I hope you're right though; I really miss the days where I'd buy a complete game on release, rather than only getting half the experience.
I hope you're right though; I really miss the days where I'd buy a complete game on release, rather than only getting half the experience.
Having just played through Mass Effect 2 and 3, I couldn't agree more with you. The singleplayer `DLCs' felt like bits of the game they'd deliberately chopped out so they could sell them to me later. Nothing in those add-ons was essential, but it all felt like stuff that would have been included in the game proper ten years ago.
Of course it turns out that on this occasion I picked the wrong target as they are doing the DLC thing right (they started work on it after the main game was complete rather than it being cut out of the main game and sitting on the disk from day one ready to be activated by a DLC code) but that wasn't made obvious in the sales blurb I saw at the time.
But my principal still stands: if the DLC is genuinely an extra or an extension then I don't mind, but when it seems to be a core part of the content removed to get a few extra $ I'l adjust what I'm willing to pay for the main game accordingly.
Story seems to have become a sort of distraction from the things that make a good game. So the story can be told in ten hours - what about the fun potential of the rest of the game? How many times am I going to play the thing? How much enjoyment can I extract?
Even RPGs, where a good story is important, most of the time is spent on quests and character interactions and on playing around with equipment and stats and so on. If you're just speedrunning an RPG's story, it doesn't generally take long. It's the game around it that takes the time.
At the end of the day, I'm not that interested in being passively entertained with the story. Maybe if the stories were better it would make sense as a form of passive entertainment. But games are like movies these days, and movies these days tend to have stories that aren't worth watching. If I wanted a good story, I'd go read a book or fish out some DVDs or something. I largely buy games for the stuff that goes on around the story, the game part of the thing.
Heck, at £3 an hour I could go and sit in a cinema for 10 hours at a comparable cost. £30 is like - I could buy 6+ hours martial arts practice, or go and do some archery, or go canoeing, or buy the materials to make myself a new desk, or.... £30 is not an insignificant amount of resources. It's not clear to me that the pay-off even makes sense anymore - though it did for things that you could play with for longer.
10 hours strikes me as ... there's probably not a lot there to play with. How many toys of any complexity are your bored of a mere 10 hours later? It may be a very polished experience but, how inventive can you be? ... I like finding tricky combinations of things and actually playing with stuff.
That might not seem so troublesome on the surface, but there's generally little motivation to replay such games most of the time. Also, the knowledge that there have been many games with much more single player time as well as re-playability for a comparable or lesser price now or in the past. The more those 10 hour games become popular, the more it's considered acceptable and even normal for games in general.
The problem compounds when a new generation plays such games and never realizes how games were in the past. I've already noticed it with PC gamers and that many use controllers now even for typically keyboard/mouse games like FPSs. Companies end up failing to user test for keyboard/mouse players and things like custom key bindings or keyboard/mouse UX get ignored. Probably the worst example I've seen recently was Sleeping Dogs on PC. No custom key bindings (except for keys you didn't care about changing). Things like exiting a vehicle were set to the right mouse button without a way to change. I ended up accidentally pressing it at least 40-50 times throughout the game and had to repeat at least a few missions.
Typically, these type of games are bought for the multiplayer aspect (which is why I assume the single player game is so short and limited). I'm not much for multiplayer gaming unless it's with friends and not random people. Co-op gaming can be especially fun if done right (Saints Row 3, Terraria, Borderlands, etc).
In the end though, it's all about preferences. You might like such games yourself (and many others), but not everyone does. I think such games fill a niche for those that like them, but I loathe seeing them become the majority of PC/Console games as they're not the type of game that usually interests me.
As an adult, paying $6-8 per hour for "AAA" interactive entertainment isn't terribly expensive, it's quite cheap even.
You pay for the graphics and the voice acting. If you can handle having more limited graphics and simpler/no voice acting, you will get games that are better in other aspects (balance, story, development, replayability) for way less.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Borderlands 1 and 2
Saints Row 3
Far Cry 2 and 3
Bioshock 1
XCOM: Enemy Unknown
Rage
Fallout 3
Fallout New Vegas
Tomb Raider
Crysis 1 and 3
Sleeping Dogs (despite the keyboard issues)
Portal 1 and 2
Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Dishonored
Mirror's Edge
Metro 2033
Hitman: Absolution
Mass Effect Series
Fable 3
[1] http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198025283419/games/
There was a time when I wanted tens if not hundreds of hours of play time out of every game. These days, 8-10 hours is just about perfect for me - something I could play through over the course of a month or two and complete with some sense of finality.
Edit: Just noticed this comment below, it's already being regulated in Germany: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6088903