Very simply put, there is game content out there that is short as hell. People do make 20 minute long game discs, and these have been sold for money. That kind of stuff actually exists.
What you do NOT see is these demos getting sold for $60 a pop. And don't tell me that it's a ridiculous idea, because game companies would LOVE to be able to do it. They would LOVE to be able to sell a level on its own, price it like an entire game, and then to never even bother releasing the rest of the game if sales of previous levels aren't high enough. If game companies could sell single levels for $60 a pop, then you bet your ass that they would do it.
But they DON'T do it because PEOPLE WON'T BUY IT.
If you EVER at any point admit that $60 is too much to pay for a single level, then you are validating the argument that length absolutely matters. There is absolutely no qualitative difference whatsoever between someone thinking that $60 is too much to pay for 20 minutes of gameplay, and someone thinking that $60 is too much to pay for four hours of gameplay. BOTH PEOPLE still have a line they're drawing at which if the game isn't long enough then it's simply not worth their money. The only difference is in where that line is.
Secondly, it doesn't matter if 4 hour long gameplay is not unprecedented. The people saying that this doesn't justify TFU2's price aren't gonna be buying full price for other 4 hour long games either. You might have a point if those people were routinely buying 4 hour long games and then treating TFU2 differently, but there's nothing in any of the comments to suggest that that's the case. If they think that a 4 hour long game isn't worth a $60 purchase, then the number of 4 hour long games out there is completely irrelevant.
And please show me one single post which says that brevity equals a lack of quality. I've seen maybe one post which could be interpretted as saying such, with every other post saying nothing more than that 4 hours isn't worth a purchase.
MrGeezer
Firstly, I'd love to know the titles of these allegedly full price games that contain 20 minutes of content. I've been playing games for three decades and the only possible titles I could come up with are older games that relied on difficulty to compensate for length.
The notion that there is no "qualitative difference" between a person unwilling to pay 60 dollars for 20 minutes versus 60 dollars for 4 hours is, in a word, nonsense. There is no software being sold at 60 dollars a pop for 20 minutes of game play because at some point, even the most enthusiastic and eager consumer identifies price gouging. By contrast, plenty of games, both critically and commercially successful, hover around five to seven hours in length. Again, your 20-minute game analogy is entirely misplaced in this particular argument.
As to your assertion that people who deride this particular game's length would also opt to not purchase games of similar length, that's simply fallacious reasoning. You have absolutely no idea what their purchasing history is or what they'll buy in the future. From my own observations I can attest to the fact that plenty of people who attack a game for a specified flaw are just as likely to purchase another game featuring a similarly perceived flaw. The issue of length and the dollar-to-hour ratio of monetary value is an oft-discussed topic yet these types of games continue to sell just fine.
Lastly, all this talk of the game not selling well, the game only being worth a rental, the developers being lazy, etc., all equates to an attack on the quality of the game which has been brought on by the revelation of the length. All of the derision being leveled at TFU II in this thread is predicated upon the completion time of the game, which implies that length equates quality.
The reality is that your own initial post calls the length (which has yet to be confirmed by a reputable source) "unacceptable", which means you have de-valued and judged the game entirely upon said length. Even more interesting is that you compare the cost of film to this particular game, which brings up an interesting point: the average film on DVD/Blueray is two hours (extras notwithstanding) and costs between 20-30 dollars. If TFU II is actually only 4 hours (not counting challenge levels) then it is entirely in line with the value of film.
Am I to assume you abstain from purchasing DVD's at full retail value in your stand against overpriced consumer goods? Do you also abstain from going to the movies, where the average cost of a ticket is now around 10-15 dollars for a one-time viewing that doesn't even entail ownership?
I'd sincerely love to know the answers to these questions because in reality, if you go to the movies or buy flicks at full retail price, then that line you keep alluding to is merely something you whip out to slam or deride certain games when convenient to do so.
Log in to comment