By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What features do you expect from a full-priced game these days?

Tagged games:

 

What features do you expect from a full-priced game these days?

Short, quality single-player. 0 0%
 
Short, replayable single-player. 2 9.09%
 
Lengthy single-player. 13 59.09%
 
Extra single-player features. 1 4.55%
 
Some multi-player functionality. 0 0%
 
Some online functionality. 0 0%
 
Full online functionality. 2 9.09%
 
Other. 4 18.18%
 
Total:22
twesterm said:

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.


See, I do understand that because it seems to be the model games are taking at the moment - loads of 8 or so hour single-player games sell millions of copies each year at full price

But an 8 hour game with no replayability is going to be completed in two, possibly three sittings for me.  If I had the money I'm sure I could justify it better, but for that price it would have be giving me at least a fortnight worth of play.  

So generally I only buy RPG's/games I'm buying for the multi-player at full price (unless my hype levels are really high for it) and otherwise I wait for the inevitable £20 a few months later sale.

I'd agree with Kowenicki too, a bolted-on MP isn't going to be a selling point at all, I'd treat such as game as a single-player experience that I may have a go at the online with.



Around the Network
JazzB1987 said:

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. ;)


Thanks for this reply, was really interesting.  I agree with pretty much everything you say, especially the part about separating ratings for games into single/multi-player and possibly even selling them at separate prices for the two components.  That would be an interesting idea.



Kresnik said:
Nevermore said:
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?

 

Really? Your poll only inquires about different types of features, only marginally implying its length. A game with short single player and some online functionality might entertain me just as long as a single player game with lengthy campaign. As long as any combination of these things produce engough content to warrant its price I'm fine with that.

Maybe I should've mentioned that it takes into account the amount of money I spent versus the amount of time that I get. A very tangible comparison that I always do is, after I finish the game and know how much time I spent on it, I estimate how much money I would have spent if I were doing something else for the same amount of time, like going to the pub or watching movies. If the game comes out as the more efficient option, then I'm satisfied.

Let's take a 60€ euro game for example. If i would go to the movies with that budget, assuming each movie lasts for 2 hours costing 7€ a ticket, the price/hour ratio is at 3.50€/h. Thus, with that budget I can expect to be entertained for about 17 hours and if a 60€ game doesn't last that long I feel that I didn't get my money's worth. Not many games last that long, which is why I never buy games at that price range. Plus, the whole 60$=60€ thing is beyond retarded. They should use proper currency exchange rates such that new releases are valued exactly the same as in the US market, which would be at 48€ (hooray for UK Amazon). With the adjusted budget, going to the movies would entertain me for roughly 13.5 hours which is a more reasonable expectation to have from a game.

While I do have expectations regarding the quantity of a game, given its price, I don't differentiate between the different kinds of things that a game can contain in order to achieve that, be it campaigns, multiplayer, coop, level editors or anything else. I know that the developers cringe at this mentality. They want the quality to outshine the quantity aspect of the game, but I see that as an excuse to be lazy, allowing them to maker shorter and shorter games, until we all have to pay 100$ so that we can play the newest 'You have to cut the rope'.



Nevermore said:

Really? Your poll only inquires about different types of features, only marginally implying its length. 


I had to hack my poll down because half the text wasn't showing up due to the game I attached taking up most of the space at the top.  I've tried to remove it, but it won't let me.  Otherwise, the poll answers would have been much more in-depth than they are currently.  I was hoping people would read the text in the OP for clarification but it seems that isn't the case.

Thanks for the reply anyway :P



Kresnik said:
Nevermore said:

Really? Your poll only inquires about different types of features, only marginally implying its length. 


I had to hack my poll down because half the text wasn't showing up due to the game I attached taking up most of the space at the top.  I've tried to remove it, but it won't let me.  Otherwise, the poll answers would have been much more in-depth than they are currently.  I was hoping people would read the text in the OP for clarification but it seems that isn't the case.

Thanks for the reply anyway :P


Oh, my bad. I read the first paragraph and given the poll figured how the rest would go. ;)

On a sidenote, I also bought Portal 2 full price and even though I love the game, I feel kinda cheated. Especially because I didn't even play the coop, just the single player.



Around the Network

Most of the times I compare my purchases of video games to movies. Granted I don't go to the movie theater anymore but I like to compare them. If a movie cost around 10 dollars to see at a movie theater for about 2 hours entertainment then if I can get at least 5 dollars (or less) per hour of gaming in for the game I bought then I feel like I came out ahead. So for a 40 dollar game I hope I to play it/have a good time for at least 8 hours. If I don't get at least 8-10 hours out of a $40 game then perhaps it wasn't worth it.



Nevermore said:

Oh, my bad. I read the first paragraph and given the poll figured how the rest would go. ;)

On a sidenote, I also bought Portal 2 full price and even though I love the game, I feel kinda cheated. Especially because I didn't even play the coop, just the single player.


It seems you have pretty much the same mentality as me regarding pricing.   I'd be okay with an 18-ish hour campaign but anything less and I do feel kinda cheated, yeah - even with something as thrilling as Portal 2.  I liked the comparison to other forms of entertainment thing you did in your other post :)



From a full price game I expect at least 8 to 10 hours of fun, doesn't matter if it's on SP or MP. I usually don't even try out the multiplayer.



Game of the year 2017 so far:

5. Resident Evil VII
4. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
3. Uncharted: The Lost Legacy
2. Horizon Zero Dawn
1. Super Mario Odyssey

Short, replayable single-player.
But that's not the whole truth :P
I love games that are quite short but challenging. Coming back to lengthy games never works for me so I need to sit down and have a shot at finishing it within 3 days max. Otherwise it won't be an awesome game to me, just "good".
I love it even more when those short games make me have to try dozens of times to finish them or go for highscores/time attacks that demand precision and memorization of small, fast movements.

Sounds a lot like arcade games, right?
On the other hand, I love games that are like Mario. "Mission" based and not story driven. That way it's always easy to dive into it.

But I'm also into couch co-op and will buy games just because they offer this.



If I play the game long enough to justify the purchase price, then I'm happy. I buy aboult half of my games used, so usually I'm happy.



 Been away for a bit, but sneaking back in.

Gaming on: PS4, PC, 3DS. Got a Switch! Mainly to play Smash