fine by me if the prices drop proportionately; if your three $20 games add up to that 20 hours of game play, rather than needing three $30 games, or each of those $20 games being only three hours... I think people are going to be really suspicious of this even when developers play fair.

quen

gamesronlygames

And can you explain why you pulled the Fable story as well.

Sad.

disc

RedRedSuit

Don't feel bad about losing in Bowling - my dad beat me 2 weeks ago in a game, and it was the first video game hes played in nearly 3 years. (Used to play House of the Dead II/III with me on Xbox, he loved the Gun controller, and he likes the Wiimote as well.)

SanjiX

I think as the gaming audience gets older, game length will be more of an issue for those gamers who seem able to drop 40+ hours into a game in a weeks time without issue. The last time I put that much effort into a game was the past xmas with the cube version of Zelda: TP. This was only made possible by the fact that I was at my parent's house for a week and my girlfriend wasn't with me.

Then again, I do fear that if too many games go for the 10 hour game length, that will create truncated experiences where you never feel satisfied having completed the game. I also think episodic content, while sounding nice, is no longer going to work. For a game like Sam and Max, certainly. For games like Half-Life, it is clear the development cycle is simply taking too long. If episodic content were released once every 3 months or so, that might be a better fit.

It is interesting to here about guys like Jaffe hanging out and talking with people at the Wii camp. I guess its just nice to see that most of the game makers aren't fan boys themselves.

Hengst2404

On the weekends, however, I can spend as much time on it as I want. While I enjoy episodic gaming, I also do enjoy the longer more epic titles. Maybe I am just not as proficient of a gamer as some people, but I found Gears of War's length and difficulty to be perfect. I couldn't imagine it twice as long as it was already. That said, I also spent a hundred hours + in Final Fantasy 12 (still haven't beaten it, don't want it to end).

As we all get older and need to spend time on other things, our interests change and wane. This goes for video games as well.

Frodo

Back during the "golden age" or the Super Nes and Mega Drive we were seeing largely games that you would play from start to finish and rarely would they take more than, say, 10-15 hours to complete. While RPGs of the time would be the exception, the majority of games at that time were very much pick up and play. It should also be noted though that during this time Coin-ops were also going through a boom, games that by definition cannot produce more than a few minutes (or at most a couple of hours) gameplay at a time.

But the Playstation changed all that. Coin-ops are a thing of the past and pick up and play gaming has changed. It is rather ironic though how the PSX brought in the casual crowd, yet games from that period onwards are more involving and time consuming. Does the 3D realm demand more content and more time spent as a pay off for the amount of time it took to create the game?

I think what has happened is that the golden agers were coming into a time with the nes, master system, then snes, mega drive with young minds that need constant stimulous to be entertained, where parents would only let their children play for short amounts of time, a time when coin-ops were the trend. These gamers grow into their teens and they start to see their free time become their own, not regulated by parents, and so they choose to spend more time in their games that they crave. Their minds are also in a stage where they want to immerse themselves in their stories and experiences. Bright colours and basic gameplay don't satisfy anymore.

Fast forward 10 years and these same people suddenly have wives/husbands, full time jobs and children to feed. Their time is now regulated by other responsibilities, much like it was during the golden era. They may want the games they have been playing for the last decade, but they cannot commit the time and thus the majority of games go unfinished with all the developer's work gone to waste.

Episodic content adnd pick up and play gaming may indeed by the answer to that whether you like it or not. The Snes ease of jumping in is clearly a trend Nintendo are bringing back, and with games like Half-Life 2 proving episodes can be successful if done right, this may mean that the developers arent wasting their time with 60% of their audience not even seeing 70% of their content.

PlayingKarrde

Karttikeya

.....

I'm an interstitial gamer and it seems like a growing trend amongst gamers starting out from the 80's/early 90's and for those just starting. I've grown from being a game "player" to game "collector" since the vast majority of the games I own go unplayed or unfinished.

I think episodic games will have a place in the industry. There will always be a demand for 60+ hour epics as long as there are gamers with the time and interest to do so. RPGs gave me the most bang for my buck, but now I find myself enjoying shorter action/adventure and music/rhythm titles. For gamers like me, we can get instant gratification in small bursts.

The problems with episodic games seem to be perceived value and timely release...

10 hours or less seems less than ideal for many gamers even if every hour counted. On the other hand, 100+ hour epics that just drag is hardly ideal either. Gamers will complain if their favorite game suffers a delay and takes longer than what's originally announced but cry foul when they think developers are milking their franchise. What's going on here?

I think it's all about the "sweet spot"... 15~20 hours seem like a substantial amount of time that most people can realistically finish. There's enough time to tell a decent story without having it drag. 18~24 month cycles seem about right for devs to deliver a game with some polish without burning out gamers with incessant releases or dropping completely off the radar.

As always... your mileage will vary.

Let's drop our pre-conceptions of the term "episodic"... wouldn't Metal Gear Solid, Prince of Persia, Resident Evil, and God of War series become fine examples of "episodic" games?

