How long should a video game be? How much should we pay for it? A few years ago MTV Games Afficionado and Blogger Extraordinaire Stephen Totilo wrote a piece about games pricing in the next generation, regarding the $60 price point and the negative effects that can have on the industry at large - with a number of sound bites from execs all proclaiming that it shouldn’t be a problem.
Cliff Bleszinski, of Epic Games, dissented. Both Totilo’s article and Bleszinski’s argument are relevant today:
“I would kill to have a [top-quality] game that’s jam-packed with an amazing story and amazing moments and four hours long and costs 20 bucks.” He said it’s possible, if only the industry cut costs by making games shorter and sweeter, but that too many gamers and publishers demand 20-hour games that are filled with the padding of having gamers repeat the same tasks again and again.
Is he right? Do we need more games coming in at a lower price point but providing just as much bang for the buck? Certainly amidst a financial crisis such as the one we’re experiencing right now, consumers aren’t rushing out to spend money willy-nilly. With only a few bucks to go around, gamers facing a $60 price point often must make careful choices about which games to invest in and which to pass by.
Many times this means that only the titles we purchase are the ones with incredible production value, far-reaching advertisement, and a hype-machine set to overdrive. With financial resources tight, consumers take fewer risks regarding their entertainment. Speaking personally, if I spend $50-$60 on a game only to find out it sucks, I will be very upset.
So maybe we need cheaper, well-made games: buying three games for $20 is the same as diversifying one’s gaming portfolio. If one of them is a dud, the other two might well save the whole $60 investment. And, hopefully, the ultimate dream is having all three games be amazing experiences. As a result, consumers are more likely to reward developer risk in ways that currently don’t happen very often (I certainly wouldn’t have paid $60 for a “full-length” version of a musical-light show, but $10 means you can count me in). As a result, everyone benefits.
Of course, some developers might suggest, it’s hard to create a “powerful” game with such limited scope that will have an impact on players. Four hours? What on earth kind of story can you tell in only four hours of gameplay? Poppycock, right?
Releasing content in smaller bundles doesn’t mean story has to be cut, either: it just has to become episodic. Longer tales, such as the ones often found in RPGs, can be told by releasing them over time. Again, the consumer benefits: if I buy the first episode of Final Fantasy 20 (say), only to realize I hate it, I have saved myself $40 on two episodes that I shouldn’t bother with. Development studios can focus resources on creating concentrated fits of awesome instead of bogging down time and resources on bloated projects that don’t turn out the way they were originally intended, leaving everyone unhappy.
Is this a model that will work for every game? Likely not; even so, I can think of ways to translate it to other genres. RTS games, for example, could ship races as separate packs for purchase - so long as the cost of the core game is reduced in order to provide the best value to the consumer. Releasing “expansions” at a slightly-reduced price point (only to add one race and a mediocre campaign) is not the best way to do business, no matter how popular the IP you’re working with is.
So maybe the Cliffster is on to something after all: developers, give us cheaper, shorter games that are worth our time, and we might be more likely to give you our money.



