I was recently reading an article about '15 cancelled PS3 Games' (it was shockingly written, so I'm not going to link it here), and one of the things that struck me was a very promising game called "Eight Days" had been cancelled about 3 years into its development.  I researched the subject to find that Shuhei Yoshida, President of Sony WWS, had said that the fact the game didn't have an online mode was "part of the consideration" in cancelling it.  To me, this seemed like a really silly move, but it got me thinking about the price of games these days relative to their length.

I've seen a few series such Uncharted, Bioshock & Assassin's Creed add multi-player modes to their later installments which would definitely extent the lifespan of the game if you had any interest in playing them.  On the flip side, games like Heavy Rain and Super Mario Galaxy can retail at full price with just a single player mode.  And multi-player centric experiences like Call of Duty and Battlefield seem to add a short campaign simply so they can sell the game at full price.

So what's the value of a game to you?  Are you happy to pay full price for a 8-12 hour campaign if the quality is good enough or will you wait for it to drop in price?  Is a short game with lots of replay value worth the cost?  Do you want a game to have some kind of online mode to keep you coming back or does that not interest you?  How many hours playtime do you require before you feel the game should give before it has repaid the cost?

If it is a must have game then I'll pay a full price but lately I've been more willing to wait till there is a drop on Amazon on the new game price. Most Nintendo published games I go ahead and drop the full price because they usually retain their value for awhile (aka no price drop or very little drop). Online mode for most genres makes sense but some genres it isn't really needed. I've been having more fun with single player games lately than online.

That it is fun to play

Contrary to the publisher's/developer's perception of gamers, I do not have a specific list of features that are required for me to buy a game. All I want from a game is to entertain me for a significant period of time. How that is achieved is up to the developers.

That's what I'm trying to ask here though.  What's a "significant period of time" for you?

For example: I bought Portal 2 at full price.  And loved it, it was a really good game.  But the single-player campaign took me about 7 hours, and the co-op mode took me and a friend about 3 hours.  That was the whole game, completed in 3 sittings, and there was no incentive for me to go back and replay since the game is puzzle-based and I knew how to solve all the puzzles.  I felt slightly ripped off.

The perputual testing initiative thing (level editor) added plenty of reason to come back but that was only added a couple of months ago.  Had I waited for the game to drop to ~£15 (or less than that, in Steam sales) I'd still have gotten the fantastic game I got, but at a much more reasonable price.

So how much content does an experience have to offer you to be worth £40?  Is it a case of quality over everything else, or is there a certain amount of quantity you expect?

A good time

Would you pay £40 for a 'fun to play' experience that lasted 2 hours, then?

For me a game needs to be not less of a game than the previous games. Make it better or make it as good  if you are not able to then dont do it at all.

It should be long enough at least 15-20 hours (singleplayer) Should have no annoyingl bugs and should have good controlls/gameplay and at least average story. In terms of graphics is should run at least at 30fps all the time and not drop below that! And it should have nice appealing design (as long as the design is okay the game can have archiaic graphics)

I want a complete game. If i know that a game is likely to get DLC i will not buy it untill its either GOTY or untill its like 2 bucks.

I dont care about most multiplayer games because
1. they wont let me make my own server so the game loses 40% of the worth when those idiots decide to close the servers (i miss the old times where everyone could make his/her own server especially on PC) but they wont give back 40% of the price I payed after they close the servers (the other players offer the fun not the game its just giving me the infrastructure but the most fun is because of other players Why dont we get paid? Maintaining a community that lures new players? This system is faulty....)

2. I dont feel any need to compete against anyone. I play with friends only.

If you make normal multiplayer that i can still enjoy in 10 years because its up to me if there is a server or not I will buy multiplayer games again.

Untill then they should sell games for 30 new and add 30 for the MP part. So the game still costs 60 if you buy the whole packade.


P.S. We need seperate RATINGS for singleplayer/multiplayer and complete package. For example I have no Idea how good kid icarus is because the % thing is for the complete thing. I will never play its multiplayer because of the ugly controlls.


Thats it. ;)

If it was three years in development, I promise you it wasn't cancelled just because it didn't have multiplayer, you can cheaply tack on multiplayer to any game just to have it on the back of the box.  It was cancelled because it 1) wasn't fun and/or 2) it just didn't work.

Personally, provide me with 6-ish hours of enjoying, preferably at least 8, and I'm happy.  I don't care if it's good multiplayer, a long single player campaign, or a short single player game played through multiple times, as long as I'm getting about that out of the game I'm generally happy.

I would rather have a good game without online multiplayer than a bad game with it. I guess that I'd rather have a good game than a bad game. How does that sound?