Support NeoGAF

[kaching]

Wow people are defending these practices??

Which "practices" do you refer to? Short games? $60 pricing? $60 pricing for short games? None of this is new at least, the market has long since generally accepted the fairness of this kind of transaction, going on 4 generations now. And it has gotten increasingly defensible from the standpoint that price for premium releases hasn't budged now in about 4 generations of hardware yet the overall quality of the content, at least on the audiovisual front, has increased dramatically.

So these practices are well established, haven't been rejected wholesale by consumers over the years and meanwhile the price:content ratio has only improved over time. Nothing "wow" about it if you've paid attention at all.

That said, the launch window is such a critical sales period for your game, I feel strongly that the ASP would hold higher if these single player experiences would swallow the pill and launch at $40 out of the door.

The launch window has been hyped and compressed into such ridiculously slim period of time, an AAA game practically fails if it doesn't warrant midnight (freaking MINUTE 1, nvm Day 1) openings for its release at this point. This is race-to-the-bottom business behavior that lower initial pricing isn't going to cure. Set the new normal at $40 and you'd still have people come out of the woodwork to bitch about short SP-only games selling for that much when they can get some MP/Open-World/RPG grindathon that lasts them much longer for the same price.

Changing pricing isn't going to help as long as it's conflated with ridiculously front-loaded launch window marketing practices that can massacre a game's relevance to the customer base within days of release.

 

[Apathy]

His post may be vindictive, but in a certain way I agree with him. We've seen game value tumble down a hole the past 10 years, and having these super short and expensive games sell well only encourages more.

Don't like it don't buy it, but to actively root for it to fail, that's some childishness. "Game value" is in the eye of the beholder. You think it's tumbled down cause lengths have become shorter. Personally if i get a great game for a few hours I'm good. Game length had nothing to do with my enjoyment of a game, otherwise i would hate journey. So the real problem people have is cost not length. OK let's look back historically. Accounting for inflation, we used to pay more for games in the NES era than we do today.

 

[FF Seraphim]

So my best bet is to play this at the highest difficulty to get the most out of the game and to ensure I do not beat it on one sitting. Hmm that is fine by me!

 

[The_Dama]

5 hours? 50% are cut-scenes? ahhahahahahahahha

 

[Frillen]

If you look at it from a logical perspective, they very well could.

Add in a harder difficulty - X amount of extra time
Add in further exploration and exposition - X amount of extra time
Add in all the readable articles, posters etc - X amount of time
Add in the collectible items and moveables - X amount of extra time
Add in differences in combat and gameplay approach - X amount of time
Add in potentially attempting specific trophy tasks - X amount of time

And so on.

Stretchin' it.

You can make these points about most short games, doesn't make them longer in some ways though. But you're in a defensive stance right now, so no matter what you're being told you're going to defend this title like your life depended on it.

Edit: My copy has shipped! I might have it Wednesday!!

 

[GeordieMark]

Define "large chunk". Or is it just exaggeration on your part.

Even the GAF members who have played the game say that the game is heavy on cut-scenes.

I'm only speaking based on what those who have played the game have said.

 

[MrxDemix]

The concern stems from the price of the game. I don't think any of this hooplah would exist if The Order: 1886 were $39.99. That price point might give consumers a lower perceived value, but given how short-lived the game is it could be for the best.

Even the GAF members who have played the game say that the game is heavy on cut-scenes.

I'm only speaking based on what those who have played the game have said.

It's >40% cutscene assuming you don't walk around staring at furniture and walls. You can quote me on that.

 

[Cavalier]

He would buy it again too lol. Hopefully the squeal is much longer since now they dont have to spend a very long time making the engine.

Yep this was my thought as well. Hopefully they include a decent multiplayer in for all these cry-babies as well. This is the best looking game I've ever seen so far this gen.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I dunno, I guess I'm lucky. Games take me forever to complete lol. I'm almost always more than double the average playtime.

I think if they pack in enough substance to warrant another playthrough, it's more than worth the price. Doubly so if people are going to possibly loan this to a friend. For those on the fence about the games length, just buy it at a discount or rent it.

I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed by the lack of multi-player. I mean the people on Gaf know it doesn't have it, but I think a ton of the laymen might not be aware.

The concern stems from the price of the game. I don't think any of this hooplah would exist if The Order: 1886 were $39.99. That price point might give consumers a lower perceived value, but given how short-lived the game is it could be for the best.

Yeah I think that could have been a good idea as well. From what I've heard the team working on the Order was pretty small. I don't imagine the production costs were anywhere near astronomical.

 

[Ishan]

No, but they have Santa Monica.

ssm just helps with production.

