Developer claims Used games are killing off single player games

I dont think its farfectched at all.

Thats one of the many reasons that many companies want to go with full Digital Distribution. It will eventually happen. DD is far too convenient to not let it become the norm.

XaosII

I dont think its farfectched at all.

Thats one of the many reasons that many companies want to go with full Digital Distribution. It will eventually happen. DD is far too convenient to not let it become the norm.

XaosII

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

I dont think its farfectched at all.

Thats one of the many reasons that many companies want to go with full Digital Distribution. It will eventually happen. DD is far too convenient to not let it become the norm.

Kuruption84

Most game companies don't like rental businesses either, it essentially has the same effect as used games on them.

[QUOTE="Kuruption84"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

I dont think its farfectched at all.

Thats one of the many reasons that many companies want to go with full Digital Distribution. It will eventually happen. DD is far too convenient to not let it become the norm.

Zenkuso

Most game companies don't like rental businesses either, it essentially has the same effect as used games on them.

[QUOTE="Zenkuso"][QUOTE="Kuruption84"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

I dont think its farfectched at all.

Thats one of the many reasons that many companies want to go with full Digital Distribution. It will eventually happen. DD is far too convenient to not let it become the norm.

Archangel3371

Most game companies don't like rental businesses either, it essentially has the same effect as used games on them.

I doubt that... Very much. If more people rent it than the number of copies that they bought, that probably means that the publisher lost potential sales.

I dont think companies care about their rental "partners." If anything they probably hate them and see them as a cyst that they can't get rid of.

As for people being more cautios of what they buy. Maybe. But so what? That also means the prices of games are likely to fall. DD often sells the same games at lower prices.

As for reselling and trading, i dont see why that is mutually exclusive with digital distribution. Steam allows you to transfer your games from one account to another for a fixed amount of money.

Gotta love the new attitude that the media industry as a whole is adopting toward their products and consumers, namely this "just because you paid for it doesn't mean it's your's" mentality.

I'm all for supporting the industry and whatnot, but I really can't help but feel that people are being tools when they, as consumers, claim that buying and selling used games is somehow wrong. It's wrong if you stole the game, but if you bought it legally then it's your's. And when devs and publishers complain about it it just shows how absurdly greedy they are. This is essentially the same thing as the RIAA's statement that they don't think people should be allowed to copy music to their PCs and MP3 players from the CD they just bought but that they should instead have to buy multiple copies of the same albums for each device they want to play their music on.

When you pay $60 for a new game you shouldn't be treated as if you're renting it. You own the game. And with ownership comes the right to resell. And why should someone feel guilty about buying a used game? If you have a choice between getting a new game for $60 or getting it in nearly the exact same condition for $35, why would you pay the higher price? I agree that in cases like Gamestop where the used game is only a pathetic $5 cheaper than the new game people should probably opt to pay the higher price if only because buying used supports those stores, but in cases like consumer-to-consumer sales (ex. eBay) there's really no reason not to buy used.

If there's one thing that annoys me most about this hobby, it's the blind near-fanatical support that some gamers give to publishers and developers. I really can't believe it when people stick up for devs when it comes to putting ads in full priced games, jacking up the price of games for dubious reasons (remember at the beginning of this gen when games went up $10 in price due to "increased development costs" yet it wasn't until a year later that we finally started getting games that weren't Xbox 1 quality if not direct ports of GC/PS2/Xbox games?), install limits on PC games, broken games being released with a "we'll patch up all the problems later" mentality by the dev, ludicrous support of DLC garbage, and other "bend over" policies and trends that we see come from devs and publishers. At what point do we finally stop accepting and defending this kind of crap and instead demand to be treated like intelligent consumers?

Nobody sells really good games...so why saying single-player games are killing of the industry,while most games come without a high-quality-SP making them worth owning without selling?Sorry,but it´s the industry who makes good and bad games...and most of them are medicore,nice to play once but without touching them again after that."Casual Games" are even more supporting that trend.

I think he is overdoing it a bit, but I can agree that people (myself included) trade in games once they beat them if there is no on-line play available to keep the game entertaining. Now this doesn't go for all games, cause there are a lot of great games that once you beat you will most likely hold onto even if you don't play on-line, such as GTA4, Oblivion, Sports games, racing games, and games that give you a reason to replay them. But if you would have given me the option to trade in NES games when I was a kid I would have done so, cause I wasn't able to afford hardly any games as a child. Back before there was on-line play kids would still of traded in a mediocre game for something new if you gave them the chance.

