Spector: 100-hour games are out
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Jun 18th 2008 at 4:30PM }
Not that he thinks going casual is the answer. He fears that the casual field is now "really crowded" and that competition, despite being in a considerably cheaper development field, is just as tough. The point Spector made is that it all comes down to a company differentiating itself from the pack. On that note, we'll hopefully hear soon -- like during E3 -- how Spector's Disney-owned studio, Junction Point, plans on doing just that.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dirty @ Jun 18th 2008 4:36PM
Im sure a lot of people around here finished GTA. I know I did, I couldnt make it through the new rambo flick though. It really depends on the content
It makes me sad that all these developers are talking about the death of the hardcore, we are still here, the games industry was thriving back when it was just us.
This and sony cutting out single player experiences for multiplayer offerings. It just makes me sad.
Anyone want to get together and form a studio for producing hardcore games?
mezzanine @ Jun 18th 2008 4:42PM
HELL YAH BROTHA
Let's do open world Batman.
megaStryke @ Jun 18th 2008 4:43PM
How come you guys killed the Dreamcast? You killed the most hardcore console around. Was it TOO hardcore?
Dirty @ Jun 18th 2008 4:46PM
I couldnt afford a dreamcast after shelling out for a saturn. Ha.
AoE @ Jun 18th 2008 4:48PM
I've gotta agree with megaStryke on this one.
megaStryke @ Jun 18th 2008 4:49PM
I guess burning and copying games is pretty hardcore too. So hardcore that Sega lost profits from games. Hardcore, indeed.
Titanium_Orchid @ Jun 18th 2008 4:51PM
I don't know how someone could not finish GTAIV. Its not like the game was difficult.
As far as your comment about Sony cutting out single player aspects of a game, I don't think its an entirely bad idea... as long as its executed well. If COD4 was released as a multi-player only game, I think I would have been just as happy with it compared to what it is now.
Like you said: Its all about content. I was really really annoyed when I finished Mass Effect. The game was fun but it was to short. I felt riped off.
If a company wants to differentiate themselves from the pack, they should focus on making the best game possible. Story, Gameplay, Longevity, Entertainment. Instead of pushing half-baked or broken games out of the door.
j.howlett @ Jun 18th 2008 4:53PM
i had a saturn and dreamcast. not bringing out the broadband modem killed the dreamcast for me, screw aol and netzero wanted a credit card. i had a feeling something was going to go wrong when i saw a windows logo on the box.
Jakka @ Jun 18th 2008 5:16PM
I didn't finish GTA4.I got Guitar Hero and TF2 at the same time and poor Niko got left behind.
In other news, Pyro is now the most overpowered TF2 class teh irony is just crushing with it's sheer irony-s-ness(?).
Noshino @ Jun 18th 2008 5:56PM
weren't PS1 games more pirated than Dreamcast games?
I swear to god, I never even found out of the DC while I was living down in Peru, I have heard the same from people from other S. American countries...
Evan @ Jun 18th 2008 6:18PM
@Noshino
The Dreamcast was modded almost immediately, and games were hacked and distributed on the internet almost as soon as they came out.
PS1 modding had a slower start, and fewer people had high-speed internet and CD-burners to get the games.
Evan @ Jun 18th 2008 6:21PM
@Dirty
Hardcore is not dead. But the core audience of gamers are getting older, and older people have more responsibilities and therefore less time to game.
Nigeria @ Jun 18th 2008 6:29PM
Everybody I knew who had a Playstation used the disc swap method. Via the method, were able to purchase 10 games for £5. And, from what I could remember, it was almost simultaneous with launch. It was the thing to do; but I am talking about the rougher parts of London, though.
I didn't buy a Dreamcast because Sega used up all their goodwill with the short lifespans of the Sega CD and Saturn. At lot of us just got burnt.
Dreamcast piracy was never on the same level as PS1/PS2 piracy. But saying that, the Dreamcast had a much smaller install base so they may have felt the pinch more.
Co @ Jun 18th 2008 7:18PM
@ Dirty's original post:
I THINK you're being tongue-n-cheek with your comment but just in case you're not... Get real man. Or get a life. It's not that serious.
Spartacus @ Jun 18th 2008 8:16PM
Titanium_Orchid:
It is definitely a matter of opinion and we all have diferent ones. Some like hardcore games, some like casual. Some like single player, some like multi-player. Some like short games, some like long games.
