What's the incentive for developers to make longer games?

Preface: Mainly talking about main story (nobody appreciates mindless padding).

Recently watched a popular Youtuber's game recommendations. They labeled a couple games as 'short' - but presented it as a good thing, like a feature of the game because "we all have giant backlogs".

If people start seeing short games as a 'feature' rather than a shortcoming, game devs be more than happy to oblige. Take the Final Fantasy 7 Remake - I'm sure they could have broken it down into 5 or 6 parts if they wanted to milk it further. Or Persona 5 - it didn't need to be 100 hours, it could have been adapted to fit into 2 separate parts of 50 hours each.

I am concerned this will become a new trend of game devs making games shorter - either by breaking them down into episodes (FF7 Remake style) or releasing a barebones base game and sell DLC content packs (Paradox Interactive is notorious for this).

I do believe gamers are absolutely spoilt - games have never been more plentiful nor as cheap (or socially accepted for that matter). The standard $60 USD price has remained static for decades, and I absolutely support raising to $70 and DLC - as long as they provide the content! I'd much rather wait an extra year or two between iterations, than have shorter games released more frequently.

If the gaming industry turns into something like the TV streaming industry (5+ streaming services each providing minimal content) then I'm just not going to buy games at full price anymore. If they start cutting content, then I'm just going to wait for deeper discounts - I'll be alright, "I have a giant backlog".

It depends on the game, at the end of the day no game should *feel* short or long, I should enjoy the game regardless of how long it took for me to beat the main campaign.

I will be honest and say I have a massive bias for "short" games. It's mainly because I like to believe in the idea of making an impression within a short period of time, trying to say a lot within a short time window, it's one thing that always bugged me about Hideo Kojima, he basically says so much and takes so long to say it that you can watch at least multiple movies by the time his games are over. His characters feel like they are giving college and university lectures rather than having conversations.

I believe the same for games, if a game can have a super well structured and enjoyable campaign and it leaves me wanting more than wishing parts of it was trimmed down, then I say the devs made an impression on me. I'm down for a long game but a game is going to have to earn its length.

And I never believed in "replay value" either since a game should be so enjoyable that I want to come back to because it's so fun to play rather than because a game has "extra content".

I am also starting to feel old now. Back in the 7th gen, people were complaining about games being too short but now I have seen people complain about games being too long and it feels like it doesn't really matter. Sucks that games cost so much but at least sales come in handy.

personally I think developers should make games as long as they want to make them. Consumers can then decide if they want to wait for a price drop to meet their personal value criteria or if a game is too long for them.

I know in recent years there have been consumers moaning about some games being too long (Assassins Creed) and the value debate came out in force when Spider-Man 2 came out, although how much of that was actual buyers of the game and platform war trolls is up for debate. The problem with consumers dictating the length of games over social media is that complaints tend to magnify issues that don't exist for the average player (and we know developers have access to telemetry concerning player times and what they are doing on a per game basis because sometimes they publish that info).

What doesn't help is when developers (and even reviewers) claim playtime that is clearly incorrect. Times vary between players of course but completion times have been misrepresented by developers for decades and average times are frequently well under what is claimed by developers.

I like long games, I like short games. I like the ability to make my own choice over how much I commit to a game. So I think a game should always offer a flexible amount of content to suit as many people as possible. I also think that some people just know how to play games quicker than the people who don't. I often come comfortably under the average time for games because I try to focus on the "main story' element, which is easier in some games than it is others. So many games don't really need you to use all the things it forces you into tutorials about, at least at easier difficulties (and I don't play games for challenge as its often bad balancing more than a fair challenge) so you can skip certain things. On the other hand sometimes I come in around/over the average and don't understand how people can do the same content in 2/3 of the time. [

It depends on the game, at the end of the day no game should *feel* short or long, I should enjoy the game regardless of how long it took for me to beat the main campaign.

I will be honest and say I have a massive bias for "short" games. It's mainly because I like to believe in the idea of making an impression within a short period of time, trying to say a lot within a short time window, it's one thing that always bugged me about Hideo Kojima, he basically says so much and takes so long to say it that you can watch at least multiple movies by the time his games are over. His characters feel like they are giving college and university lectures rather than having conversations.

