You must be a really freaking adept Zelda player and like a math wiz, nig, because a typical Zelda player - veteran or not - takes AT LEAST 15-20 hours playing a normal run of a game. It isn't 15-20 hours of efficient gameplay, but 15-20 hours of, well, doing what they do. Your times are commendable, but ridiculously good to be called "average" or "normal".
Lowering the Price of Games
- Thread starter Ventus
- Start date
You must be a really freaking adept Zelda player and like a math wiz, nig, because a typical Zelda player - veteran or not - takes AT LEAST 15-20 hours playing a normal run of a game. It isn't 15-20 hours of efficient gameplay, but 15-20 hours of, well, doing what they do. Your times are commendable, but ridiculously good to be called "average" or "normal".
DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
Perhaps--looking at the ZD guide for TP, the video took roughly 17-18 hours total from what I can see--but that's still far below 40.
Yeah but that's efficient gameplay, not including the screwing around that normal players do. Even so, that's also Zelda; most people do not get 50+ hours out of microsessions of CoD/BF because it's literally the same BS, not even made to LOOK like it's something diff. So..yeah. Gametime isn't universal; I can't say that you will get 100 hours of gametime or that there even IS 100 hours of gametime in any game because we all play different things.
DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
Yeah, but you can't really count screwing around...I could argue OoT is 500 hours of gameplay if I screw around enough.
- Joined
- May 3, 2013
- Location
- New England
I think the problem is that people are getting annoyed with you saying that because you're able to complete a game in a certain amount of time, everyone can. I can beat Super Metroid in one hour, any% and 2 hours for 100% but does that mean everyone else game? Probably on average it would take about 8 to 12 hours on a first playthrough. Then you start to learn the world better on each playthrough until you get to a point where you can just cut corners and improve your time dramatically.
I watched someone complete A Link to the Past last night in about an hour and a half, beating her old record by a few minutes. Does that mean everyone else can do that because one other person can?
The point is, some people are more adept and competent at games than others. Especially in comparison to people that maybe never played the genre or series before. Twilight Princess easily took me about 30 hours of gameplay time and that's with me knowing the series and experimenting and searching around and grabbing whatever I thought I could grab. If for some reason I had all that knowledge pre-programmed into my head for a first playthrough, yeah. Maybe I could complete it in 10 hours.
On Topic: I think the price of games seems to be fluctuating. Back in the 90s, I remember games being upwards to 70-80 dollars. Some games were 50 but there were quite a bit that were steep in price. Gameboy games and the like were pretty cheap at 40 bucks or less. So really I think it's just the times. Games are actually rather cheap now and some games do come out at a 'budget' price or lower than the current trend of 60 bucks.
The Jade Fist
Kung Fu Master
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
I'm personally fine with map packs, and its a good way to make money a few months after the game has been out. But on disc DLC is just a money grab and thats crap.
My take on prices of games is they need to drop across the board. Shovelware and other lower budget games just try to sell at the 60 mark simply because the big AAA titles have set that price, and thats not very fair to both the consumer and the people who make the AAA titles.
I'd be fine with some games costing more or less.
Or if games in general cost back down to like 30 bucks like it was in SNES days.
If games were 30 bucks, alot more people would simply pick up a game at the store more often. They wouldn't have to stop and debate about it costing so much they won't have gas or afford the groceries they went there for. A kid asking for a 30 dollar game is alot easier on the parent to say yes to, then a 60 dollar game.
The real question is, would the significantly lowered price, result in enough extra sales to be worth it to end up with more profit then then selling less games at the higher mark.
Wrong. They'd save.
Infact a game like Metro used less then a 10th of the budget of the previous COD, they both sell for 60 dollars.
Shovelware still sells 60 dollars when its new.
Its also greatly their own faults for spending that much making games. Don't get me wrong I love it when people put work into games they make, but, explain why back in the SNES days selling 4 million copies was a smash hit, but now 4 or 5 million copies of Tomb Raider was considered a failure.
Yes licensing is a thing, for both the console you release on and the IP's. So that cost isn't one that you can reduce, but you telling me they can't cut cost on production and still make high quality games, when we've seen it done?
Having to sell 6 million copies + to break a profit is just absurd. The consumer is hard to grab attention of, and even harder to convince based on cover art alone.
Hmm, you know i'd be really interested in seeing how they spend their budgets actually.
For COD, I can see a great portion of that actually being marketing, even worse they went all out with the ACDC music in their commercials for the black ops 2.
They assume the market for games is bigger then it really is. And for cod its a big market, and they can walk around like it is. But some new IP titles or less popular titles can't do the same. Games are expensive, and you can't realistically expect 6 million people to want to pay 60 dollars for your game unless you're some one like Call of Duty.
Just because its the same thing, doesn't mean they aren't getting 100's of hours out of their game. I know I've put many many hours into MW2, both on my account and friends account, mine was like 7th prestige and I've gotten into 8 or 9th on friends account, sure he played it too but I played it more then him really.
So for people buying a game for online multiplayer, any online multiplayer game is easy to put countless hours into it, and worth 60 dollars if you wanna base value to play time.
