I refuse to pay full price for any game with less than 10 hours of gameplay.

Paying $60 for a game that I can beat in a weekend sounds like a waste of money to me. I am sure I'm not the only one that belives that with the "next gen" prices we would get next gen graphics, sound, and most importantly...gameplay. It was bad enough to pay $50 for a game that ended in under 10 hours; let alone $60.

Look at Stranglehold with 6-8 hours of gameplay. What are we paying for? Sure it looks good and game is fun to play, but it's over before you can really get into it. To me, it's simple. If game developers want me to pay full price for a game, then they better give me more than 10 hours of gameplay.

Some people are going to argue that multiplayer can make a game fun long after the singleplayer story. Multiplayer can be a fun diversion, but the majority of players I believe would still rather have a solid single campaign. Then go online and play with their friends. What if the Halo singleplayer games were only 6-8 hours long? Would it still have the same appeal as it does today? I don't know.

its no secret 95% of the 360 games out there are not worth 60 $

its no secret 95% of the 360 games out there are not worth 60 $

warz989

Sad but true. The only 360 games I bought at full price were Oblivion and Forze. Both games have well overa 100 hours of gameplay.

If you're looking to get more out of your games, try going for all of the achievements in a game.. That usually adds one or two extra play throughs onto the game. If you don't like the sounds of that, then I guess don't buy them at full price... By used, wait, or just rent them.dubya05

exactly... try playing Stranglehold on hard boiled after the first playthrough... i bet that 6 hours gets a lot longer because of the difficulty

Honestly you should have played the demo for games like Stranglehold first. To me, it seemed like it would have ended quickly, but it was a game that i could play over and over again. The action is amazing and great to show friends, too. Plus, I like getting the achievements, so that makes all my games last longer.

Not Galaga... sorry.

Ok i agree about paying full price for a game that has a short campaign. but look at shadowrun that is one of my favorite games for the 360 rite now and it doesn't have a singly player game.

and also gears of war great multi and single player but the single player is only like 10 hours.

its the multi-player of games that makes them great for me. But hey thats just my opinion.

Short games with multiplayer tacked on is a copout by the studios to save money and develpment time. I don't like short games because just as I'm getting into it it ends. I will not buy halo3 beacause halo2 was short and a rip off.

Resident evil4 was 20 hours long epic couldn't even give us 7 hours with gears of war.

AMEN brother

its no secret 95% of the 360 games out there are not worth 60 $

warz989

I wish you were wrong, but you're not. But the games that ARE worth it are REALLY worth it. But I try to get deals whenever I can. I actually grabbed Rainbow Six for $40 just a few weeks after it came out. But it would've been worth $60. Oblivion? DEFINITELY worth $60. But then you get games like Crackdown or Gears or whatever and it's a few hours of shallow, if attractive, gameplay that makes you feel loose in the caboose.

Ask yourself if you want ONLYsuper long games when you work 8 hours a day and take 8- 12 credit workload in College. No offense, but people do have lives!! Only time i want super long games is when i have time....Gamersince81

Amen Bro. I'm done with 12 credit workloads. I've taken it down 6 - 9, roughly 3 classes or so. So expensive... :(

I usually just rent games with 10 or less hours of gameplay unless the multiplayer is good enough to keep me playing for a while.

Paying $60 for a game that I can beat in a weekend sounds like a waste of money to me. I am sure I'm not the only one that belives that with the "next gen" prices we would get next gen graphics, sound, and most importantly...gameplay. It was bad enough to pay $50 for a game that ended in under 10 hours; let alone $60.

Look at Stranglehold with 6-8 hours of gameplay. What are we paying for? Sure it looks good and game is fun to play, but it's over before you can really get into it. To me, it's simple. If game developers want me to pay full price for a game, then they better give me more than 10 hours of gameplay.

Some people are going to argue that multiplayer can make a game fun long after the singleplayer story. Multiplayer can be a fun diversion, but the majority of players I believe would still rather have a solid single campaign. Then go online and play with their friends. What if the Halo singleplayer games were only 6-8 hours long? Would it still have the same appeal as it does today? I don't know.

Lord_Tik

OK says the man w/ a Shadowrun banner.

[QUOTE="Lord_Tik"]

Paying $60 for a game that I can beat in a weekend sounds like a waste of money to me. I am sure I'm not the only one that belives that with the "next gen" prices we would get next gen graphics, sound, and most importantly...gameplay. It was bad enough to pay $50 for a game that ended in under 10 hours; let alone $60.

Look at Stranglehold with 6-8 hours of gameplay. What are we paying for? Sure it looks good and game is fun to play, but it's over before you can really get into it. To me, it's simple. If game developers want me to pay full price for a game, then they better give me more than 10 hours of gameplay.

Some people are going to argue that multiplayer can make a game fun long after the singleplayer story. Multiplayer can be a fun diversion, but the majority of players I believe would still rather have a solid single campaign. Then go online and play with their friends. What if the Halo singleplayer games were only 6-8 hours long? Would it still have the same appeal as it does today? I don't know.

Diablo2343

OK says the man w/ a Shadowrun banner.

Heh I refuse to buy that sad excuse for a Shadowrun game. Hell, I don't even have XBL. This latest "Shadowrun" game basically proves my point. No way in hell is that game worth $60, even for the multiplayer.

$60 for a 10 hour game comes out to $6/hour...Which is a better deal than going to the movies. I see your logic, but I don't think you should be so quick to judge.spazzx625

Oh snap! Spazz just owned u lol.

This is why i only buy quality games for the Xbox360, Strangle Hold in my opinion is definitely not up to those standards. For future reference, these are quality games.

Mass Effect, Halo 3, Resident Evil 5, Street Fighter 4?, Bioshock (short for those who have busy schedules) and perhaps some more.

Okay???????

Why not just stick to RPG's or games with multiplayer action.

its no secret 95% of the 360 games out there are not worth 60 $

warz989

Exactly. I've had a 360 since Bioshock was released. I've got Bioshock and downloaded Castlevania: SotN. Not getting anothr game until Halo.

I've had a PS3 SINCE LAUNCH and own Resistance and The Darkness. Thats it.

I refuse to buy rental games for 60 bucks.

Bio shock is the perfect expample of a game that lasts longer than 10 hours. I took my time with the game, probably played 20+ hours. Now I am playing through it again to get the rest of the achievements.

On that note, I agree with the topic starter that games no matter their worth, should be longer than 8-10 hours. Bioshock lasted me a good three weeks to beat, playing it here and there. DirT lasted me a very long time too. However, games like Ghost Recon Ad. Warfighter 2, lasts what, 6 hours? What's the point? it's the same sh*t. Wait till it drops to 25$, then buy it, that'll be worth it.

Valve's Orange Box, now that's a bargain. Go for shbangs like that.

By the way, MP blows, gets so boring and repetitive. They should enforce age group only MPs, because all the hate online, and the twelve year old kids with sh*t for brains are a waste of mytime.