I believe the same for games, if a game can have a super well structured and enjoyable campaign and it leaves me wanting more than wishing parts of it was trimmed down, then I say the devs made an impression on me. I'm down for a long game but a game is going to have to earn its length.

And I never believed in "replay value" either since a game should be so enjoyable that I want to come back to because it's so fun to play rather than because a game has "extra content".

I am also starting to feel old now. Back in the 7th gen, people were complaining about games being too short but now I have seen people complain about games being too long and it feels like it doesn't really matter. Sucks that games cost so much but at least sales come in handy.

I will be honest and say I have a massive bias for "short" games. It's mainly because I like to believe in the idea of making an impression within a short period of time, trying to say a lot within a short time window

You make a good point that not every game needs to be an epic adventure. However I'd like to think that we all get our money's worth - a game with less content should ideally cost less than a game with more content (that presumably cost more dev time). My issue is if game devs start churning out less game for more money, and doing it more frequently (e.g. yearly as opposed to 2 years) - think Call of Duty Franchise.

Check out the pricing debacle with Total War: PHARAOH.

Preface: Mainly talking about main story (nobody appreciates mindless padding).

Recently watched a popular Youtuber's game recommendations. They labeled a couple games as 'short' - but presented it as a good thing, like a feature of the game because "we all have giant backlogs".

If people start seeing short games as a 'feature' rather than a shortcoming, game devs be more than happy to oblige. Take the Final Fantasy 7 Remake - I'm sure they could have broken it down into 5 or 6 parts if they wanted to milk it further. Or Persona 5 - it didn't need to be 100 hours, it could have been adapted to fit into 2 separate parts of 50 hours each.

I am concerned this will become a new trend of game devs making games shorter - either by breaking them down into episodes (FF7 Remake style) or releasing a barebones base game and sell DLC content packs (Paradox Interactive is notorious for this).

I do believe gamers are absolutely spoilt - games have never been more plentiful nor as cheap (or socially accepted for that matter). The standard $60 USD price has remained static for decades, and I absolutely support raising to $70 and DLC - as long as they provide the content! I'd much rather wait an extra year or two between iterations, than have shorter games released more frequently.

If the gaming industry turns into something like the TV streaming industry (5+ streaming services each providing minimal content) then I'm just not going to buy games at full price anymore. If they start cutting content, then I'm just going to wait for deeper discounts - I'll be alright, "I have a giant backlog".

If people start seeing short games as a 'feature' rather than a shortcoming, game devs be more than happy to oblige. Take the Final Fantasy 7 Remake - I'm sure they could have broken it down into 5 or 6 parts if they wanted to milk it further.

Well I think VIIR is two fold.

Firstly, the original game has a lot of content, much of it optional. Making it in a modern standard takes too long and costs too much money. That's the reason they didn't do it on PS3. That's before you take into account the content that was added between the original japanese release and the western versions (like the additional Zack+Cloud backstory, additional bosses etc). Then you have the extra lore created for the expansions of the universe, some of which is directly related to events before and during VII, others after it. Effectively the VII remake project has to cover more, before we talk of padding

if they did it as one game, it would be too much and they would have to cut a lot. Or it would be a poor standard. Splitting the games reduces the burden. Splitting the first game at Midgar made sense, it's a short part of the original game but it is story and lore dense. Adding the extra story they did while partly padding did partly serve to bulk out that section. The section of the story we know Rebirth covers is not going to need a lot of padding, but it is more spread out, which is why it covers a bigger section. Three games was a common expectation when Remake's scope was announced and it was expected that the second game would cover the suggested scope of Rebirth - effectively the rest of disc 1 (disc 2 is half the length of disc 1 and disc 3 is effectively just the final dungeon in main scenario terms)

I don't believe the suggested times for Rebirth, 50 hours for the story and 50+ for side quests. I suspect the average player will spend 25-30 on the story. Just like the first part and just like XVI. 50 hours on side quests is believable but again, seems unlikely. However, some people will absolutely spend that.

