loves2splooge said:
For gamers complaining about paying $60 for games with short-lengthed single player campaigns: Subscribe to a service like Gamefly (or rent at Blockbuster or whatever if you feel you can beat the game within the rental period and you don't find yourself renting too many games per month. There are a lot of short but quality single-player games that come out that would justify a rental subscription.
At the end of the day, games are "short" because that is what most gamers actually want. Quality > Quantity. I'd rather play a uber-short but fun game over a long, drawn-out game that isn't fun (or may start out fun but then get boring and tedious later on). Often times completing a long jrpg makes me feel empty in the end. In a "oh man I wasted XX hours of my life on this thing and it wasn't even that great! I would have had more fun playing three shorter but more fun games in that same time than playing this one less fun but much longer game." I can understand the whole bang for your buck thing. But I factor in entertainment and the overall experience in my bang for your buck equation. Time is also more valuable than money. What's the point of spending money on entertainment if you aren't enjoying it? The whole point of spending money on entertainment is to entertain yourself.
If I had only $60 to spend and I had to choose between spending it on a quality, fun 10 hour game or a 60 hour epic jrpg that bores me to tears, I'd spend the $60 on the quality, fun 10 hour game and make up the 50 hour difference by spending 50 hours looking at free porn on the internet. $60 spent, 60 hours entertained. There you go.
|