So I think it all comes down to making a great product that people will enjoy and feel like they spent their money well. If they don't feel that way or the experience was way to short then of course people are going to trade their games in, cause what would be the point of keeping it if your never gonna play it again or you just didn't like it.

in other words its we arn't make quality products so lets blame it on something other than our selves.

THey're just making excuses for making games not worth paying those high prices for.

I think he is overdoing it a bit, but I can agree that people (myself included) trade in games once they beat them if there is no on-line play available to keep the game entertaining. Now this doesn't go for all games, cause there are a lot of great games that once you beat you will most likely hold onto even if you don't play on-line, such as GTA4, Oblivion, Sports games, racing games, and games that give you a reason to replay them. But if you would have given me the option to trade in NES games when I was a kid I would have done so, cause I wasn't able to afford hardly any games as a child. Back before there was on-line play kids would still of traded in a mediocre game for something new if you gave them the chance.

So I think it all comes down to making a great product that people will enjoy and feel like they spent their money well. If they don't feel that way or the experience was way to short then of course people are going to trade their games in, cause what would be the point of keeping it if your never gonna play it again or you just didn't like it.

Lostboy1224

i don't believe that the content of the game should be drastically altered because of this issue. the content should be protected. as long as the game is good, it doesn't matter really. it would be rubbish if developers had to spend extra time tacking different modes on to games in an attempt to boost the value of the product. that just makes games feel more like packaged goods, rather than art.

i don't sell/trade my games anymore, because i make informed purchases and so i usually am happy with my product and keep it as part of my collection. and this doesn't mean i don't impusle buy anymore. i still impulse buy when i know i have a feeling for what i want out of a game and who it is developed by.

but i am slightly out of the loop, having not fully put my toes in the 'next-gen' waters. i buy mostly PS2 and GBA games. when i buy wii games i make sure what i want from the game first. maybe it's different for 360/PS3 gamers, because those games are more expensive? i don't know.

customers need to be more discerning.

Nobody sells really good games...so why saying single-player games are killing of the industry,while most games come without a high-quality-SP making them worth owning without selling?Sorry,but it´s the industry who makes good and bad games...and most of them are medicore,nice to play once but without touching them again after that."Casual Games" are even more supporting that trend.

Ash2X

i agree. it's about the type of games the industry makes as well. the current commercial reality is that games are all about this 'unsatiated desire'; they create desire and keep providing more (remakes, sequels, ports etc.) desire in terms of sequels. they never END a franchise. it just keeps going and going. the game business would go broke if you simply got enough from ONE mario game. so they keep making them. and people are dazzled for a bit, play it, realise it's mostly the same thing and trade it in. on the other hand, if all games were pieces of art like Rez, i don't think it would be a sustainable model (in this current next-gen context); there wouldn't be enough talent, probably not enough demand, and the time taken to work on innovative games would go up too.

the industry needs new consumers and attacking casual games isn't the answer either. there are good games, and bad games - it's not necessarily a matter of 'harcore/casual'.

all this money that is concentrated into next-gen development and creating immersion through the latest graphics...its downside might be this strong focus on immersion and not on design, thus creating something like watching films or TV episodes; it's an experience, and not a PHYSICAL thing that you would want to revist.

you know, it's fine if you want your crysis and your bioshock and your dead space, but developers have to understand that if they create experiences, people play for the experience; then they trade in for more experiences. they can't complain.

maybe i should get my games used instead of brand new.

in other words its we arn't make quality products so lets blame it on something other than our selves.

THey're just making excuses for making games not worth paying those high prices for.

