• 116 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for altbotdos
#1 Posted by altbotdos (136 posts) -
Avatar image for mrnitropb
#2 Posted by Mrnitropb (2131 posts) -

I would be hesitant to even spend the $8 to RENT something like that. What is wrong with you people?

Avatar image for zidane_24
#3 Posted by Zidane_24 (750 posts) -

It'd have to be a pretty fucking great game to get full price for 4 hours.

Avatar image for coheedfavorhouse
#4 Posted by CoheedFavorHouse (753 posts) -

any chance we're referencing kane and lynch 2 here? for that four hour campaign, absolutely not. if reach's campaign was only 4 hours. then yes, absolutely, and i'll love every moment of it

Avatar image for jjor64
#5 Posted by JJOR64 (19659 posts) -

Are there upgrades to get?  More difficulties?  Awesome Unlockables?  Multiplayer?
It all depends on the re-playability.

Avatar image for bartok
#6 Posted by bartok (2878 posts) -

It kind of depends. If it is a 4 hour experience that is a solid 5 star experience all the way through then yes.  I would rather play a game that left me wanting more instead of game I get tired of before I am finished.

Avatar image for killerbears
#7 Edited by KillerBears (254 posts) -

Oh boy, this again.
Edit: Yeah, probably should have linked to the myriad of Limbo threads about this. I forgot those were on a game-specific board.

Avatar image for martindn
#8 Posted by MartinDN (133 posts) -

Maybe - If it has multiplayer then sure, and if the single player has replayability like different endings or paths then absoluteley, but not for a straight out single player game.

Avatar image for altbotdos
#9 Edited by altbotdos (136 posts) -

Damn, you guys are MADE. 
That must explain the current trend/health of the games industry. 
Edit: Casual and Motion control gaming, here we come.

Avatar image for tankintheair315
#10 Posted by tankintheair315 (392 posts) -

Sorry, I can get plenty of entrainment from tf2 or fucking minecraft for gods sake. I don't care how good it is, I would never pay 60 dollars for a game that you can play in one sitting.

Avatar image for hot_karl
#11 Edited by Hot_Karl (3321 posts) -

Well, I don't pay $60 for games as is, I wait until they're $30 or lower usually. But let's theoretically say that prices are fixed & will stay at $60 regardless if it's old or not. Would I pay? 
 Maybe. Depends on the game. If the 4 hours is immensely enjoyable (less filler, more killer so to speak), then I'll pay the price. If not, I won't.  
I keep coming back to this, but Max Payne 2, my favorite game, is maybe 5 or 6 hours long max even if you don't know what you're doing. But that's a near-perfect game that doesn't let up and just gave me more enjoyment for those 5 hours than most games do in 20 or 30. I would've gladly paid $60 for that experience.

Avatar image for squirrelgod
#12 Posted by SquirrelGOD (538 posts) -

No.  Under no circumstance.  If the game has AMAZING gameplay and concepts, then they can spend more time lengthening the game.  There is no way that you'll get sick of anything that's done well in only 4 hours.

Avatar image for shiftymagician
#13 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2172 posts) -

No. Seeing as I pay that much for a new game, it better have some good quality and quantity.  Many games achieve this balance, and I see no reason why a developer should even attempt at a short game experience.  Some do it because they want it to be cinematic yet interactive, but that generally does not translate into a game with much choice as far as my experience with short games goes.  I always want more content per dollar so long as the said content has a certain level of acceptable quality.

Avatar image for altbotdos
#14 Posted by altbotdos (136 posts) -
@KillerBears said:
" Oh boy, this again. "
What do you mean? Please explain.
Avatar image for lackingsaint
#15 Posted by LackingSaint (2117 posts) -

Regardless of quality or length, I never have the money to buy anything full-price, so hell no. I will say this though; Quality to me always trumps Quantity, but the publisher needs to keep track of how much of either there is, and charge accordingly.

Avatar image for korwin
#16 Posted by korwin (3751 posts) -

I already did, it's called Gears of War.

Avatar image for meteora
#17 Posted by Meteora (5844 posts) -

If it was the greatest game ever packed into 4 hours, I'd pay for it. 
Call of Duty 4's single player only lasted roughly 6 hours, yet it was one of the best FPS single player experience I've ever played.

Avatar image for shadow
#18 Posted by Shadow (5171 posts) -

It'd have to be at least 10 times better than Kane and Lynch 2

Avatar image for robothamster
#19 Posted by RobotHamster (4242 posts) -

I don't buy games as it is so when I do I'll definitely won't buy it if it's only 4 hours, and I barely play online so that's not really a factor for me.

Avatar image for awesomeusername
#20 Posted by awesomeusername (4590 posts) -

No. Seeming that I go for games solely because of their story, I won't pay $60 for a 4 hour experience. Not even if it had multiplayer because I'm not great in multiplayer games so I wouldn't spend my money on it.

Avatar image for niamahai
#21 Posted by niamahai (1409 posts) -

will have to depend on how 'fun' it is to get the achievements.

Avatar image for apathylad
#22 Posted by Apathylad (3234 posts) -

No, unless it has some form of replayability that will keep me interested, like multiplayer. 

Avatar image for shadyspace
#23 Posted by shadyspace (486 posts) -

Brevity is the soul of wit, right? Who knows? Maybe if someone gave a four hour time limit to Ueda or Suda 51 our minds would blow into the stratosphere.

Avatar image for dukest3
#24 Posted by DukesT3 (2092 posts) -

No. If I know its four hours then i'll rent it and beat it. If I was a pharmacist then I wouldn't give a shit in the first place on what I buy. 

