Avalanche founder on trade-ins: Games are too short

[compl3x]

 

There are multiple good reasons for trading in a game once you have had enough, but in the eyes of Avalanche Studios founder Christofer Sundberg, length is the determining factor -- titles "have been too short," he told Edge. "I mean when you can play a game through from 8 to 10 hours, I would return the game too, because there's no reason for players to play it again.

 

"If you're offering little variation, then there's no motivation for the player to keep that game --unless they want to have a nice bookshelf," Sundberg explained. "That's why we answered that with Just Cause. I go into game stores each week and I always go to the used game boxes -- I usually don?t find that many [copies of our game]."

 

I don't disagree, though I do believe it depends on the type of game in question and the player's habits. For me, it's quality, not necessarily length. Some of my most-played games aren't "long" at all and yet here I am, unable to part ways. This is the sort of topic I'd love to see actual statistics on. Generally speaking, why do you (or don't you) trade in your games?

 

Most games are too short ? that?s why they get traded in, says Avalanche boss [Edge]

 

 

Source

[spaceelf]

On the other hand, much as I liked it, Kingdoms of Amalur is way too long and even though I'm right near the end I don't feel I'll ever finish it.

 

I prefer a kind of middle ground.

[The Evil Overlord]

There are multiple good reasons for trading in a game once you have had enough, but in the eyes of Avalanche Studios founder Christofer Sundberg, length is the determining factor -- titles "have been too short," he told Edge. "I mean when you can play a game through from 8 to 10 hours, I would return the game too, because there's no reason for players to play it again.

 

 

 

This is my biggest gripe about new games, and then they sell dlc just so you'd feel the game was more complete...

 

Tomb Raider on the PSX could take weeks to finish and is, by today's standards, a dinosaur of a game... what happened?

(I mean graphics are great, but I'd happily sacrifice graphics for a better, longer and more involving gameplay)

[Raa]

Exactly.

 

I didn't trade Skyrim in because... well. :P

 

 

But seriously, with a game that is short to play and doesn't offer any multiple ways to play (or end)... Trading in is the only real solution for them.

[compl3x]

On the other hand, much as I liked it, Kingdoms of Amalur is way too long and even though I'm right near the end I don't feel I'll ever finish it.

 

I prefer a kind of middle ground.

 

 

That game was repetitive and not all that inspiring. I played through the main campaign and some side stuff.

[George P Global Moderator]

If a game can give you around a solid 40hrs or so of gameplay then I'd say it's worth the $60 day one price, for me personally.   Add in some different endings so you can replay it a few times and even better.   The reason e have short games now is because everyone is gaga for multiplayer which just pushes single player to the back burner.

 

Look at most of the new games from E3, all this online co-op/team based MP.  *sigh*

[cooky560 Veteran]

Pah! I have vintage games that can be finished in 20 minutes and it doesn't make them any less awesome. Short length is fine if the quality is good enough to justify a repeat play.

[Alladaskill17]

Next-gen / cross-gen games beating the 'too short' issue: Destiny, The Division, as examples.

 

How? Campaign is open world, persistent, "ever changing" with seamless multiplayer. Then there are games like Witcher 3 (soooo excited), going Skyrim-like in scope and being open world.

[Athernar]

I can understand why he thinks that, Just Cause 2 is a fine example of a game that you can just jump back into a year or two down the line after you're initially done with it.

 

That being said, such games are generally unique in their style of gameplay and thus won't work as a catch-all solution, neither is it a solution that will 100% work in the cases where it does. I think the best solution is to just wait it out, let digital distribution take over naturally and don't try to force it with silly DRM or gimmicks.

 

Lastly I will point out that while the sentiment is (rightfully) very pro-consumer and anti-corporation, the consumer is just as much to blame for the state of the industry as publishers/developers are. "We" keep buying yearly re-release titles, so the industry keeps making them.

[Freelancer1111]

Lastly I will point out that while the sentiment is (rightfully) very pro-consumer and anti-corporation, the consumer is just as much to blame for the state of the industry as publishers/developers are. "We" keep buying yearly re-release titles, so the industry keeps making them.

 

This. A million times. If we don't stop buying DLC's or ###### games, why should they stop to produce it ?

[francescob]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/353842/miyamoto-modern-games-take-too-long-to-start-being-fun/

 

Now fight!