Poshkidney

exactly. they are just trying to find something to blame. make your games long, fill it with content that helps player to play it again and again ( in short, replay value ) and more people will keep their games.

for me, multiplayer is still not worthy option yet. i dont care if you amazing multiplayer if you dont put a good singleplayer game. i played CoD4, beat it 5 hours, tried multiplayer, uninstalled next day. i didnt get any socom or warhawk or any online only game unless its free like many mmorpgs on the net. only game i played online without touching singleplayer was battlefield 1942 and that game was exceptionally fun in multiplayer.

there is no gamestop or eb games or whatever here, we trade our games among friends or among people we find on the net, so we dont help this kind of companies yet...but still i dont care their excuses and if they come with more excuses like that i'll support other side more. maybe i should go and buy some used games now...

in other words its we arn't make quality products so lets blame it on something other than our selves.

THey're just making excuses for making games not worth paying those high prices for.

Poshkidney

Truth be told, this guy does make good games. That's one reason I was willing to read his little rant rather than just dismiss it. He's not a developer who puts out shovelware and then whines when it doesn't turn a buck.

Overally I do think he's going overboard, but in the Eurogamer article he does make 2 very good points that are worth considering:

1. Retailers who push used games over new games. This is a fact. Gamestop for instance will always try to sell you a used copy over a new one (or at least their manual says to do so) because they make a bigger profit margin off of it. That's good for Gamestop, but not so good for the developer/publisher. In fact, that is taking money directly from their pockets.

2. He claims that studies show games get traded on average 8 to 12 times (he goes up to 15 but I'm pretty sure that's an exageration. The reality though is once again the makers of the game don't see a dime of that. Once again it's good for Gamestop, not so good for the developer/publisher.

For those who don't think that second point affect them, they're dead wrong. Games are becoming more expensive to design so more sales are required to keep these companies going. But as the secondary market becomes more and more popular that kind of makes it harder to sell more new copies. And that is the case. Just look at financial figures. Gamestop puts up higher profits every quarter while more developers are reporting losses. The end result is more developers trying to make cheaper games or games that apply to larger audiences (aka the casual audience).

And that is the reality. Just look at Edios. They've announced that they're looking to make Deus Ex appeal to a casual audience. DEUS EX APPEAL TO A CASUAL AUDIENCE???? That's ridiculous. But you can't blame a company for wanting to make money and stay in business.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe GS and the secondary market need to monitor sales of used games by publisher and kick back a small percentage. I do know that if I were Gamestop though I would start considering something like that. If digital distribution kicks in they're going hurt badly. Just look at Blockbuster and how close they came to going under once the movie rental model changed with DD and Netflix.

It's our fault. The consumers. Yeah, I said it.

We go into a game store and see a used copy of a game and get convinced that saving $5.00 is worth it which that sounds good until you find out how much the game store bought it for. I don't like how it is that way and I do my best to spread the word that buying used games at game stores only feeds the nasty beast of used game selling but I am not going to sit here and place blame on the stores. We are the ones that are allowing this practice to go on.

As far it going to digital distribution goes I doubt it will penetrate the console world any time soon on a major scale. This is a major assumption on my part but I think most console owners like to have a hard copy of their games. Moreover, space is the biggest issue. Installing Fallout 3 takes what?.... 5 .9 GB of space to install on your 360? If you are anything like me that's taking up more than a quarter of my hard drive space since I, much like many other 360 owners have the 20GB hard drive. With that in mind they are going to have to solve the space issue before even considering major digital distribution for console owners... as in affordabillity for purchasing space for content.

'Games are becoming more expensive to design so more sales are required to keep these companies going.'

that's the developers' fault. budgets for games these days are crazy. you don't need 200+ people working on a game. keep the numbers down and the innovation high. just because the tech is there, it's not an excuse to not design the game and create a technical demo of an experience.

frankly, if this forces more developers to make 'smaller' games, then i think its a good idea. i hope more indie games continue to be marketed. i can live without boxes if the choice is between a multi-million pound sci-fi epic and a piece of well thought out 2D game design with clever mechanics and a real message and vision (from actual gamers).

I agreed with the entire article until this: [QUOTE="ASK_Story"] He even went so far as to claim, "The shops are not giving us a way of distinguishing between pre-owned and new. So the shops are essentially defrauding the industry.Kuruption84

In his defense though, how many times have you gone to GS and they act like they don't have a New copy of the game? Hell sometimes I just tell them what game I want and they pull out a used copy and hope I don't say anything. They even argue and try and talk you out of getting it new. That's why I'm a big fan of GameCrazy ever since I found one in my area.