Case in point: You thought Mass Effect was too short and felt ripped off. I thought Mass Effect was almost too long (not that I didn't enjoy every minute though). I put over 50 hours into my first playthrough, how is that too short? And if you're a gamerscore junkie, you'll have to play the campaign at least 3 times to get all your 1000 points. That's a potential of 150 hours in one title!
I agree with Spector, 100+ hour games are on their way out. Not because hardcore games are a thing of the past, but because hardcore gamers are growing up and have less time to devote to gaming. I love video games, but the only way I was able to devote 50 hours to Mass Effect was some vacation time. Was it worth it? Hell yes, it was a great game IMHO.
tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 18th 2008 8:30PM
Uhh that "we don't have that much time anymore" excuse is pure BS. So what? You take longer to beat the game then. Don't whine about long games and ruin it for the people who did enjoy all 100+ hours of Oblivion. YOU people should be adapting to YOUR changes, not the rest of us.
Spartacus @ Jun 18th 2008 8:48PM
Hey tmac, don't get your diapers in a bind. I played Oblivion and enjoyed it just as much as you did.
I hate to rain on your little parade, but statistically the vast majority of gamers are older and have more responsibilities than you. So since WE make up the majority of the hardcore gaming demographic, devs will tend to cater to US rather than to the 15 year old who have oodles of disposable time on their hands. Cry all you want, but one day, you'll understand. So I'll try not to take offense at your ignorant and illogical comment due to your age, but in the future, try to remember how small and insignificant you are to the gaming industry and look at trends rather than your own egocentric viewpoint.
tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 18th 2008 8:59PM
First off I'm 20 so it's not like I have nothing to do all the time. I just don't bitch and complain about it and force other people to work around my schedule. That's not how the world works.
So what if it takes me 3 or more weeks to beat oblivion instead of 1 or 1 1/2? That doesn't mean games need to be shorter. If something this small is that much of a problem then these people probably shouldn't be playing those games at all and just stick to 5 hour FPS games.
Also, like others have said it's not a problem when millions are putting hundreds of hours into online FPS games and other stuff like the Sims and WoW. When I played WoW the people in my guild would talk about games and some of them would be like "man i don't have time to play game X cause it's too long and I got a wife and kids and blah blah" to which my response would be "....you're on WoW at least 8 hours a day"
Spartacus @ Jun 18th 2008 9:23PM
tmac:
Spector is pointing out a trend, that's all. In truth, he doesn't need a crystal ball to call this one- 100+ hour games have NEVER been the norm. Oblivion was a high profile title and it was a quality game, so it sold well. I have very little free time but I still buy long games if they are quality enough. I love RPG's, but the fact is, due to my responsibilities (job and marriage) I can't buy every RPG that comes out. Devs realize this and therefore know that by creating long games, they might alienate some customers. Shoot, WoW itself has been both a good and bad thing for gaming due to the amount of time it requires to play.
In short, companies make more money if they produce 10 10 hour games rather than 1 100 hour game both because of costs of development and the fact that people only have so much time per day to play. If everyone is still playing Oblivion, they have no need to buy another game.
Lars @ Jun 19th 2008 1:24PM
I didn't finish GTA4. I was working earnestly to do it, but the missions were starting to get really boring and repetitive. Niko seemed to get more and more transparent as the game went on too, much to my disappointment because I liked Niko. I still enjoy just hopping in the game to wreak havoc though.
It seems like anything over 20 hours is usually just extra fluff that bogs down the flow of the game. Unless of course, it's an open-ended game like Oblivion.
Edd @ Jun 18th 2008 4:42PM
i think thats a pretty retarded comment to make.
with xbox live and PSN, if you make a good multiplayer game, the game will last hundreds of hours.
sure, its evident to see that SP games are on the way out (i mean getting shorter) but most games compensate with multi-players. there are few games i would pay full price for these days if i knew there was no MP.
Dirty @ Jun 18th 2008 4:44PM
Sorry for actually appreciating a good story told in a game.
Your telling me you wouldnt play metal gear without metal gear online tacked on. Or Mass Effect.
Your retarded.
Bloo @ Jun 18th 2008 5:58PM
"Your retarded"
Priceless irony
Spartacus @ Jun 18th 2008 8:28PM
You just unknowingly admitted Spector is right.