Last edited:
I agree. I've put over 380 hours into MW3 on PC. I have well over 600 hours clocked for my Guild Wars characters. I'm working on 50+ hours in Guild Wars 2. But, not everyone buys a game for online multiplayer. And, if it IS for online multiplayer, why even bother withthe single player component to "make it" a $60 game? Why not release the game for free - or better yet, release the game for $30 and THEN slap ont he DLC? meh I don't even know where I'm going with this. Some games just aren't $60 games to is all.
The Jade Fist
Kung Fu Master
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
I think they put the campaign because some people do like playing thru them. And it makes it easier to consider it a next installment in the series, as well as have some footage to show off for marketing reasons.
Its true almost no one plays these games for their single player experience which to be honest you're better served else where.
Maybe they should just release a COD game thats multiplayer only, and they can save on their budget by skipping out on all the cgi and stuff that really is just extra space on 90% of the peoples disk that buy the COD games anyways. Except to justify it as a new release they'd have to make the multiplayer way more expansive, what if they released on with over 30 maps. That way people won't think its just Diet COD.
But I think for a game like that the price is worth what its marked at for most people who buy it.
DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
1) ...Gonna say this as nicely as I can: Calm your tits. This isn't political discussion or religious debate. We're talking about a game. Not the end of the world.
2) The sites you showed me have no statistical bearing for multiple reasons...
i) Most important is the lack of conditioning for the experiment. Depending on the conditions, a game can take any amount of time. For example, out of my two current Twilight Princess files, one took me 12 hours to beat and the other took me 60. I wasn't in a bad slump or anything...I'd just pause the game and leave at times because stuff came up and I either A) Didn't think it'd take that long or
Wanted to stay in the same spot I was when I came back.ii) Last I checked, Skyward Sword has no time counter--it just has a "Last Play Date" thing like Wind Waker. I have no idea how long it took me to beat Skyward Sword this last time because for that playthrough, I didn't count the time.
iii) There's nothing to indicate the people answering said questions are normal at all. The fact that they're on an Online Zelda Community suggests otherwise.
iv) The numbers for this test are ridiculously small. To gain something even close to accurate results, we would need to select people to time themselves for both games with a limited number of breaks in between and huge main quest focus to gain a raw gameplay hour coverage. 500 people would be the minimum I'd expect for this and even then you still have a large margin of error for its accuracy.
3) You're really starting to derail the topic at hand.
...Shouldn't a regular person know just that? Hell, even if this is your first time with the series/game, among the 3D titles, I can only see you getting lost in Wind Waker. All the others ALWAYS tell you where to go. The puzzles aren't that hard. Many of us beat OoT when we were 6! Sure, times we miss the obvious solution, but even for the harder puzzles, it shouldn't take that long to figure out.
1) ...Gonna say this as nicely as I can: Calm your tits. This isn't political discussion or religious debate. We're talking about a game. Not the end of the world.
2) The sites you showed me have no statistical bearing for multiple reasons...
i) Most important is the lack of conditioning for the experiment. Depending on the conditions, a game can take any amount of time. For example, out of my two current Twilight Princess files, one took me 12 hours to beat and the other took me 60. I wasn't in a bad slump or anything...I'd just pause the game and leave at times because stuff came up and I either A) Didn't think it'd take that long or
ii) Last I checked, Skyward Sword has no time counter--it just has a "Last Play Date" thing like Wind Waker. I have no idea how long it took me to beat Skyward Sword this last time because for that playthrough, I didn't count the time.
iii) There's nothing to indicate the people answering said questions are normal at all. The fact that they're on an Online Zelda Community suggests otherwise.
iv) The numbers for this test are ridiculously small. To gain something even close to accurate results, we would need to select people to time themselves for both games with a limited number of breaks in between and huge main quest focus to gain a raw gameplay hour coverage. 500 people would be the minimum I'd expect for this and even then you still have a large margin of error for its accuracy.
3) You're really starting to derail the topic at hand.
...Shouldn't a regular person know just that? Hell, even if this is your first time with the series/game, among the 3D titles, I can only see you getting lost in Wind Waker. All the others ALWAYS tell you where to go. The puzzles aren't that hard. Many of us beat OoT when we were 6! Sure, times we miss the obvious solution, but even for the harder puzzles, it shouldn't take that long to figure out.
Its alot bigger then your test feild of onky yourself.
DarkestLink
Darkest of all Dark Links
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
I too lack numbers, yes. I'm mainly going off my own experience, a few Let's Plays, and the occasional guide. In this case, I'm going for the conditioned experiment in the sense that these people aren't gonna waste time on their videos when viewers get bored with this so quickly.
Remember the days when gamers respected what games other player's liked? When gamers could tell the difference between a bad game and a game they just don't really like? And when we didn't just complain about everything?
Miss those days...
Miss those days...
While this is an off-topic matter (make it a thread
), those days never happened. We never actually respected other players, hell we had entire COMPANIES jabbing at each other. Anyway, off-topci
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Location
- 'Murica
People pay $25 for 2 hour movies, I don't see why paying for $50 - $60 games ranging from 25 - 100+ hours is a problem.
FYI: N64 games were like $80 back in the day.
FYI: N64 games were like $80 back in the day.