Should retail console games be shorter and cheaper?

Dcswirlonly_bigger
Sunday, March 13, 2011
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Omar Yusuf

Piracy, used game sales, and rentals never fail to provide the gaming industry with a source of controversy. But Daniel, in one fell swoop, intends to remedy these problems. Read carefully!

The box art of half-Life 2 Episode Two

One of the biggest issues that seems to plague this generation is the conflicting economics of game length, price, and overall value. It’s an issue involving modern development structures, which might benefit from a bit of a change.

Before typing out this article, I tried to find opinion pieces that suggested developers should start making titles as short as three hours. I immediately caught the words of Entertainment Weekly’s N’Gai Croal who implied that six hours has become the new durational sweet spot. Also, according to an April 2010 GamePro article by John Davison, less than five percent of people who play a game actually finish it. Apparently, around nine out of ten people lose interest in the first few four hours.

On top of this, we’ve got developers continually complaining about piracy and the used games business. And you have to admit the latter seems a bigger problem than in other media. In my experience, the strongest argument in favor of piracy, used sales, and rentals is that most games simply aren't worth $60.

 

Basically, I think the retail space for consoles -- specifically the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 -- needs more variable pricing. The only respite we have now is $15 downloadable games, but in my opinion, those games, as good as many of them are, still aren’t satisfying in the same way as retail products. 

Portal

Titles like Limbo and Super Meat Boy are great, but frankly, they feel more like relics from the Super NES. I'd rather have cheaper and more digestible current-generation efforts. The gulf between $15 and $60 is too wide; something needs to exist in-between.

I've only see working examples of this on the PC. In 2007, Valve delivered the most high-profile and recent example of appropriate value and length.

On the 360 and PS3, The Orange Box released as one inseparable package. The PC version, however, was available as a complete product and in parts: Brick-and-mortar stores sold the computer versions of Portal and Team Fortress 2 independently. Speaking of which, Portal is a great example of a game made to full HD standards that was nonetheless quite short. On the PC, one could buy Portal on its own for $30 (now $20). The same is true of the Half-Life 2 episodes -- short and sweet pieces of gaming that didn’t feel overpriced or incomplete.

Amnesia: The Dark Descent

2010 provided horror fans with Amnesia: The Dark Descent, a succinct and cheap round of fun. I honestly don’t know how long the game is, but if its predecessor Penumbra is anything to go by, then it must only last a few hours. Amnesia sports a modern graphics engine, yet is just $20. It only sold 36,000 copies in its first month, but apparently that was enough to make a profit.

The other side of the coin is multiplayer-only games: Team Fortress 2 has always been available individually on the PC for $30 in 2007 and $20 today. I’m confident a lot of people would buy a multiplayer-only Call of Duty or Halo game for $30.

The issue, however, is that virtually no similar pricing scheme exists on consoles. Why not?

The reason Valve was able to provide the Orange Box at such an affordable price is because of how much they’ve chosen to stand by their Source Engine tech. Perhaps further proliferation of middleware -- and hopefully more creativity with it -- might let other developers accomplish what they have. 

Amnesia, an indie game with graphics almost matching those of a lot of console games, was actually developed by five people. The fact that I still can’t buy a cheap multiplayer-only game at GameStop just shows how stuck the production system is in its current ways.

Team Fortress 2

Downloadable content packs are really the closest analog to the PC-marketing scheme I've described. The Grand Theft Auto 4 episodes provide one example, although the more recent DLC for BioShock 2 (Minerva’s Den) and Dead Space 2 (Severed) are equally indicative of the tight, succinct stories offered to PC gamers. Imagine if someone made a wholly original short game using the same engine! Better yet, what if someone created Half-Life-style episodic sequels using the same production process as Minerva’s Den and Severed? It would be great.

When the next console generation comes around, the industry is going to have to do something in order to keep development costs from skyrocketing again. A great $60 product is fine, but most titles don’t reach that level of value. Every game shouldn’t try to grab a piece of the same pie.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (5)
Default_picture
March 07, 2011

Great article. I agree about the pricing being too far apart. It seems harder and harder to come across a good deal these days. I for one am not looking forward to the next generation of consoles. The budgets will absolutely kill developers and I don't want to fork out more money for a new system. I'm already obligated to buy a 3DS simply to play through Zelda: Ocarina of Time again and an NGP for the tech and control features. Sheesh. Will it ever end?

Lolface
March 07, 2011

I think cheaper games is something we can all get behind. Ratchet and Clack: Quest for Booty would also fit the bill as a shorter cheaper game. Unfortunately, I don't think we will see too many more of these, which, ironically, is partially Valve's fault. The Half-Life 2 Episodes, became a failure in terms of episodic gaming, and Sin: Episodes, which was built on the Source engine (and released around the same time as HL2: Episode 1) only saw 1 release.  

There also exists the misconception that there is something wrong with any retail game that isn't $60. It's not really true (remember NFL 2K5?), but I think most publishers would prefer the $60 pricing structure. After all, Activision could release a multiplayer only Call of Duty game at full price, and it would probably still sell millions.

N504124366_1001553_4199
March 13, 2011

I think Admiral Akbar said it best. It's a trap!.

By keeping retail content limited and low, publishers can hide behind the excuse "It's cheaper for consumers." The facts often indicate the contrary.

Take Dragon Age for example - last year many users were upset that the DLC for the game was releaseed so... promptly at time of retail release. The content for the game was already on the disk so no extra development was needed but the price of the DLC for the game came in $5 to $15 dollar increments. By the time it was said and done, to get the full, unabridged story of Dragon Age Origins, players needed to fork over around $90. Of course other add-ons that came later did require development and both together account for less than 1/10 the depth and story of Origins, at half the cost of the full game.

Cheaper? not at all. Shorter - we already got that.

Default_picture
March 13, 2011

I would be much more likely to purchase a game if it is released for a cheaper price. I'm not much of a multiplayer gamer, but a lot of single player games are too short for me to want to spend $60 on them.

I usually wait for sales to come up and buy the game at a cheaper price anyways.

Default_picture
March 14, 2011

It's not that the games are priced to high in of themselves (some titles for the SNES were borderline $100 at launch for example), but that the current trend of games just aren't worth the money that's being demanded of them. Sure the CoD games are making big bucks for the multiplayer, but for those of us who don't want to play multiplayer for whatever reason tend to burn through the single player in a few short hours and left with a copy sitting around collecting dust.

And it's not our fault either. We burn through them because they're designed that way. There's no "take a breather and relax" point to a lot of these games, so the reason we burn through them is because they have to be done that way. Then when we voice our discontent the only response is "well if you bought it for single player, you're doing it wrong."

I can understand if a game is meant exclusively for multiplayer like TF2 and I'm not saying that every game needs to be 50+ hour epic storyline fests, but I don't like to be forced into multiplayer just to get my worth out of paying $60 for a game with a 4 hour storyline that makes no sense.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.