What he was saying is that long SINGLE PLAYER games are on their way out. RPG's would be at the top of that list. Multi-player content dosn't fit into this category because in reality, it's not length of content, it's replayability of said content that racks up the gaming hours. He's saying that we'll see less and less games like Oblivion and more and more games like Call of Duty 4 and I think he's right. Doesn't mean I don't LIKE games like Oblivion (I freakin loved that game), but that doesn't change the fact that gaming trends are changing.
Bluebrake @ Jun 18th 2008 4:41PM
That's ok, as long as developers don't decide the preferred alternative is 5-hour games. I'm much more sick of those than 100-hour ones.
Honestly, in something like FFXII, I breezed past 100 hours while hardly noticing. (And in FFXI, it was 100 days, but MMORPGs are a different standard). If the content remains compelling for the entire stretch, I don't think there needs to be any cap on game length.
Ghen @ Jun 18th 2008 8:41PM
Yeah, GOOD games can be 100 hours... but just making a game 'open world' just to make people run around more isn't very fun.
Thinking back though, I'm having a hard time with all these games he's talking about. The only 100+ hour games I remember were all epic top 10 list RPGs.
jsgongwon @ Jun 18th 2008 4:43PM
$100 million for a game that generated $500 million on the opening week alone. I'll take that regardless of how long it is. It's working now based off of GTA4's success, so what makes Spector think it's on its way out?
megaStryke @ Jun 18th 2008 4:48PM
How many companies can honestly toss about $100 million on a single game? Even if they had the money, how would they be assured of success and profit? GTA4 succeeded because it is GRAND THEFT AUTO. Only the biggest franchises from the biggest companies could feasibly pull something like that off. Need I remind you of Shenmue and it's $70-million budget? That tanked HARD.
Noshino @ Jun 18th 2008 5:58PM
should you be reminded that Take Two is not as big as you make it seem?
they just know where to put the resources and to make good use of them (Rockstar), Sega hasn't done that in quite a while....
xGeneral DEATHx @ Jun 19th 2008 8:21AM
I do wonder, though, how many of the people that purchased GTAIV opening week bought it because of the prospect of online multiplayer. I bought it because I heard it had online co-op, unfortunately I should have waited to try a friend's copy...GTAIV bored me to tears in both the single- and multi-player aspects.
Agathos @ Jun 18th 2008 4:45PM
I finished GTA4, I've also finished Xenosaga, FFXII, and a stack of JRPGs that clocked in at 30-70 hours play time and played quite a bit of the tacticle RPGs like Disgaea that have 100's of hours of gameplay but unfortunately never could justify beating them because I was anxious to move to something else.
I definitely don't mind a great RPG that comes in at 20-60 hours or just a mediocre one like the Atlus RPGs or a Tales title if they clock in around 20, but at a point the balance of the quality of the game gets tipped by how long I've been playing just it and my anxiousness to move to my next title.
On the flip side although Drake's Fortune, Heavenly Sword, and Gears of War were short but outstanding games but I don't want that to be the standard either and I'd prefer a bit more length in those cases, like 10-12 hours for a good action title5
ComicShaman @ Jun 18th 2008 4:48PM
A very strange statement to make. I have no idea what he means by it. Something like a "Madden" game could easily be considered a 100+ hour game. "World of Warcraft" is meant to suck your hours away like a giant temporal Hoover. And many fans happily talk about spending 300+ hours playing "Oblivion." These are not the only examples of recent 100-hour games that have been successful. So... um...
I think he's wrong. I guess that's my point.
Chris @ Jun 18th 2008 4:49PM
I think this sucks. I am a hardcore gamer. I WANT long games. Whether they're single player or multiplayer, I want games I can sink my teeth into, not just revamped versions of Tetris every year.
So is he saying that people don't want games like GTAIV, Gears of War, MGS4, etc.? I am going to have to disagree with that. If people didn't want those kinds of games, they wouldn't be buying them.
AoE @ Jun 18th 2008 4:51PM
wait, did you just lump Gears in there dude? Seriously?! That game takes like 8hrs to go through, I'm pretty sure it's not on Spector's personal list of 100+ hour games unless he really really really really really (x10 more) sucks at shooters....
megaStryke @ Jun 18th 2008 4:53PM
I'm certain he's referring to single-player games or single-player campaigns in games with robust multiplayer features. With the exception of Gears of War, those games you listed are from popular and respected franchises and would sell no matter what. Gears of War, if you've forgotten, had a really short campaign. Multiplayer is a completely different discussion.
