How long should a game be?
by ZeMag · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 06/29/2009 (5:17 am) · 5 replies
Hi guys, crazy question, right!?
Well, the thing is: I know it depends on alot of variables, so I'll push it further a bit...
Should a 10 hours long game (story/mission mode, not counting with multiplayer or replayability) be, lets say, $40? Or should it be 5 times 2 hours games, with a price tag of $8 each?
The thing is, a 10 hours long game will take a while to make (at least longer than it would if it was just 2 hours), and will be a bigger commitment by the player spend $40 than $8.
Also, if the player doesn't like the game, at least he didn't spent $40 (sometimes demos can fool a bit the players). And he can give you feedback that will make the next 2 hours game better.
I gess the profit margin is higher if you sell a one time $40 copy. But still, the question remains...
So, what do you guys think? Bitesize games or longer games? TV episodes like games or movie style?
I'm all for bitesize games, but that doesn't seam to be the industry standard, so please, tell me what you think about this subject.
Well, the thing is: I know it depends on alot of variables, so I'll push it further a bit...
Should a 10 hours long game (story/mission mode, not counting with multiplayer or replayability) be, lets say, $40? Or should it be 5 times 2 hours games, with a price tag of $8 each?
The thing is, a 10 hours long game will take a while to make (at least longer than it would if it was just 2 hours), and will be a bigger commitment by the player spend $40 than $8.
Also, if the player doesn't like the game, at least he didn't spent $40 (sometimes demos can fool a bit the players). And he can give you feedback that will make the next 2 hours game better.
I gess the profit margin is higher if you sell a one time $40 copy. But still, the question remains...
So, what do you guys think? Bitesize games or longer games? TV episodes like games or movie style?
I'm all for bitesize games, but that doesn't seam to be the industry standard, so please, tell me what you think about this subject.
#2
if it takes me just an hour or two get to the end of a game just to find out i have to buy another game cause the story ends on a cliffhanger i would be more than pissed off no matter how much i payed for it.
Besides, if it only takes an hour to get to the end, i am not seeing any replayability there. People pay to pass time - one hour or even two is never enough.
Heck, i got pissed once cause i got to the end of a game in six hours. A few hours on a weekend was all i got out of that one. Never played it again. Never make a game so short or so easy the average player would finish it in a couple of hours.
To be like that the game is not a chalenge - replayability = 0, pissing player off = almost certain
06/29/2009 (5:48 pm)
I agree with jaimiif it takes me just an hour or two get to the end of a game just to find out i have to buy another game cause the story ends on a cliffhanger i would be more than pissed off no matter how much i payed for it.
Besides, if it only takes an hour to get to the end, i am not seeing any replayability there. People pay to pass time - one hour or even two is never enough.
Heck, i got pissed once cause i got to the end of a game in six hours. A few hours on a weekend was all i got out of that one. Never played it again. Never make a game so short or so easy the average player would finish it in a couple of hours.
To be like that the game is not a chalenge - replayability = 0, pissing player off = almost certain
#3
Although, if it were me, I would do -three- five hour games, $20 each, if for nothing else than that a series of games to me feels more comfortable being 1, 3, or 5 games long.
This is the two cents of a beginner though. =p
06/29/2009 (10:22 pm)
If you're going to make "bite sized" games, I would go with at least two games of five hour length for $20 each. This would bring a middle ground to your two sets. Although, if it were me, I would do -three- five hour games, $20 each, if for nothing else than that a series of games to me feels more comfortable being 1, 3, or 5 games long.
This is the two cents of a beginner though. =p
#4
Let's say the game is 20 hours long (something arcade style, with loads of action and simple mechanics and a very simple story - that's more the kind of stuff I'm capable of doing).
With a game like that, would you guys go with a full 20 hours game or break it into 2 to 4 bits?
I'll keep the price tag out of this question, just thinking on the game package size, and what would the players prefer.
The obvious thing would be to say the player prefers the game in one piece, right!? But is a risk for the player to buy a game that it's not a blockbuster. But if the game is cheaper and delivered in smaller amounts, he can test it and see if it is worth it or not.
On the developer point of view, I can learn more if I study the feedback from each package instead of being an 'all in' kind of move.
Also I would have shorter developing cycles, and would have something comming out every 4-6 months instead of every 18 months (with bigger release cycles I would probably need to build hype for my games, alot more hype than if I can actualy deliver in shorter time frames).
So, the question changes a bit, I agree that something with less than 5 hours will probably not be long enough for most players. But how about a 4 times 5 hours game series? Would it be better for the developer and players?
In my opinion it would be better at least for the developer, but how about the players?
06/30/2009 (4:40 am)
Thanks guys, I see your point and agree with it. So, I'll change the question a bit.Let's say the game is 20 hours long (something arcade style, with loads of action and simple mechanics and a very simple story - that's more the kind of stuff I'm capable of doing).
With a game like that, would you guys go with a full 20 hours game or break it into 2 to 4 bits?
I'll keep the price tag out of this question, just thinking on the game package size, and what would the players prefer.
The obvious thing would be to say the player prefers the game in one piece, right!? But is a risk for the player to buy a game that it's not a blockbuster. But if the game is cheaper and delivered in smaller amounts, he can test it and see if it is worth it or not.
On the developer point of view, I can learn more if I study the feedback from each package instead of being an 'all in' kind of move.
Also I would have shorter developing cycles, and would have something comming out every 4-6 months instead of every 18 months (with bigger release cycles I would probably need to build hype for my games, alot more hype than if I can actualy deliver in shorter time frames).
So, the question changes a bit, I agree that something with less than 5 hours will probably not be long enough for most players. But how about a 4 times 5 hours game series? Would it be better for the developer and players?
In my opinion it would be better at least for the developer, but how about the players?
#5
If you're releasing the content for a game in 'episodes' and relying on the ability to learn from feedback and adjust your design to what players want, you may find yourself entirely at their mercy, and having to sacrifice your own goals for the game. Feature creep becomes an issue here, I'd guess :P.
Also, from the players' perspective, having four separate products is always worse than having one product. I don't want to have to keep track of four executables, or even four install directories, for 'one' game. It'd be nice to be able to, for example, launch all the Half-Life episodes from within the HL2 executable - AND be able to play them as one continuous experience, rather than having to quit at the end of an episode.
06/30/2009 (6:31 am)
I think the length of a game doesn't matter if it has replayability. For example, I was satisfied with CoD4's short campaign (though obviously I was thirsting for more), but the game was worth the purchase because of the endless replayability of the multiplayer. Similarly, a sandbox style game may get away with being shorter if you can go back and play it again in a totally different way and have new experiences.If you're releasing the content for a game in 'episodes' and relying on the ability to learn from feedback and adjust your design to what players want, you may find yourself entirely at their mercy, and having to sacrifice your own goals for the game. Feature creep becomes an issue here, I'd guess :P.
Also, from the players' perspective, having four separate products is always worse than having one product. I don't want to have to keep track of four executables, or even four install directories, for 'one' game. It'd be nice to be able to, for example, launch all the Half-Life episodes from within the HL2 executable - AND be able to play them as one continuous experience, rather than having to quit at the end of an episode.
Associate Jaimi McEntire
King of Flapjacks
I think if you want to make episodic games, then 6-10 hours is the range. That's a weeks play for an average person (or a day play for some kid still in school...). Long enough to get the story, yet short enough not to be daunting. Depending on your genre, the price could be variable. For example, and RPG could well sell for $20, but a bejeweled clone would probably only sell at a much lower price range.