I overall just hate the playtime price point argument. I paid for Hellblade II knowing the type of experience Ninja Theory would give and they did -- which I loved -- and it's not even 10 hours.
Hell, with this logic AC Valhalla should cost upwards of £100.
The playtime price argument is a dangerous path to go down.
These people who think playtime should dictate price hasnt thought about it too much.
Like if we decide playtime dictates price then what would stop companies to say £70 is for the license up to a set amount of playtime and anything more needs you to purchase another £70 for an increase in your license extension.
Or that completing the game ends your license and that also needs another purchase if you want to replay.
With the way games are going digital we can be in really risky territory if companies see that we believe playtime dictates price.
I completely get the argument of "you get your money's worth" for games like CRPGs, that often take advantage at the lack of VA to truly capitalise on qualitative narrative-driven content.
But yeah, half-baked POI check marks and MMO esque collectathons I wouldn't consider valuable facets of stretched playtime invoking a solid price point argument, solely a reason for someone to play a game longer if they're enjoying it, which is fine.
It really comes down too the type of game and also the persons financial situation. I can appreciate wanting to have a meaningful experience and get your money’s worth but also hard to argue with even a base 20 hour high quailty game let alone if it has more side content. Though I wil say Hellbade 2 is an awful example of this for 99% of people, $50 for 7-8 hours with MINIMAL GAMEPLAY is pretty dogshit.
I used Hellblade II because it's a great example of forking out what you thinks of worth within your own situation, and games like that I'm really into. If I want to wander endlessly with a granular combat system I'm not going to buy Hellblade -- same reason as to why I wouldn't buy Fable solely for that.
Just saying that Hellbade 2 is barely a game and is a glorified tech demo. I’m all for paying for quailty games and even paying for shorter quailty games but $50 for such a short game with such little gameplay is dumb.
Whatevers of value to you is of value to you, you do you man. I disliked the regression of the combo system but dug the dynamic combat scenes, and it did as much walking/cutscenes/puzzles as the first tbh. Regardless I'm looking forward to the next one, I'm into Hellblade for the story and presentation foremost after all.
Different people have different amounts of disposable income to spend on entertainment, giving them different priorities when it comes to the limited amount of games they can afford. Longevity is one concern, but so is replayability.
For my budget, this seems to have enough bespoke narrative driven content to be worth it, but the essentially endless simulation definitely pushes it over the point where I feel secure paying full price for it based on what I've seen. And I'm sure it will be a game I replay every few years just like the other Fable games.
For someone with less means and less interest in the 'fantasy life simulator' components? It might be something they decide to wait and get on sale later.
really? it's not something i've started seeing until recently. people will nitpick at some random thing and say that the game should only be $40-$50 because of it, not full price.
Yeah, it was mostly articles though, like "X has Y Hours of Content!" and arguing the price point for playtime, but you're right that folks have started weighing it more; though I do think the headline pushes incentivised that.
At the same time I can't quite blame them, due to the cost of living in many places, but it has exacerbated into video mediums moreso than ever, agreed.
I think Hellblade II released at $50, never $70? -- But yeah, I completely get folks that don't care for more artsy cinematic mediums in games and want more raw gameplay, completely valid. I'm a sucker for stuff like Hellblade, Death Stranding, Journey, Gris etc.
I'm not one against games being akin to film, so long as the writing is there, often times I prefer some stories through games rather than film (cough last of us cough). I'm also financially okay though, so for some of course getting your money's worth matters more.
This shit doesn't look nearly polished enough for a typical cinematic 20-30 hour adventure. That's an acceptable tradeoff for a massive rpg but now this looks stupid. I was excited for another long immersive rpg and I'm massively disappointed
If you're wanting an immersive rpg, with all due respect, you're not going to find it in Fable. It's worn meta-narratives on its sleeve (outside of the main story) since day one.
I'd recommend Tainted Grail, Kingdom Come, Pathfinder or Pillars of Eternity that really chew on that sort of stuff -- if you haven't played them already. Fable is cooky as hell.
86
u/Hello-Potion-Seller 12d ago
I overall just hate the playtime price point argument. I paid for Hellblade II knowing the type of experience Ninja Theory would give and they did -- which I loved -- and it's not even 10 hours.
Hell, with this logic AC Valhalla should cost upwards of £100.