I'd rather pay 5$ bucks extra and support the actual devs, rather than support Gamestop.

While I agree to some extent, saying the entire industry will shift to online gaming. I doubt that. Maybe in some years, the games may be digitally distributed, but having pure Massively Multiplayer Online games without single player experiences, I cannot and will not believe that.

A game attached to a hard drive that can't be resold, sure. But the death of the Single Player experience... no.

Hey heres a thought Developers.... make a game thats worth my 50+$ and I wont have to trade it in because its a short piece of crap with no replay value!!!!!!!

God, what a whiner. How long has the used game market been around? It's a little easier to find stuff like that now than it was fifteen years ago, but ever since the PSOne/N64 days I remember just as many used games on shelves at EB as there are now. Where was he then?

The solution isn't to make the games online, it's to make quality games with lasting value. How many used copies of Gears or War or Dead Rising do you see in stores compared to copies of Perfect Dark Zero or movie tie-in games?

Until he realizes it's up to him and not retailers, he should stop pulling a Jaffe in public.

I completely disagree with almost everything that developer claimed. If developers want people to hang on to their games longer, they need to make single player campaigns that people want to replay, again and again. The onus is on the developer.

I would go so far as to argue that used games actually help the developer. In fact, lesser-know developers benefit even more.

First, imagine a world where selling used games was illegal. How would this impact the sale of new games? To answer this, you have to look at the value and the risk involved when buying a video game.

By value, we are not only talking about the $60 or so that you plop down for a new game, but how you, as an individual, value the enjoyment you receive from a game. For example, a person who is a fan of RPGs might value Fallout 3, or Fable 2 much higher than someone who primarily enjoys FPSs. Likewise, a person who mainly likes FPSs would value Halo, or Resistance higher than a person who primarily enjoys racing games.

Risk is referring to the risk that you might not enjoy a particular game to the extent that you thought you would, not that the game disk will explode in your hands or accidently sever a limb.

Let's assume for a moment that the person who is a fan of mostly FPSs looks at the rave reviews that a certain RPG (or any other genre outside of FPSs) from a prominent developer is receiving and decides that the game might be worth a look. However, at $60, with no chance to discount the price further by buying the game new, and selling it later, the risk to the buyer is higher. "What if I get it, and despite the rave reviews, it is not my 'cup of tea'? " If the consumer purchases the game and does decide that it is not for them, they are out their $60, minus any modicum of enjoyment they received from the game, if any. In all likelihood, the game goes unsold.

On the other side, let's assume that you see a game from a lesser-know developer that looks interesting. The developer doesn't really have a history in video game development, so you really only have word of mouth and professional reviews to go by. The game is released and receives solid, but not excellent, reviews. You are intrigued by some idea or concept that the developer has implemented, but you are still unsure if you should take the chance and shell out your hard-earned $60 for said game. Again, because used games are illegal, the risk that the game may not provide the enjoyment intended may be deemed too high by the consumer, and the game remains on the shelf.

Used games allow consumers to mitigate some of the risks involved in buying new games, encouraging the sale of new games.

teens and children don't necessarily have lots of money. they'll trade in or buy used. developers should try to make a range of games for different audiences so if the kids don't buy into one game, another sells well to the older demographic due to their 'higher disposable income'.

That is a load of rubbish, yes there is some truth in it but what do they expect when they sell games with such a high mark up for the first few months. I do not buy preowned games myself unless I am buying something old however I never really pay over £20 for a new game and I do this by waiting until the game get s a price reduction and on the 360 this is not usually a long wait at all. I end up getting my games cheaper then if they were pre owned most of the time by doing this, the full price of games on consoles is a rip off and they should drop their initial release prices before criticising the used game market.

'Games are becoming more expensive to design so more sales are required to keep these companies going.'

that's the developers' fault. budgets for games these days are crazy. you don't need 200+ people working on a game. keep the numbers down and the innovation high. just because the tech is there, it's not an excuse to not design the game and create a technical demo of an experience.

frankly, if this forces more developers to make 'smaller' games, then i think its a good idea. i hope more indie games continue to be marketed. i can live without boxes if the choice is between a multi-million pound sci-fi epic and a piece of well thought out 2D game design with clever mechanics and a real message and vision (from actual gamers).

just_nonplussed

I definitely agree with that. The main thing is that most high-budget games pour that budget into graphics (not even technology as a whole; solely graphics). I mean, why is it that most of the games that actually use physics in a meaningful manner are indie? Why is it that games with large budget almost always have completely awful stories, storytelling and voice acting? Why is it that only a few (I'm thinking "less than 4") large-budget FPS actually have good AI?

