Lordnine wrote:LawBeefaroni wrote:
No one is paying $60 for a 5 hour FPS. That 5 hours just the singleplayer fluff as part of what is primarily a multiplayer/coop game like COD or BF3. People get way more than 5 hours of gamplay.
Fear 3 had a 5 hour campaign and only horde mode for multiplayer.
Red Faction Armageddon had a 6 hour campaign. Only horde mode.
Rage is in a similar boat.
Portal 2 could be beaten in about 5 hours. 2 hour co-op mode.
Just to name a few recent high profile games.
Fallout and Diablo are not shooters. Diablo is a special case but Fallout was made back when games were a lot cheaper to make. Game budgets now rival blockbuster movies in how much they cost to produce. As Isgrimnur stated, $10 gets you a movie ticket these days. Why is a $10 game required to last longer than a $10 movie?
Fear 3 had multiple characters to play through. Portal 2 has free DLC. RF Armageddon had Ruin Mode with leaderboards. Rage has MPDM and separate Coop campaigns. Still, you're right and none of those titles lasted more than 4 months at full price, except maybe Rage, don't remember. Precisely because of their short length. Not because of some Steam effect. People read reviews and except for day 1 purchasers, most aren't willing to pay $5+/hour for a game.
$10 got me a movie ticket back then. $15 gets me a movie ticket now. But the comparison is not a good one. When I buy a movie ticket, I'm paying not only for the 2 hours of content, I'm paying for the AC, the cushy chair to sit in, the ushers, etc. All that overhead in addition to the movie's production. With games maybe back in the day I'd be paying for distributors and shelf space but no anymore. Bandwidth is negligible. The only thing I'm paying for with DLC in addition to the content is the store (Live!, PSN, Steam, etc) if there is one (and there isn't with Origin and other 1st party sellers). And that's
after buying the original game.
As for blockbuster budgets, that is a development decision, not a necessity. How much did Minecraft pour into voice acting and CGI? Was Oblivion really
that much better for a tutorial featuring Patrick Stewart and repetitive "dialoge" from Linda Carter and Terence Stamp? It's a risk/reward proposition and it's not on the customer to pay for mistakes by studios.
Besides all that, they're different types of entertainment. Expectations are different. Why should I pay $4 for a beer that I'm going to drink in 20 minutes? Why should I pay $80 for a 3 hour baseball game? I guess the point is that people are generally going to be turned off by a 2 hour game that goes for $10. Why on earth would anyone pay $10 to watch a a movie once when they can buy it for the same price (or pirate it for free)? Hell, I can walk to the marina and watch boats for free. We could eventually get the "right" price of entertainment down to zero.
Bottom line: $10 for 2 hours of Harley Quinn seems like a lot to me and apparently to others. Especially after paying $10 for Catwoman's "optional" content (which I know was "free" with a new purchase but the game + DLC purchase was still cheaper used).