After much has been said about PlayStation’s hotly anticipated title The Order 1886 and its short playtime and limited gameplay, it got me pondering what attributes a game needs nowadays to warrant its full retail price. I asked around my friends and on the internet to hear people views on the matter and determine what people want for their bucks.
Games are not as simple as they used to be. People want more content, more fluid gameplay, beautiful graphics and a top-notch multiplayer experience, but we all know that every game won’t have all these qualities.
I took to the online community and some of my friends to see their opinions on the matter. I had some great responses and from looking at people’s thoughts it really showed how someone’s opinion or situation may be completely different to another, showing the diversity on how we spend our money.
“When I pay £54.99 for a game I firstly expect the game to be playable for a long time. Whether that's via addictive multiplayer which keeps you coming back for more or a single player campaign that you can play through several times. In the case of single player games with no online content the game should be quite lengthy but not so long that the game becomes boring. There needs to be a reason to replay the games time and time again. New available weapons or unlockable difficulties for example. “
“I also expect not to have to buy additional game modes / maps or any other content. When you spend that amount of money you should expect the full contents of a game and you shouldn't have to spend a further £30/40 in downloadable content. I think graphics shouldn't be as important as game content or gameplay but developers should take time to make a game look good. Especially on PS4 / XBO. For me gameplay is the most vital part of gaming. I'd rather play a game with good gameplay that hasn't got such good graphics than a boring game that has the best graphics ever.”
Josh Roberts makes a good point about additional content that isn’t included within the retail package. Turtle Rock Studio’s Evolve retailed for around 49.99, but from launch you could also spend around 75 pounds to get all the additional DLC. There are two ways to see this type of content. One is they have intentionally left it out of the retail package so they can grab more cash from consumers that have already spent 50 pound buying Evolve, or they are just providing more variety for the player to choose from if their having a fun experience and ways to expand it with additional content. I would hope to think it is the later, but this sort of DLC has been tarnished with introduction of micro-transactions.
“Multiplayer is not a must, far too many games have it shoehorned in when its not needed, diluting the single player experience because they think they can sell DLC further down the line.”
“Would rather have a strong single player experience, The Metro Redux package is a perfect example of single player done right, bought them both on Xbox 360 and own them again now.”
“Length of single player games has been a hot topic recently and that's a difficult one to answer, i would rather have 6 hours of awesome then 10 hours of drawn out game, but were at a point now where we may not have 12 hours of awesome single player I mean if you’re playing an RPG you’re getting more bang for your buck regardless.”
There are special games out there, Bioshock Infinite only had around 10- 15 hours single player experience; however the story of that game was so immersive and was able to keep you on your toes till the very end. It was the whole package and if they announced that it would be coming onto the next generation consoles remastered, I would happily pay the full retail price for it.
“Gotta be an in-depth storyline with a good replay value and at least 100hours of gameplay for full completion. The last game I truly enjoyed was Skyrim for those reasons. This is why I'm so looking forward to eso”
“I mean I don't have Xbox live so all those games that are devoted to online be rubbish to me, I enjoy games with a good single player and maybe special games.”
We also got the perceptive from people who don’t have online and solely have only single player experiences. The retail price doesn’t necessary have to mean quantity, if the quality is in place then the retail price is justified. With The Order 1886 both the length and the quality wasn’t there. Yes, graphically it’s stunning, but if you look at the gameplay it seems more like an interactive movie, than your normal video game experience.
From my friends and the online community, I gathered a lot of different opinions, but having a lengthy and in depth story appeared to be up there. The Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age and Fallout series are perfect examples on how you can create an atmosphere and create and engrossing story, while providing hundreds of hours extra gameplay through compiling side quest and collectibles.
With the introduction of the next generation consoles, we have also seen more and more online only games hitting the market. The Crew, Titanfall and Destiny provide endless gameplay but contents updates are needed to keep the gameplay fresh. The Multiplayer experience on a whole will also sometimes affect a person choice whether to purchase a game or not. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had a very short single player campaign, roughly reaching the same length as The Order 1886, but it was the addictive and tight multiplayer that made the game and revolutionise how FPS shooters are made today.
Then is it our fault that some developers will seem to tack on Multiplayer because they think we want it. So many games come out with a good campaign, but then add on an unneeded multiplayer. Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 3 had this problem and it always jolted my overall experience of the game. Assassin Creed Unity tried to incorporate co-op, but instead of it feeling like intertwined with the games story and feel, it felt like they would use some unwanted side missions for their gimmick.
Fellow editor “Leeboy” had some interesting views on this subject and wanted to share them.
Every new generation of video game consoles brings with it new technology, new ideas and of course new expectations. When we jump into a new era we automatically expect that the newest additions to our games collection will be better because they are the latest to come out. Over the last year we have seen games come out which have had shall we say “problems” upon their release.
Assassins Creed: Unity among other games were released with some very buggy content showing that during testing, things can get missed or that developers are not being given the time to properly test their creations before they are released. This can be for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons we assume is that publishers are pushing the developers to release these games to a certain date. With franchises such as Assassins Creed and Call of Duty, the publishers want them to be released around a certain window normally during a certain week of a month.
Games are obviously going to become more complex and far more in depth in this current era of gaming, but we are expecting these games to exceed our expectations but they are using the same amount of development time as the previous generation. We cannot expect more content and better games if we do not give the developers enough time to show us what they can truly deliver.
What I do expect though is “at least” the same quality and the same amount of content as we were previously getting and I expect it to only have very minor bugs which can be fixed very quickly. We cannot keep having buggy games released without being finished with the intention of fixing them later. In earlier generations if a game was bugged, it was bugged for life because of being unable to patch it.
In terms of price, we are very fortunate I think to not have games cost more than they do now. Since the era of Playstation, N64 and Sega Saturn video games have been kept at relatively the same price, but the cost of development has gone up far more. It was always expected that there would be an increase in the price and I think we have been very lucky for it not to have happened sooner. But if the content of games being released now isn’t as satisfactory as games that have previously been released at a lower price, it is very hard to see the justification of putting them up now.
To sum up my opinion, if we continue to sell games at the current price then I expect games to be of at least the same quality we have been having up until this current generation and they should be fully working. One final point, if the developer has made content before a games release then it should be included within the main price of the game and not as DLC which can be purchased from launch especially if the content is gameplay orientated.
From all the opinions we have gathered including from our own editors we can see that everyone has a different idea about what they expect from a game but the main thing I think we can take away from this is quality over quantity always comes first. You might get a 100+hour game, but without a great story or exciting gameplay the price tag becomes meaningless. Video games have become an expensive hobby nowadays with the amount of releases all year round so for the consumer it is right to get great value for their money. I personally love a great experience and something that will keep me engaged for a long time. The story has to be rich and exciting and something that can be talk about at a water cooler.
