|
|
 |
Report this Comment
Use this form to report the
selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally
be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.
 |
| 15. |
Re: Game Reviews |
Mar 20, 2013, 13:41 |
Beamer |
|
|
Quboid wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 13:34:
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:43:
Gadzooks wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:37:
Reviewers dont say games are supposed to be long
GAMERS say games are supposed to be long
Especially when said games cost 60 bucks.
60 bucks = 12 hours of movie time if you go to the theater
60 bucks for a game should at least be comparable. This whole 5 hour campaign is just BS.
I blame 80% of short games on publishers who push for a quick release, and 20% of lazy devs.
It's money, not time, that causes the short gameplay. It isn't that they rush the game out, it's that each hour costs so much money to make that, at some point, it's a losing proposition.
Is there a difference? The saying "time is money" is applicable here I think.
There is a difference. The way he phrased it it sounds like either devs are lazy and don't feel like working longer or execs are antsy and don't want to wait longer.
The limitation isn't the time. It isn't "oh, I don't feel like working on this any longer" or "oh man, we need something to release next week, so it's your game!" it's more "Oh man, we've spent 3 years and $80 million dollars making this game and it's only 7 hours long. I'm sure we can add a few more hours, but making them even half the quality of what we've done would take an additional $20 million dollars and get us, what, maybe 100,000 more sales? We simply don't have the budget and the cost of adding more hours to this game would likely be the difference between a successful product and one that loses money." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
