So certain people (IGN comments thread people, so that should pretty much sum up this post) were whining about the recently discovered length of MGS: Ground Zeroes, claiming it to be a ripoff.
Story from IGN
I thought I'd give my thoughts on the issue.
That two hours is a straight charge up the main gate of the main story thread. It isn't designed to be played that way. They want you to take your time and look at your surroundings. Also, MGS has always been short. MGS4 was like... seven hours and that had no sidequests and the like. (Well, technically 10+ hours with the cut-scenes included, some of which were and hour or longer)
This is some crazy high quality production. It costs muchos dollars to create. So I think $40 for the retail, next-gen copy is reasonable. Maybe not great, but I would buy it digital anyways, so that would bring it down 25% to $30 right there.
Now if the main game is as much bigger as they say (and we'll assume by 100x bigger they mean 10x), yes, it seems like a bad deal. But, if we're going to go along that thinking, then any game of MGS Ground Zeroes's length and quality (and we'll count quality as production value for now) should be $6 dollars. Assuming MGS:PP is going to be the standard $60 price tag.
Now, apply that scale to other games and a title like FTL, whose main campaign lasts maybe 45 minutes and has a fraction of the production value, should be priced at... oh... maybe a few cents. And the time I've enjoyed that game has gone well beyond the time of one playthrough and more than legitimatized its $10.00 price to me.
To take it even further, if gameplay time and production value are the only important factors in "worth" than pretty much every game should be in the single digits of dollars, or less, compared to a game like Skyrim with it's playtime of "until you get bored."
So maybe instead of whining about Ground Zeroes costing $40 retail, people should be glad that Phantom Pain isn't going to be $400 dollars... or $4000 dollars if their claim of game size is true.
So what then would be a "ripoff"? Simply whatever does not meet your own expectations which can not be judged objectively.
If that's the case, why did I even bring this up? Because I wish people would keep their whining to themselves on such incredibly subjective topics. Stating, "That's too expensive for my budget," is perfectly reasonable. Acting like someone has stolen your life savings over an investment you have not yet made, is not.
Story from IGN
I thought I'd give my thoughts on the issue.
That two hours is a straight charge up the main gate of the main story thread. It isn't designed to be played that way. They want you to take your time and look at your surroundings. Also, MGS has always been short. MGS4 was like... seven hours and that had no sidequests and the like. (Well, technically 10+ hours with the cut-scenes included, some of which were and hour or longer)
This is some crazy high quality production. It costs muchos dollars to create. So I think $40 for the retail, next-gen copy is reasonable. Maybe not great, but I would buy it digital anyways, so that would bring it down 25% to $30 right there.
Now if the main game is as much bigger as they say (and we'll assume by 100x bigger they mean 10x), yes, it seems like a bad deal. But, if we're going to go along that thinking, then any game of MGS Ground Zeroes's length and quality (and we'll count quality as production value for now) should be $6 dollars. Assuming MGS:PP is going to be the standard $60 price tag.
Now, apply that scale to other games and a title like FTL, whose main campaign lasts maybe 45 minutes and has a fraction of the production value, should be priced at... oh... maybe a few cents. And the time I've enjoyed that game has gone well beyond the time of one playthrough and more than legitimatized its $10.00 price to me.
To take it even further, if gameplay time and production value are the only important factors in "worth" than pretty much every game should be in the single digits of dollars, or less, compared to a game like Skyrim with it's playtime of "until you get bored."
So maybe instead of whining about Ground Zeroes costing $40 retail, people should be glad that Phantom Pain isn't going to be $400 dollars... or $4000 dollars if their claim of game size is true.
So what then would be a "ripoff"? Simply whatever does not meet your own expectations which can not be judged objectively.
If that's the case, why did I even bring this up? Because I wish people would keep their whining to themselves on such incredibly subjective topics. Stating, "That's too expensive for my budget," is perfectly reasonable. Acting like someone has stolen your life savings over an investment you have not yet made, is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment