The game Enslaved underperformed expectations, and I believe lost money.  Vanquish looks like it also underperformedm as likely did Bayonetta.  What these games have in common is a lack of multiplayer online component, where you can find others and replay with them.   End result is that companies are less inclinded to do single player, high-production experiences.  It looks like a possible situation where they aren't going to break even, and will shy away from doing that.  Some exceptions will manifest themselves, but the norm is to have such games quickly go budget, even if well done.  This is particularly true at $60 a pop.  Alan Wake very likely fell into the same boat.  5 years in development, high production value, but underperforming what people thought, despite "being so good".  Even now, top selling single player only games don't end up reaching the same level as multiplayer.

With this being said, I am interested in seeing what others think could help games get more "bang for the buck" so that they aren't traded in, and don't hit the bargain section faster, and also end up doing much larger sales.  I would say, BESIDES throwing in multiplayer.  Anyone have ideas?  Seems like procedurally generated content in game (like Borderlands) helps some, as does the RPG angle, but anything else?

I personally think a mode outside of the normal story can add a lot of time on.  An example would be spec ops on Modern Warfare 2, Challenge Tower on Mortal Kombat, Road to the Show on MLB 11: The Show, the ability to create your own levels in LittleBigPlanet, Challenge missions in Starcraft 2.

I feel these add a LOT of value towards the games.  In Mortal Kombat, the Challenge Tower has provided me with a LOT of extra hours of content, and I'm still not done with it.  In MLB 11: The Show, rather than the generic franchise that always seems to get old, I feel Road to the Show just provides an additional option that helps provide more value to the game.  In Modern Warfare 2, I took a long time in an attempt to get 3 stars completed on each mission (I never was able to do it), etc.

It is this bonus stuff that often provides me with several hours more time into a game than I usually would have ever put into it, and thus have a feeling that the game has more value to it.

I don't really have anything to add but this makes me think of how much fun I had at the shooting range in Perfect Dark.

Multiplayer is the reason why games are loosing the bang for for buck.

instead of creating a game that rewards you for replaying or mastering a game..just throw in multiplayer

seriously after you beat uncharted and halo and crisis once who plays them again???

but i can play something like sonic the hedgehod over and over gain just trying to find the best way to master each level

basically mutilplyer is a "lazy" way to add value

I would say it depends on how it is added.  If new forms of play are added that are multiplayer (like Modern Warfare added RPG stat building to it and Assassin Creed: Brotherhood assassin tag mode), then it can be valid way to add value.  But I would agree that if merely it is a marketing bulletpoint, where a game ONLY adds modes that were done a dozen of times before, it definitely is the lazy way to add value.

1) Differents paths to choose (Eg.: Mass Effect, inFamous, Heavy Rain)

2) Challenges, extra modes, hard mode, or collectables like items in RPG or star in Mario

3) Just being very long to complete.

4) Being a Sandbox.

5)Just being a very good game also increase replayability. Uncharted is in my mind. A LOT of people replayed Drake's Fortune even if the the game doesn't had many of those things that I cited.

While I agree some developers may treat multiplayer this way, I don't think the majority just 'throw in multiplayer'. The attractive part about multiplayer is competition, and competition can only be enjoyable when relatively balanced. Balancing multiplayer in some games can take years, and some devs take it very very seriously.

When talking about mastery, that in itself should be the reward. For people who care about mastering a game, this is the case. The problem is too few people care about that kind of thing because, as someone said above, games today are about the storytelling experience, not the game. The other problem with this is that usually people try to achieve mastery so they can put their skills to the test against other players (ie. competition). Or perhaps better put, how can you know you've achieved mastery without comparing it to others like yourself? This used to be done with high scores, now it is done with multiplayer.

Not rely on fetch quests to extend gameplay time, because when you replay the game the novelty is lost. That doesn't mean no exploration, it means no "38/50 non-functional doodads for a gold star on your file".

I'm not sure what your point is. What's different about Sonic the Hedgehog that gives you the satisfaction of going back and mastering it, that isn't present in today's games? We'll use Halo, Uncharted and Crysis since they were your examples. I'd actually say that the goals people try to accomplish with Achievements/Trophies in today's gaming far outweigh whatever imaginary means people used to use to replay games back on the Sega Genesis. I'd also say that even with a huge focus on multiplayer, games are meatier now than they were back then on average.

WAY back when, during the early days of computer gaming, you had text adventures.  I don't believe they were lumped in with games, but were put under a category of "interactive fiction".  The idea was to play through and interact with a story.  You figured things out, and you followed the narrative.  This then gave way to graphic adventures.  From there, the genre got absorbed into the action genre, and became action-adventures.  And now, the big deal seems to be that a lot of the game industry wants to make movies, so there is a large focus on story, characters, hiring voice actors and so on.  The idea now is to have interactive fiction under the name of "games".  Well, so it goes.  I believe a leading candidate for budget bloat, and driving the price up, is attempting to make more and more movie-like experiences.  Developers think they are in the storytelling business, and crowds of gamers get all hyped (along with the game news media) over a title like Enslaved, or even Brutal Legend.  Hype train after hype train piles up.