#1 Posted by altbotdos (123 posts) -
#2 Posted by Mrnitropb (2090 posts) -

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

#3 Posted by Zidane_24 (742 posts) -

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

#4 Posted by CoheedFavorHouse (670 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

#5 Posted by JJOR64 (19109 posts) -

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

#6 Posted by bartok (2605 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.

#7 Edited by KillerBears (248 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.

#8 Posted by MartinDN (127 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.

#9 Edited by altbotdos (123 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.

#10 Posted by tankintheair315 (352 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.

#11 Edited by Hot_Karl (3309 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.

#12 Posted by SquirrelGOD (507 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.

#13 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2140 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.

#14 Posted by altbotdos (123 posts) -
@KillerBears said:
" Oh boy, this again. "
What do you mean? Please explain.
#15 Posted by LackingSaint (1890 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.

#16 Posted by Korwin (3179 posts) -

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

#17 Posted by Meteora (5790 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.

#18 Posted by Shadow (4988 posts) -

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

#19 Posted by RobotHamster (4179 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.

#20 Posted by awesomeusername (4278 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.

#21 Posted by niamahai (1394 posts) -

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

#22 Posted by Apathylad (3067 posts) -

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

#23 Posted by shadyspace (455 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.

#24 Posted by DukesT3 (1956 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. 

#25 Posted by BunkerBuster (1042 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.

#26 Posted by 234r2we232 (3181 posts) -

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

#27 Posted by odintal (1095 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? 

#28 Posted by Stealthmaster86 (702 posts) -

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

#29 Posted by spazmaster666 (2008 posts) -

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

#30 Posted by Dark_Jon (581 posts) -

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

#31 Posted by Pinworm45 (4088 posts) -

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

#32 Posted by BeachThunder (12730 posts) -

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

#33 Posted by Matthew (1918 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.
#34 Posted by fuzzyponken (694 posts) -

I wouldn't pay 60 dollars for any game. 

#35 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

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

#36 Edited by altbotdos (123 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.
#37 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5307 posts) -

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

#38 Posted by Leptok (942 posts) -

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

#39 Posted by pwnasaurus (1286 posts) -

hell no.

#40 Posted by RoboRobb (1055 posts) -

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

#41 Posted by Mono_Listo (428 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.

#42 Posted by TatsurouXIII (652 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.

#43 Posted by Rhombus_Of_Terror (2178 posts) -

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

#44 Posted by ESREVER (2719 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.

#45 Posted by Venatio (4495 posts) -

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

#46 Posted by ColinRyan (295 posts) -

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

#47 Posted by Branthog (5613 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. 

#48 Posted by Jeffsekai (7060 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.
#49 Posted by nforrest2 (10 posts) -
@Korwin said:
" I already did, it's called Gears of War. "
LOL.....this is exactly what i was thinking!
#50 Posted by DrPockets000 (2859 posts) -

It depends on the game.