Avatar image for bunkerbuster
#25 Posted by BunkerBuster (1054 posts) -

The price didn't stop me from purchasing Modern Warfare 2 and that only lasted me about 4 hours. I've bought a lot of games at full price that were never completed or were immediately put in to closet.
So if I'm being perfectly honest  I have and I will many many times in the future if, and only if, I want the game in the first place.

Avatar image for 234rqsd2323d2
#26 Posted by 234r2we232 (3175 posts) -

Would probably take me more than 4 hours to beat a "4 hour" game, anyway...

Avatar image for odintal
#27 Posted by odintal (1118 posts) -

Is it an enjoyable 4 hours that I'd want to revisit again and again? 
Other challenges to endure? Multiplayer to sift through? Higher difficulties? Co-op? Branching story? Multiple Endings? 

Avatar image for stealthmaster86
#28 Posted by Stealthmaster86 (737 posts) -

If the game is awesome enough, although I would rent it first.

Avatar image for spazmaster666
#29 Posted by spazmaster666 (2109 posts) -

Depends on the game really. I would have been willing to pay $60 for Portal if it had come out at that price.

Avatar image for dark_jon
#30 Posted by Dark_Jon (596 posts) -

If it gave me a continuous orgasm through the whole thing, YES. Otherwise, NO.

Avatar image for pinworm45
#31 Posted by Pinworm45 (4069 posts) -

I have though, I bought that piece of shit ODST. What a ripoff.

Avatar image for beachthunder
#32 Posted by BeachThunder (14200 posts) -

Quality > Quantity. But I wouldn't pay that much for a game anyway =/

Avatar image for matthew
#33 Posted by Matthew (2150 posts) -
@altbotdos said:
" @KillerBears said:
" Oh boy, this again. "
What do you mean? Please explain. "
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the same type of debate we had with Limbo.  Check out the thread here.
Avatar image for fuzzyponken
#34 Posted by fuzzyponken (683 posts) -

I wouldn't pay 60 dollars for any game. 

Avatar image for azteck
#35 Posted by Azteck (7416 posts) -

Well I bought Modern Warfare 2, didn't I?

Avatar image for altbotdos
#36 Edited by altbotdos (136 posts) -
@Matthew said:

" @altbotdos said:

" @KillerBears said:
" Oh boy, this again. "
What do you mean? Please explain. "
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the same type of debate we had with Limbo.  Check out the thread here. "
Thank you for that. I checked his history and didn't find anything at the month mark (I might have missed something), but I am sure that this was it. 
I guess all I can say, is that it might be on the minds of more than one person. I am just glad that I wasn't beating a dead horse.
Avatar image for wolf_blitzer85
#37 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5364 posts) -

Only if it's a game that I really wanted to play.

Avatar image for leptok
#38 Posted by Leptok (982 posts) -

4 and done? No way, not full console price.

Avatar image for pwnasaurus
#39 Posted by pwnasaurus (1298 posts) -

hell no.

Avatar image for roborobb
#40 Posted by RoboRobb (1090 posts) -

No, seems way too expensive. Limbo was expensive for it's length but it's quality meant it was fully worth it.

Avatar image for mono_listo
#41 Posted by Mono_Listo (439 posts) -

Yes, if it's awesome great. $60 isn't much for four solid hours of entertainment in my opinion.
Plus I can bring it back to Gamestop for credit and be a part of that whole obvious and non-controversy.

Avatar image for tatsurouxiii
#42 Posted by TatsurouXIII (716 posts) -

it would have to be some kind of best game ever, like with the most groundbreaking graphics or something like that. Or if the package included lik 5 bonus discs, a custom controller and a book.

Avatar image for rhombus_of_terror
#43 Posted by Rhombus_Of_Terror (2425 posts) -

No, definately not. The only exception is Call of Duty 4, because that game did not stop for anything.

Avatar image for esrever
#44 Posted by ESREVER (2882 posts) -

Mirror's Edge's campaign was super short, but a lot of fun. I had no problem paying full price for that game. And would do so again for its sequel.

Avatar image for venatio
#45 Posted by Venatio (4712 posts) -

No, that's the main reason I skipped Kane and Lynch 2, and the multiplayer didn't seem compelling

Avatar image for colinryan
#46 Posted by ColinRyan (305 posts) -

Well if I'd pay €100 for an hour with a ho........ You see where this is going

Avatar image for branthog
#47 Posted by Branthog (5773 posts) -

More importantly, if a mediocre four hour game like Kane & Lynch is $60 (before tax), why isn't a game like Halo, Battle Field, Star Craft, Civilization, and Modern Warfare around $1,000? 
Game length isn't everything, but I'm tired of the "eight hour game" becoming the standard. Especially for $60. I make a solid salary and $60 seems like a lot. I can't imagine how it would feel if I were raising a family of four. Or if I were a student. Or if I were a child. How do you justify a game that takes four hours to play it, but ten or fifteen hours (after taxes) to pay for? 
People like to throw around the idea that you can't take price into consideration. It's the "experience". Yeah - look - there are also places you can get a $250 cheeseburger. I'm still going to stick to the $10 range, when I'm stuffing my face. 

Avatar image for jeffsekai
#48 Posted by Jeffsekai (7156 posts) -
@JJOR64 said:
" Are there upgrades to get?  More difficulties?  Awesome Unlockables?  Multiplayer? It all depends on the re-playability. "
Lets say yes, but what ever it is you will be done in 4 hrs.
Avatar image for nforrest2
#49 Posted by nforrest2 (12 posts) -
@Korwin said:
" I already did, it's called Gears of War. "
LOL.....this is exactly what i was thinking!
Avatar image for drpockets000
#50 Posted by DrPockets000 (2877 posts) -

It depends on the game.