 

[CozMick]

Pre-ordered
£49.99
Digital Download
Day One
5 hour gameplay

TAKE THAT "ANTI-CONSUMER" GAF

 

[LightofRohan]

Is there a reason why people were comparing this to the Last of Us length? Nd were wayyy established before making that game. They had like 3 triple A hits under their belt before making that and an insanely established team.

I know it's tough to take a step back and realize there are actual people making these things, but it's something you gotta think about.

 

[Kacho]

This is unbelievable. Sounding more and more like a rental at best. To each their own of course, but I expect a lot more from $60 games.

 

[M°°nblade]

This is a true statement for you i suppose. I apologize for the generalization. My intent wasn't to ruffle feathers which it seems I have done. In regards to going back to a game like Dragon Age Inquisition after an few days away from it, I found myself lost; forgetting what I was doing and why and where I should go next. Hence, I just prefer games that are more coherent in their delivery of content. Yes, I found both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls to be more coherent despite thier obtuse nature. I can't speak to MMO's as I do not play them.

I get what you were trying to say and I agree. Lot's of adults are single or don't have children to take care of and thus have more time for certain 'timesink' games. Being an adult without responsibilities is not an insult as it doesn't imply someone is 'irresponsible' (as in 'not having a proper sense of responsibility'). It just means you're in a situation, whether or not by your own choice, that doesn't require much responsibility.

 

[Papilloma]

I apologize for the broad generalization. I failed miserably at getting my point across. I used terrible wording.

Apology accepted. I'm impressed you've taken the time to come back and do it.

 

[tuxfool]

Don't like it don't buy it, but to actively root for it to fail, that's some childishness. "Game value" is in the eye of the beholder. You think it's tumbled down cause lengths have become shorter. Personally if i get a great game for a few hours I'm good. Game length had nothing to do with my enjoyment of a game, otherwise i would hate journey. So the real problem people have is cost not length. OK let's look back historically. Accounting for inflation, we used to pay more for games in the NES era than we do today.

While I'm with you on your general point, calling up NES era comparisons isn't all that pertinent. Economies of scale mean games had to be more expensive and Nintendo could gouge on cartridge costs.

 

[Talon]

The launch window has been hyped and compressed into such ridiculously slim period of time, an AAA game practically fails if it doesn't warrant midnight (freaking MINUTE 1, nvm Day 1) openings for its release at this point. This is race-to-the-bottom business behavior that lower initial pricing isn't going to cure. Set the new normal at $40 and you'd still have people come out of the woodwork to bitch about short SP-only games selling for that much when they can get some MP/Open-World/RPG grindathon that lasts them much longer for the same price.

Changing pricing isn't going to help as long as it's conflated with ridiculously front-loaded launch window marketing practices that can massacre a game's relevance to the customer base within days of release.

Launch windows aren't a fluke - they're a major force within consumer media. The industries that aren't affected by it are: a) commodity businesses like CPG and b) B2B businesses.

It's just how consumers react to goods at this range - long tails are almost always facilitated by discounts. The media attention is a huge part of it - there's stronger broad awareness at launch than there ever will be 6 months down the road when you're competing with an entire library of goods.

Media spend spread evenly across 4 quarters might as well mean nothing when you're competing with everyone else.

 

[GeordieMark]

Pre-ordered
£49.99
Digital Download
Day One
5 hour gameplay

TAKE THAT "ANTI-CONSUMER" GAF

That'll show them pesky kids!

 

[styl3s]

I understand people wanting 700 hours of gameplay in their $60 game, that's fine. Personally, i would rather have a tight 4-8 hour story that's engaging and good then a 20+ hour game that i want to be over 1-2 hours in. Infamous Second Son is a perfect example of a game that was 10 hours too long.

What i don't get and will never understand is this notion of "IF ITS NOT 234324 HOURS IT SHOULDN'T BE $60" bullshit, it's a AAA title. It's longer then 3 standard 90 minute movies which would cost you $60 if you bought them day of release on blu-ray.

 

[Always-honest]

Oh... That doesn't sound like fun..
But maybe it is.

Is this right?

So conflicted.

 

[friskykillface]

Hmmmmm still time to cancel my best buy collectors pre order that I got for $50
After the majora delays I should just rent it from redbox

I love you Redbox , $2-3 for a game


Still gonna have fun though , reminds me of gears.

 

[M.W.]

These types of threads are the reason non gaffers laugh and point at us.

 

[RK9039]

Oh... That doesn't sound like fun..
But maybe it is.

Is this right?

So conflicted.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlBoxwve3-ZEy3pPYBI4xlQ6dCcXmWwfX

 

[Pop]

Even the GAF members who have played the game say that the game is heavy on cut-scenes.

I'm only speaking based on what those who have played the game have said.