I will be honest and say I have a massive bias for "short" games. It's mainly because I like to believe in the idea of making an impression within a short period of time, trying to say a lot within a short time window

You make a good point that not every game needs to be an epic adventure. However I'd like to think that we all get our money's worth - a game with less content should ideally cost less than a game with more content (that presumably cost more dev time). My issue is if game devs start churning out less game for more money, and doing it more frequently (e.g. yearly as opposed to 2 years) - think Call of Duty Franchise.

Check out the pricing debacle with Total War: PHARAOH.

Depends on what you define as "money's worth". Real life sports games and going to various places cost more money than games at full price do. I tend to define "money's worth" as something I actually enjoyed. I recently bought Alan Wake 2 and while the game was long, I didn't get my money's worth since I found the game to be so boring that I didn't even make it to the end as well as it having a terrible save system and some bugs and glitches at launch.

Then there is Nintendo who charges their games at full price and their games never go in sale lower than 50% and you can find a lot of indie games styled after what they make for less the price. It's hard to truly answer.

I probably won't even get GTA 6 at launch day either, I don't even care if it's long, if the game is your typical Rockstar, "play my way or get out" for 30 hours with it's main missions, I'll find it dull regardless.

If people start seeing short games as a 'feature' rather than a shortcoming, game devs be more than happy to oblige. Take the Final Fantasy 7 Remake - I'm sure they could have broken it down into 5 or 6 parts if they wanted to milk it further.

Well I think VIIR is two fold.

Firstly, the original game has a lot of content, much of it optional. Making it in a modern standard takes too long and costs too much money. That's the reason they didn't do it on PS3. That's before you take into account the content that was added between the original japanese release and the western versions (like the additional Zack+Cloud backstory, additional bosses etc). Then you have the extra lore created for the expansions of the universe, some of which is directly related to events before and during VII, others after it. Effectively the VII remake project has to cover more, before we talk of padding

if they did it as one game, it would be too much and they would have to cut a lot. Or it would be a poor standard. Splitting the games reduces the burden. Splitting the first game at Midgar made sense, it's a short part of the original game but it is story and lore dense. Adding the extra story they did while partly padding did partly serve to bulk out that section. The section of the story we know Rebirth covers is not going to need a lot of padding, but it is more spread out, which is why it covers a bigger section. Three games was a common expectation when Remake's scope was announced and it was expected that the second game would cover the suggested scope of Rebirth - effectively the rest of disc 1 (disc 2 is half the length of disc 1 and disc 3 is effectively just the final dungeon in main scenario terms)

I don't believe the suggested times for Rebirth, 50 hours for the story and 50+ for side quests. I suspect the average player will spend 25-30 on the story. Just like the first part and just like XVI. 50 hours on side quests is believable but again, seems unlikely. However, some people will absolutely spend that.

if they did it as one game, it would be too much and they would have to cut a lot.

I absolutely agree that VIIR needed to be broken down into parts to fully do the original justice. What I am afraid for, is say they break it down into 3 parts, and it sells well. Maybe Square will think "3 parts isn't enough" next project we can try break it into 6 parts. You can already see it being tested with the FF7R EPISODE INTERmission that they initially sold separately.

if they did it as one game, it would be too much and they would have to cut a lot.

I absolutely agree that VIIR needed to be broken down into parts to fully do the original justice. What I am afraid for, is say they break it down into 3 parts, and it sells well. Maybe Square will think "3 parts isn't enough" next project we can try break it into 6 parts. You can already see it being tested with the FF7R EPISODE INTERmission that they initially sold separately.

I'm not too concerned since I don't expect them to do anything of a simlar scope. This is as much a passion project for Square as it is for the fans. I think they would rather stick to smaller scale remakes that if necessary can be passed to external dev teams like we see them do a lot. Very few of the FF ports and remakes have actually been made in-house (all the non-mobile 2d ones were farmed out to TOSE).

As for the DLC, well that's it's own thing so far.

"Shorter games is a good thing" is a sentiment I've mainly only heard from game journalists and professional reviewers. I guess so their jobs are made easier.

I don't really have anything substantial to add to this convo, but I can say that personally, I much prefer a memorable short experience for a smaller price tag than an overlong, bloated $60-70 game.