Chris @ Jun 18th 2008 5:01PM
I guess I just meant that I don't consider those games I listed as casual either just because they're short. I consider a casual game to be something my wife or my mom would play.
I don't think the casual-ness of a game is defined by how long it is.
AoE @ Jun 18th 2008 5:09PM
Chris, did you read the article? If so I think you missed this bit:
"Not that he thinks going casual is the answer."
He's not talking about hardcore games no longer having a market, he's talking about hardcore games with really long single-player components as being on the way out... the long single-player component. He's not suggesting that casual games are the future by any means.
Dirty @ Jun 18th 2008 5:10PM
Sometimes games like gears are extended through multiple play throughs on different difficulty levels. I played the campaign through twice, and would do so again (probably before the 2nd one drops). But I guess even then its not a 100 hr game.
Im still missing 1 damn cog tag and dont know which one.
AoE @ Jun 18th 2008 4:50PM
Did anyone in the audience ask Mr. Spector to explain why WoW does so well then? Surely he has an explanation.
Spartacus @ Jun 18th 2008 8:40PM
Because WoW doesn't pertain to his prediction as he is talking about single player campaigns, not MMO's.
But even if WoW DID pertain to this discussion, that game is far more an exception to the rule than the rule. It's a phenomenon. MMO's usually have a niche following.
Jody Anthony (cookingrebels.com) @ Jun 18th 2008 4:57PM
I like my games right around the 25 hour mark
samfish @ Jun 18th 2008 5:11PM
Me too, although I make exceptions when it's something like Okami or Zelda.
Although usually if a game goes past the 60 hour mark, I get bored with it no matter what game it is.
Mr Khan @ Jun 18th 2008 5:24PM
How much time (in actual hours of play) a game takes is general irrelevant to when i get bored with it. How much time in days and weeks it takes is usually the better indicator. My ideal long game should last me about a month of anywhere from one to four hours of daily play
Turkish Superman @ Jun 18th 2008 4:59PM
I'm not taking anything he says seriously until he apologizes for Deus Ex: Invisible War.
DP @ Jun 19th 2008 5:25PM
Keep it relevant hoes...
I don't care what anyone says, Deus Ex: Invisible War was an awesome game.
iag25 @ Jun 18th 2008 4:58PM
Zelda TP was an amazing game, and even though it took so long it was addictive. I wouldn't say its out the door, but alot of people, including myself like a little competition which means online.
Titanium_Orchid @ Jun 18th 2008 5:00PM
Maybe Mr. Spector is making the wrong games.
I've definitely clocked 200+ hours wandering around in Oblivion.
What about the people playing The Sims or WoW? A lot of these people are casual gamers who have no doubt spent more than 100 hours playing these games. A game doesn't need to have some ridiculous budget to be successful. It just needs to be captivating/entertaining.
Companies need to differentiate themselves from the pack? Really!?!? Thanks for the insight.
iiijeremy @ Jun 18th 2008 5:01PM
Funny that he used the example of GTA4 in reference to 100 hour games, as it only took me around 32 hours to see GTA4's final mission. 32 hours is a far cry from 100 hours, or at least that was the case the last time I checked.
I personally like the single player campaigns that are 15+ hours in length and have a complimentary multiplayer or sandbox element that allows you to invest considerably more time in the game, if you so desire. Three good examples would be Bioshock, CoD4 and GTA4 .... SP only, multiplayer elements and sandbox (plus multiplayer), respectively.
Dirt @ Jun 18th 2008 5:02PM
I'm happy with 15-20 hour games.
I got maybe 1/2 way through GTA4 before I got bored. I was expecting all this new content for the 360, but that wont be released for another year or whatever. Who cares about it then, I'm already bored and have moved on.
Evan @ Jun 18th 2008 5:29PM
I also get bored with long games.
- Many long games are long because they make me spend more time walking/driving between fights/missions. I don't play games to simulate running around an empty field or building. BORING!
- Many long games re-use the same techniques/weapons on the same enemy-types again and again. How many times do I have to beat the same enemy-type before the game will move on to a tougher enemy? BORING!
I prefer a short game where every little detail is meticulously placed and every battle is important.