Does every game of the same genre need to be the same now? What's wrong with cut scenes now? Everyone knew since day 1 the game would be heavy on cut scenes.

Doesn't make it any less a bad game for it.

 

[Maybesew]

I'm not trying to defend $60 5 hour games if this turns out to be the case, but does anyone else think this is just an attention grab by the YouTube guy? He gets a ton of views and attention, and if the game turns out to be more like 10-20 hours then nobody will hold him accountable for it and people will move on to the next story.

 

[theprodigy]

It's impossible to finish the game in that time, so we know the numbers are wrong.

brb waiting for sub-5 hour The Order: 1886 speedruns

 

[Derpyduck]

These types of threads are the reason non gaffers laugh and point at us.

They hate us for our freedom?

 

[darkazcura]

I still have no idea why this game is drumming up so much controversy relative to the dozens of games we get a year. To me the game seems incredibly polished. I'll wait to play it before I make my final conclusion on that but considering all the junk and janky games we play and never complain about, I don't understand why this game is taking so much heat. Length of game =/= value. The developers have clearly put a ton of money and time into polishing and creating this game. I don't know why some people expect/want this game to sell less than $60. Do you honestly think the developers put less effort into this game just because it doesn't have a tacked on multi-player mode or a bunch of filler? Just because it doesn't fit your checklist of what a game should be? Give me a break.

 

[braves01]

It's kinda crazy that Ground Zeroes might have more gameplay than this, if you include the side missions.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

I have never seen a video game that has been as picked at and picked over before it was even released as I've seen with The Order. First there was the black bar outrage, and then outrage over the game's resolution, the "its nothing but QTE's" debacle, outrage over what the game play really was - that it was just a bland third person shooter", and now outrage over the game length. This game can't seem to catch a break, and now the people who rush through games as quickly as possible are the loudest critics.

 

[MormaPope]

Short game longevity is dependent on replayability and depth. Depth as in the skill ceiling and mechanical complexity, replayability is dependent on the number of difficulties, the changes between difficulties, extra modes, unlockables that affect gameplay.

The Order seems to be a pretty slim package, no multiplayer or co-op really affects how much time people dump into the game.

 

[nib95]

Important to note though.

- Guy ignores every single additional item, viewable and collectible, even if the button prompt is right in front of him.
- Does basically no exposition or exploration, partly as a result of the above.
- Is playing on either Easy or Normal.

It would be interesting if someone did do a full analysis of cut scenes, because I think his 3 hour figure is likely inaccurate based on the video footage. Might be hard to gauge from just video though given a few are interactive.

Either way it's probably not the best barometer, though I do agree it has validity and is an example of how some people may experience the game.

I can see that adding a couple hours, maybe a few. Nearly triple the length, though? No way.

So are we back to claiming GAFers are lying? If you don't buy the longer outlier that's fine, there's still the GAF average instead.

 

[prwxv3]

I'm not trying to defend $60 5 hour games if this turns out to be the case, but does anyone else think this is just an attention grab by the YouTube guy? He gets a ton of views and attention, and if the game turns out to be more like 10-20 hours then nobody will hold him accountable for it and people will move on to the next story.

No. He even said in the comments that he really liked the game and would buy it again if he did not already have the game.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I understand people wanting 700 hours of gameplay in their $60 game, that's fine. Personally, i would rather have a tight 4-8 hour story that's engaging and good then a 20+ hour game that i want to be over 1-2 hours in. Infamous Second Son is a perfect example of a game that was 10 hours too long.

What i don't get and will never understand is this notion of "IF ITS NOT 234324 HOURS IT SHOULDN'T BE $60" bullshit, it's a AAA title. It's longer then 3 standard 90 minute movies which would cost you $60 if you bought them day of release on blu-ray.

Nobody has said they want 700 hours of gameplay.

Also, nobody has said "IF ITS NOT 234324 HOURS IT SHOULDN'T BE $60".

I guess you can set up a strawman and knock it down to prove a point. Someone compared it to MGR, and yeah the game lengths are similar, difference is that MGR has unlockable difficulties, upgradeable weapons, unlockable VR missions/skins, and the game is generally balanced gameplay>cutscenes.

From what we've seen and heard, the Order has no new game+ or anything. If they're going for a cinematic game, let's hope they nail that aspect.

 

[gafneo]

Sp only 5 hrs could be a masterpiece, but for $60. I would wait unless I was desperate for something to play.

 

[MrxDemix]

It's kinda crazy that Ground Zeroes might have more gameplay than this, if you include the side missions.

I got 2.5 hours of gameplay out of Ground Zeroes. The Order has around 4 - 5 hours.