Personally, I'd love an industry-wide comeback to 2D gaming, but that's not even necessary. Can you imagine how cheap it would be to make a game on the Quake 2 engine as opposed to using Unreal Engine 3? Quake 2 still looks fine (and plays great), and the developers would actually have money left to actually focus the aspects of technology that truly matter (physics, AI, level size, overall game scope, etc.).

Well, I agree with a lot of the statements made, but not the solution. Going 'online' in the sense of killing single player is not the solution. Unfortunately I don't know of any better alternatives either. Registering your game or linking it to a specific number of installs doesn't do anything but endorse cracking it so you don't have to jump hoops. I have thought that possibly registering your games to an account, which would be verified upon playing would be nice... but I don't like the idea of having to be online to start it or the fact once the online verification service dies out not being able to play my game anymore... But if it ends up killing single player games, I guess I'll just find another hobby.raahsnavj

The solution is to make games that have high replay values. This was common back in the days before online multiplayer. When you beat a game there was usually a lot of extra stuff that you could unlock like new modes, characters, weapons, and levels. Games also liked to add in reasons to keep going back through the game like getting better at the game, finding new secrets, or in many cases back in the 8 and 16 bit days just finally beating the damn game.

The problem with games today is that single player campaigns are often devoid of replay value. A lot of this is due to the heavy emphasis today's games place on plots, immersion, and graphics rather than on actual gameplay. The result is that while you get an epic experience playing through the game, after you beat it you don't really feel drawn to play the game again since you've already seen everything it has to offer. With the advent of online multiplayer devs have been taking the easy way out and just slapping in the requiste deathmatch modes in order to increase the game's replayability. In the process they seem to have forgotten how to increase replay value without resorting to multiplayer. And now instead of focusing on adding a large amount of content for people who have beaten the game they're being lazy and telling us to not sell a game that we own.

well i guess we all seem to understand the true nature of 'next-gen' at least - it's about immersion and experience.

i like being immersed and having interactive experiences, and maybe if games went into full DD, it truly would be a 'non-physical' and fleeting experience, similar to watching a film (albeit a very expensive one). but there's so much stalled progress and hidden potential in games to progress as medium of design. this will be the age of unadulterated creation of beauty and attention to detail (in the graphics)...but also the age of exploring the potential of graphics to enhance interaction.

personally, i think there should be parallels. there's never going to be a complete unification of thought. people are too different. games do need to deal with the question of 'realism' due to the constant increase of graphical power. it's just natural. heavy rain continues this kind of 'investigation' i suppose. in parallel to that there ought to be a lot different interpretations of what a game is and what it can do and people making 'true' progress in the language of games and their design.

i don't consider my stance as 'anti-art'. graphics don't necessarily = art. graphics can have the most atrocious art design while still looking photo-realistic and high detail. same goes with design. it's how you use the tech and how you think.

also, i would buy more games if they weren't all super-soldier war shooter aesthetics. big great hulking white men with stubble doesn't interest everyone (funily enough). and making changes to the design underneath isn't enough. if companies are sincere about change then they'll change all aspects of the game and see it as one thing. how are gamers supposed to know whether a game has changed its mechanics if the aesthetic is still the same big men with guns? they'll look at a magazine and think "oh, more of the same".

[QUOTE="Kuruption84"]I agreed with the entire article until this: [QUOTE="ASK_Story"] He even went so far as to claim, "The shops are not giving us a way of distinguishing between pre-owned and new. So the shops are essentially defrauding the industry.Mau-Justice

In his defense though, how many times have you gone to GS and they act like they don't have a New copy of the game? Hell sometimes I just tell them what game I want and they pull out a used copy and hope I don't say anything. They even argue and try and talk you out of getting it new. That's why I'm a big fan of GameCrazy ever since I found one in my area.

I'd rather pay 5$ bucks extra and support the actual devs, rather than support Gamestop.