Ainai

For me, the more formats... long, short, epic, immersive, casual, episodic, whatever... the more oppurtunities (both business and creative) are created, the more inclusive the world of gaming becomes. And that's good.

deadHonk

Foggynotion

I agree with you and Crecente that shorter games tend to dilute the experience. In pure business terms, it seems to me that episodic content would do more to hurt many developers than it would help. Obviously, for games the caliber of Half-Life, it's almost irrelevant. But for many other games, the length of time between installments would probably give people more time to rethink their investment in the franchise, especially if the first title was somewhat lackluster. So the key then becomes making the first game so good that it will hook players on for the life of the series; and then you're still looking at long and drawn-out developments for shorter games. And at lower price points, the profits are probably not going to balance out the risks. If episodic content is going to work, it probably has to be done the Half-Life way: hook 'em with an amazing full-length game first to establish fan base, and then the rest seems like bonus material.

If a game has a ton of replay value like GoW (at least for me), that's something else entirely. Adding extra content that actually HAS value (I can't put down Resident Evil 4 no matter how many times I play it) is an art unto itself and I think that if episodic content helps foster that, I'm willing to forgive shorter games.

MisterSleep

Foggynotion

sweetie55

i agree with those last sentiments. i'm a full time student, a part time employee, and a 24 hour a day boyfriend, brother, and friend.

the wii lets me play ten minutes of a virtual console game, a match of wii tennis, a race in excite truck.

but at the same time, if i have the time, i play zelda, i play ssx blur for an hour or more.

at the same time, the wii lets me be social with my video games. i can throw a party and have people over and lay the smack down on them in wii sports. lately, my better half has showed an interest and she's progressing. before it was wii tennis, now she's playing a little super mario world. soon i'll offer her a nunchuk and see if she can get a handle of blur.

i still enjoy the hardcore experience my 360 offers, but i dont even want to sit down for that long.

coolyfooly88

I can see the benefits of splitting God of War 2 into episodes; pay $20, get the first 2 levels or so. Just make sure that those 2 levels get me at least 4 hours of gameplay with plenty of rewards (hidden sections and unlockables). That would allow consumers to enjoy a visceral experience while maximizing their expenditure, while allowing developers to be more nimble in a franchise's development cycle.

For me, the Wii is the perfect console right now with the perfect software. If I want a physical experience, I pop in Wii Sports and flail away. If I want more of a sensory overload, SSX Blur fits the bill (I can't even begin to describe how much fun SSX Blur is). And if I have plenty of spare time, Zelda is the obvious choice. The quick startup time and jump-in/jump-out of the Wii's interface is perfect for me, someone who works 9 hours a day then goes to class at night.

funkonaut

contrast that to the metal gear solid series which is perennially faulted for being on the short side...this in spite of having roughly the same amount of hours of play as gears. i see the reason having to do with snake's evolution throughout each metal gear title, the different weaponry and capabilities he gets. his upgrades are more drastic than marcus's in gears, and therefore the player instinctively wants more time to play around with what his character is now able to do.

there is a definite difference between how "complete" a game is and how long it is, and the two are not really connected in a clear way anymore...if they ever were. some games pull off the massive length while still making the moments count...a la twilight princess. other games are just massive almost for the sake of being so, like oblivion. while there is no doubt of the quality of oblivion's content, it is doubtful that many players will ever get to see that content, at least not in the numbers of players that will see all of zelda's.

i don't think episodic games will be the answer for publishers, but rather finding an appropriate length for their title to do everything it needs to do. padding a title is always noticed by players, and conversely when a title fails to provide enough breathing room for a player to feel they got their 50-60 dollars worth, that will also be noticed.

thomas c

Part of it might be that playing a new game involves learning a new world, a new set of rules and standards, a new control scheme, etc. I'm not worried about starting GTA4 when it launches, but I'm wary of Gears of War.

A certain degree of standardization might alleviate that, but it seems unlikely that developers will have any desire to co-operate on that level.

The world needs more (good) interface designers. They solve a lot of problems.

The old Campion

I get a few hours a week, i do enjoy the 360's mix of retail titles with xbla, and we just got a wii so it's nice to have pretty simple sports games to whack about or whatever.

edhe (xbl)

It just feels so unfulfilling, playing through a game that's only 5 hours longs, you know? It dumbs down the whole experience.

Infradead

Anarchist_Gamer

23, out of college, good job, disposable income.

The definition of the word "epic" is changing. it used to be 50 hours, anymore it's closer to ten. Ten is closer to what the outside world would see as epic. 700 page book takes about that long to read, the best movie trilogies are about that length. Games are kind of following suit.

I want a tight, action packed single player campaign, and then i want to get my replayability out of a cleverly designed multiplayer.

I don't feel that episodic is really going to be the future of our medium. You have to get the whole thing done first then set it to a set schedule. But if you have it all done why not just sell it upfront?

Sam and Max is the only example where i feel they are being successful with it. I think it'll be a while before someone does it right for a AAA level title.

Stujiro

I agree completely - a big problem is lack of time. Although I would love to play games, I just don't seem to find the time for them. I'm missing out on loads of great games, but I have no choice. Get this - I bought GTA: Vice City 3 yrs ago, and have yet to take it out of its case and stick it in my PS2 :(

zany_ninja

Because to be honest, between my social life, love life, career and education life, there is very little room or time for games. I would rather travel around with my girl or take our Jeep out on the dunes than play video games that I need to spend more than twenty minutes on. Life > gaming in front of a tv for hours. The Wii's kind of games are a step in the right direction, I feel.

Custom Reality