 

[ironcreed]

I'm not trying to defend $60 5 hour games if this turns out to be the case, but does anyone else think this is just an attention grab by the YouTube guy? He gets a ton of views and attention, and if the game turns out to be more like 10-20 hours then nobody will hold him accountable for it and people will move on to the next story.

How could that be so when people have watched the entire thing and the guy did not rush? It is what it is and is there to see. Maybe add a couple of hours or so depending on how you play.

 

[Pop]

It's kinda crazy that Ground Zeroes might have more gameplay than this, if you include the side missions.

The game will not average 5 hours. Plenty of people here have finished it at 8+hours.

But hey let's take one dudes numbers as gospel.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

Remember Portal's price?

$20 for like one hour of gameplay. The Order is a steal!

 

[dark10x]

While I'm with you on your general point, calling up NES era comparisons isn't all that pertinent. Economies of scale mean games had to be more expensive and Nintendo could gouge on cartridge costs.

Yes, but now production of the game itself is much more expensive.

 

[Officerrob]

I understand people wanting 700 hours of gameplay in their $60 game, that's fine. Personally, i would rather have a tight 4-8 hour story that's engaging and good then a 20+ hour game that i want to be over 1-2 hours in. Infamous Second Son is a perfect example of a game that was 10 hours too long.

What i don't get and will never understand is this notion of "IF ITS NOT 234324 HOURS IT SHOULDN'T BE $60" bullshit, it's a AAA title. It's longer then 3 standard 90 minute movies which would cost you $60 if you bought them day of release on blu-ray.

Hasn't there also been comments about how the story isn't all that good? I've tried not to spoil myself too much, but did come acorss posts stating the ending falls flat and several storylines just go nowhere

 

[Elandyll]

I won't comment on the specific length, as it will vary probably greatly amongst players, and the level of difficulty. I'll just say that imo if there is less interactive gameplay than cutscenes/qte on Normal and taking your time (and no collectibles), it's still pretty damning, although not indicative of the game's actual quality.
We're talking about another metric here, which is 'value', and everyone has to evaluate that for themselves when compared to their expectations.

What I'd like to address is the reaction to RAD's "noncommital" answer.

Of course they won't specify a number, what do you expect them to do?
This was in response to the 2-3 hrs number floating around, which is obviously false.

After that, what should they say?

"Our game's 6 hrs long" and alienate players while very possibly short changing themselves, or "8-12 hrs", and being called liars when some people get it done in 5 or 6?

There is no winning scenario for them here.

 

[Maybesew]

On the plus side, there doesn't seem to be any DLC to sell that people can get upset about.

 

[prwxv3]

I got 2.5 hours of gameplay out of Ground Zeroes. The Order has around 4 - 5 hours.

Is that with or without cutscenes.

 

[Talon]

I'm not trying to defend $60 5 hour games if this turns out to be the case, but does anyone else think this is just an attention grab by the YouTube guy? He gets a ton of views and attention, and if the game turns out to be more like 10-20 hours then nobody will hold him accountable for it and people will move on to the next story.

What's more likely?

YouTuber goes on massive conspiracy to doctor the length of a game despite full video of his playthrough.

Game Developer releases a 5-7 hour, highly polished single-player experience, while touting it as a the next generation of action.

 

[Curufinwe]

Wouldn't be the strangest thing

Some people finish TLoU in 7 hours, took me 20. Some people finish UC2 in 6 hours, took me 14 or so first time through.

I'm always on the long end, too.

People kept saying Vanquish was 4 hours long before release (partly because the in-game timer excluded anything that wasn't gameplay), but it took me closer to 8 on Normal.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vanquish-blog-entry

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Hasn't there also been comments about how the story isn't all that good? I've tried not to spoil myself too much, but did come acorss posts stating the ending falls flat and several storylines just go nowhere

Yes there has been, IIRC MD quoted earlier one the gaffer who created the impressions thread(Rapier?), he posted freely on his thoughts of the game in the spoilers thread.

 

[Derpyduck]

I got 2.5 hours of gameplay out of Ground Zeroes. The Order has around 4 - 5 hours.

Isn't Ground Zeroes the game people accused of being a 40 dollar demo?

 

[Shining Sunshine]

Is that with or without cutscenes.

Without cutscenes, GZ has like 5 minutes of gameplay LOL

 

[kaching]

While I'm with you on your general point, calling up NES era comparisons isn't all that pertinent. Economies of scale mean games had to be more expensive and Nintendo could gouge on cartridge costs.

It certainly should be pertinent to the consumer, regardless, because they're still getting a better overall deal now than back then.

Launch windows aren't a fluke

Not saying they are, but compressing them to nothing or, worse, trying to push them into the pre-launch window like so many games try to do now isn't necessarily a healthy way to approach them.