Im sorry, but if the game industry goes to digital gaming with on-line purchasing game piracy will sky rocket. Just look at the music business, you go onto sites like Limewire and download a bunch of songs for nothing. You can burn DvD's pretty easily these days so people don't have to buy them. Do publishers really want to jump into those shark infested waters too?

I agree with the whole "games as a piece of art" thing, but the sad thing is most people do not see it this way.

They buy a game, finish the game once on the easiest difficulty setting, and trade it in for another game (usually getting ripped off in the process).

In their defense though, most games these days do not warrant one playthrough, let alone a couple, so I can see both sides of the argument. I also think people should stop hating on "short games". So what if a game only takes 30 minutes to complete, if it was a GOOD game you will want to complete it again and again. Not every game needs to be a 50 hour epic, nor do I want every game to be a 50 hour epic.

Gotta love the new attitude that the media industry as a whole is adopting toward their products and consumers, namely this "just because you paid for it doesn't mean it's your's" mentality.

I'm all for supporting the industry and whatnot, but I really can't help but feel that people are being tools when they, as consumers, claim that buying and selling used games is somehow wrong. It's wrong if you stole the game, but if you bought it legally then it's your's. And when devs and publishers complain about it it just shows how absurdly greedy they are. This is essentially the same thing as the RIAA's statement that they don't think people should be allowed to copy music to their PCs and MP3 players from the CD they just bought but that they should instead have to buy multiple copies of the same albums for each device they want to play their music on.

When you pay $60 for a new game you shouldn't be treated as if you're renting it. You own the game. And with ownership comes the right to resell. And why should someone feel guilty about buying a used game? If you have a choice between getting a new game for $60 or getting it in nearly the exact same condition for $35, why would you pay the higher price? I agree that in cases like Gamestop where the used game is only a pathetic $5 cheaper than the new game people should probably opt to pay the higher price if only because buying used supports those stores, but in cases like consumer-to-consumer sales (ex. eBay) there's really no reason not to buy used.

If there's one thing that annoys me most about this hobby, it's the blind near-fanatical support that some gamers give to publishers and developers. I really can't believe it when people stick up for devs when it comes to putting ads in full priced games, jacking up the price of games for dubious reasons (remember at the beginning of this gen when games went up $10 in price due to "increased development costs" yet it wasn't until a year later that we finally started getting games that weren't Xbox 1 quality if not direct ports of GC/PS2/Xbox games?), install limits on PC games, broken games being released with a "we'll patch up all the problems later" mentality by the dev, ludicrous support of DLC garbage, and other "bend over" policies and trends that we see come from devs and publishers. At what point do we finally stop accepting and defending this kind of crap and instead demand to be treated like intelligent consumers?

gameguy6700

I agree with the whole "games as a piece of art" thing, but the sad thing is most people do not see it this way.

They buy a game, finish the game once on the easiest difficulty setting, and trade it in for another game (usually getting ripped off in the process).

In their defense though, most games these days do not warrant one playthrough, let alone a couple, so I can see both sides of the argument. I also think people should stop hating on "short games". So what if a game only takes 30 minutes to complete, if it was a GOOD game you will want to complete it again and again. Not every game needs to be a 50 hour epic, nor do I want every game to be a 50 hour epic.

Fredrick2003x

Just because a game is "GOOD' does not mean you would play it again. For example: Dead Space, Amazing game. Short. no replay value.

[QUOTE="Fredrick2003x"]

I agree with the whole "games as a piece of art" thing, but the sad thing is most people do not see it this way.

They buy a game, finish the game once on the easiest difficulty setting, and trade it in for another game (usually getting ripped off in the process).

In their defense though, most games these days do not warrant one playthrough, let alone a couple, so I can see both sides of the argument. I also think people should stop hating on "short games". So what if a game only takes 30 minutes to complete, if it was a GOOD game you will want to complete it again and again. Not every game needs to be a 50 hour epic, nor do I want every game to be a 50 hour epic.

CoreoVII

Just because a game is "GOOD' does not mean you would play it again. For example: Dead Space, Amazing game. Short. no replay value.

well, that would depend on the person i think. people replay a game for different reasons. and with a game like dead space it looks as if you are buying an experience; something like watching a movie...so the developers probably pour all their time and resources into creating the atmosphere.