- Matt

No incentive. As long there is microtransactions the game can go on forever.

You'd be suprised by how many people buy games at a full price based on length. I know a lot of people who over the years would only buy and play games if that game was at least 60 hours as in their mind $1 = 1 hour. I personally don't agree with it, as most of my favorite games don't tend to be longer than 30 hours, but I can understand since people only have so much to spend it on. Since stuff like online multiplayer games tend to hook people for incredibly long periods of time, such as with each yearly CoD or Fifa, most people pick them up and feel as if they get good use and enjoyment out of it since it will take up a great chunk of their offtime in a given year.

Studios also often tend to focus on player retention rates, and how long players tend to spend on their games to help with microtransaction pricing. Players who tend to play for long periods frequently are most often going to be spending money on microtransactions and it's important to keep players those players engaged on your game rather than the competition or another game.

I think that a game's playtime is not a feature or shortcoming. Some genres are naturally shorter than the others, and sometimes it's nice to quickly complete a game without investing in it too much time. Excessive length is not a boon either. Persona 5, for example, is overly long with its Mementos and long-winded dialogues. Splitting it wouldn't help; it would just cut the amount of good moments in half.

That being said, I still expect major RPGs to have at least 30+ hours of original content. If it's split further, or later parts are just rehashes with no original content, I'll turn to backlog or will sail the high seas. I've hated Tales of Arise DLC for being a simple rehash, even though I bought it anyway.

You'd be suprised by how many people buy games at a full price based on length. I know a lot of people who over the years would only buy and play games if that game was at least 60 hours as in their mind $1 = 1 hour. I personally don't agree with it, as most of my favorite games don't tend to be longer than 30 hours, but I can understand since people only have so much to spend it on. Since stuff like online multiplayer games tend to hook people for incredibly long periods of time, such as with each yearly CoD or Fifa, most people pick them up and feel as if they get good use and enjoyment out of it since it will take up a great chunk of their offtime in a given year.

Studios also often tend to focus on player retention rates, and how long players tend to spend on their games to help with microtransaction pricing. Players who tend to play for long periods frequently are most often going to be spending money on microtransactions and it's important to keep players those players engaged on your game rather than the competition or another game.

Studios also often tend to focus on player retention rates, and how long players tend to spend on their games to help with microtransaction pricing.

Games based on micro transaction economies are their own thing and that focus is clearly integrated into the design and budget.

The majority of studios don't operate this way.

I think this also highlights a separation in the player base. The people who spend the most time on games (or are influencers in that genre) that target retention and activity purely to sell as many micro transactions as possible are not to be confused with the wider market. Yes there is a lot of the market that manly plays those games but there remain an extremely strong dedication to traditional gaming, and studios operating in those respective sides operate differently for the most part.

it's rather telling that Naughty Dog wanted a piece of that pie and then decided they wanted to remain a traditional business model due to the studio wide change that would be needed to support a single live service game.

As a break, I started playing some short games the last few weeks (visual novels, point and click). I also played Yakuza I-III and while not tiny, they are definitely shorter than my usual games.

Normally I play almost exclusively JRPGS games that I sink at least 60 hours into and often quite a bit more. Am at 130 + for P5 Royal. (I think driving through Mementos is very relaxing, sorry, I know that's weird ;-) ).

Can't remember how many hours I put into FFVII Remake. Might be a bit less than 60, but I don't think it was super short. I play Trails though and those are series of direct sequels, but at least they feel like different games. Maybe it feels different because FFVII used to be one game that is now split into many.

I don't find a games length to be a feature, it entirely depends on the game whether the length is justified. Personally, I find myself enjoying games that are shorter more consistently because I find way too many modern games have a problem with overstaying their welcome. A very impactful 5-10 hour experience doesn't feel lesser than a 40-50 hour impactful experience just because it's shorter. With that being said, a lot of my favorite games are longer experiences, it just depends on if the length is necessary. For example, I find that a game like RDR2 or The Witcher 3 absolutely deserves the length it provides and makes the game more impactful because of it. Those games respect the players time and are long because it's a journey we feel like we are living through. Something like AC Valhalla is an example of the opposite, a pointless and tedious open world that is only big for the sake of it.