This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why do some "complain" about $60 games that lasted 6 hours or less?

Back To: Board List | Topic List | Topic Archived
Page 1 of 5 | Next | Last
zaiwen
Posted 2/3/2013 3:35:53 PM
Yet some justify shelling out the premium, just to play multiplayer?
---
GT & PSN: zaiwen3
StarGoy
Posted 2/3/2013 3:49:28 PM
Because those could be the opinions of two separate groups of people.
Limp_sugar
Posted 2/3/2013 3:53:31 PM
Different strokes I guess.
---
Support your developer. Buy new.
Famished_Corpse
Posted 2/3/2013 3:55:32 PM
What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?
---
Darkness unfolds upon the earth, Each day another loss -
Hunted each and everyone, All the bodies left to rot in the sun
sockesocke
Posted 2/3/2013 3:57:21 PM
for 60 a year you can play as much multiplayer as you want in all the games you own. 60 bucks for a 6 hour campain is usually a bad deal unless the game is exceptional.
---
MotiJr:Sony copied George Foreman grills with their playstation 3 design.
http://backloggery.com/sockesocke
bluehat94
Posted 2/3/2013 3:59:02 PM

(edited)
StarGoy posted...
Because those could be the opinions of two separate groups of people.


This.

TC, what you need to understand it this, there are people who are predominantly MP players and people who are predominantly SP players.

Those who mostly play SP find it hard or impossible to justify games that are that short and that are of that quality in the SP mode. A Quality SP experience can be as long or a short as it needs to be, but it's also such an experience that even if it's short, you'll want to play it again just to go through it all again. The games that you're referring to are both short and not really replayable at all.

Those who mostly play MP find it way easier to justify, because they'll be pouring hundreds of hours into that mode, and feel the elite subscription is worth it because they get tons more content for the mode that they'll be playing by far the most of.
---
"So my lunch today involved both a noodle packet and a sauce packet....so yeah, things are going pretty well for me."
knightimex
Posted 2/3/2013 5:12:00 PM
Because people base value on stupid things.
Time of a game is dumb to price.

Base price on fun, quality, and experience.
---
Old School Games FTW!
rockyoumonkeys
Posted 2/3/2013 7:58:47 PM
knightimex posted...
Because people base value on stupid things.
Time of a game is dumb to price.

Base price on fun, quality, and experience.


One would think. But there are a surprising number of people out there who would rather play a mediocre 50 hour game than an excellent 10 hour game.

I guess when they have that much time to fill in their empty lives, they have to start looking at quantity over quality.
---
Formerly Known As: boingboingboing
Now Reading: Great North Road, P. Hamilton
CyricsServant
Posted 2/3/2013 8:01:16 PM
bluehat94 posted...
StarGoy posted...
Because those could be the opinions of two separate groups of people.


This.

TC, what you need to understand it this, there are people who are predominantly MP players and people who are predominantly SP players.

Those who mostly play SP find it hard or impossible to justify games that are that short and that are of that quality in the SP mode. A Quality SP experience can be as long or a short as it needs to be, but it's also such an experience that even if it's short, you'll want to play it again just to go through it all again. The games that you're referring to are both short and not really replayable at all.

Those who mostly play MP find it way easier to justify, because they'll be pouring hundreds of hours into that mode, and feel the elite subscription is worth it because they get tons more content for the mode that they'll be playing by far the most of.


Bluehat94 nailed it.
Erupt50
Posted 2/3/2013 8:02:03 PM
A 6 hour campaign lasts you 6 hours. A year if multiplayer lasts....well, a hell of a lot longer than that.
---
PSN- Erupt50 XBL- Erupt50
Jump to Page: 1  2  3  4  5  
Page 1 of 5 | Next | Last