[QUOTE="CoreoVII"][QUOTE="Fredrick2003x"]

I agree with the whole "games as a piece of art" thing, but the sad thing is most people do not see it this way.

They buy a game, finish the game once on the easiest difficulty setting, and trade it in for another game (usually getting ripped off in the process).

In their defense though, most games these days do not warrant one playthrough, let alone a couple, so I can see both sides of the argument. I also think people should stop hating on "short games". So what if a game only takes 30 minutes to complete, if it was a GOOD game you will want to complete it again and again. Not every game needs to be a 50 hour epic, nor do I want every game to be a 50 hour epic.

just_nonplussed

Just because a game is "GOOD' does not mean you would play it again. For example: Dead Space, Amazing game. Short. no replay value.

well, that would depend on the person i think. people replay a game for different reasons. and with a game like dead space it looks as if you are buying an experience; something like watching a movie...so the developers probably pour all their time and resources into creating the atmosphere.

and I agree with you. Everyone is different. but trophies? Shoot 10 enemys with the same gun for a trophie. come on man, dont accept that! How about. If you try to beat the game on hard mode we will add in extra cut scenes and harder and more interesting enemies on your second play through. Not the same dang thing over again.......ya know?

'Games are becoming more expensive to design so more sales are required to keep these companies going.'

that's the developers' fault. budgets for games these days are crazy. you don't need 200+ people working on a game. keep the numbers down and the innovation high. just because the tech is there, it's not an excuse to not design the game and create a technical demo of an experience.

frankly, if this forces more developers to make 'smaller' games, then i think its a good idea. i hope more indie games continue to be marketed. i can live without boxes if the choice is between a multi-million pound sci-fi epic and a piece of well thought out 2D game design with clever mechanics and a real message and vision (from actual gamers).

just_nonplussed

[QUOTE="just_nonplussed"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"][QUOTE="Fredrick2003x"]

I agree with the whole "games as a piece of art" thing, but the sad thing is most people do not see it this way.

They buy a game, finish the game once on the easiest difficulty setting, and trade it in for another game (usually getting ripped off in the process).

In their defense though, most games these days do not warrant one playthrough, let alone a couple, so I can see both sides of the argument. I also think people should stop hating on "short games". So what if a game only takes 30 minutes to complete, if it was a GOOD game you will want to complete it again and again. Not every game needs to be a 50 hour epic, nor do I want every game to be a 50 hour epic.

CoreoVII

Just because a game is "GOOD' does not mean you would play it again. For example: Dead Space, Amazing game. Short. no replay value.

well, that would depend on the person i think. people replay a game for different reasons. and with a game like dead space it looks as if you are buying an experience; something like watching a movie...so the developers probably pour all their time and resources into creating the atmosphere.

and I agree with you. Everyone is different. but trophies? Shoot 10 enemys with the same gun for a trophie. come on man, dont accept that! How about. If you try to beat the game on hard mode we will add in extra cut scenes and harder and more interesting enemies on your second play through. Not the same dang thing over again.......ya know?

well...i think for the most substantial and long-lasting replay value, it has to be built into the design of the game and not just tacked on as part of a rewards-style structure (e.g. the trophies you mentioned). i can play rez over and over again; it's design is perfect for that. however, since the notion of replayability affects creative decisions and the content of the game overall, not all games have to be made to constantly be played over and over.

i like the 'new game+' feature as it enables you to enjoy the actual game again and dig out secret areas or understand some bit of plot that you couldn't grasp first time around, or just playing in a sort of 'god mode' with higher stats.

I agree with the whole "games as a piece of art" thing, but the sad thing is most people do not see it this way.

They buy a game, finish the game once on the easiest difficulty setting, and trade it in for another game (usually getting ripped off in the process).

In their defense though, most games these days do not warrant one playthrough, let alone a couple, so I can see both sides of the argument. I also think people should stop hating on "short games". So what if a game only takes 30 minutes to complete, if it was a GOOD game you will want to complete it again and again. Not every game needs to be a 50 hour epic, nor do I want every game to be a 50 hour epic.

Fredrick2003x

yea you can have a long game ans thats worth 60 but a short game even if its good, it isnt worth the full money imo