I wouldn't pay $60 for a 12 hour game.

A game like Skyrim? Yup. Worth every penny. 12 Hour Game? Nope. $20 maybe.

And I pretty much don't buy multi-player games, or ones focused on multi-player... other than an MMO here and there.

This argument could turn out to be moot anyways. Both HL1 and 2 had multiplayer, if we follow the trend HL3 might have it too. And while the MP modes in those games were forgettable (though the gravity gun was fun for a bit) Valve has gained a lot more experience with developing MP/Coop stuff after HL2's release.

Assuming HL3 is released before the heat death of the universe of course.

Beamer wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 18:23:
Is The Last of Us really a 12 hour game?

It took me 19, but I play very, very slowly. I imagine someone who pushed can easily get it done in 12 hours. On my second replay I think it took 10.

Regardless, sorry, this very board has complained about how 12 hour games aren't worth $60.

Yeah, haven't seen much of that. There have been plenty of complaints that the standard five to eight hour games weren't worth the 60 bucks. Don't recall very many complaints about games that are genuinely 12 hours in length. Of course, knowing cuntyb and the publisher mouthpiece that he is, when he says "12 hours" he means 12 hours in marketing speak, so he's really just talking about the 6 hour campaign that you run through in a single afternoon.

Now Cliff says it and suddenly he's wrong and everyone has examples of 12 hour campaigns they loved.

It's not that he's "suddenly" wrong. He's just wrong, period. He's an utter publisher asslicker who believes that games can only exist with 50 million dollar development budgets and 150 million dollar marketing budgets, and "NOTHING ELSE CAN EVER BE PROFITABLE THE NUMBERS JUST DON"T WORK PEOPLE XBOX RULES AND THERE CAN BE NO RENTALS OR USED GAMES YOU CHEAP BASTARDS ARE KILLING THE INDUSTRY HELLO IS THIS THING ON?!"

And in those tweets he constantly ignores such minor issues as that the game industry set record revenues after record revenues after record revenues despite the existence of rentals and used games, and that indie games are selling better than ever etc etc etc.

Hey, if you want to champion what he says, and pretend like he's this guru of infinite gaming industry wisdom, go right ahead, but you really do kind of make yourself look foolish that way.

The Last of Us also has multiplayer to keep it going, though that's likely beside the point.

Especially since not that many people are playing it. At least there weren't when I checked.

Creston

SpectralMeat wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 16:04:
So you are agreeing with him that HF3 would make little business sense for Valve to make?

... DLC can be sold for both MP and SP games. MP DLC packs aren't the only DLC that sells, or keep a game somewhat fresh, if you can call it that.

If they want to make sure the game stays in the circulation of new games without a MP component just add modding.

HL3 makes good business sense because it delivers a product a lot of people want. It delivers a product that built Valve and by extension, Steam. It's a core product, and to say that it doesn't make business sense to get it out the door is short-sighted at best. The real question is whether or not it makes good business sense to bring out a sub-par HL3, and it really doesn't...image is important and expectations are extremely high.

MP DLC sell at a far higher rate than SP. I won't post sources since they're old by now, by I do know that SP DLC sold at 10-15% in the past (we're talking pre-Skyrim) while MP DLC sold at 50-65%. This is because a game with more length to it (MP goes on "forever") can take longer to get DLC out before players get disinterested.

Which brings us to your last point on modding: it also helps people stick with something. Yet a lot of developers/publishers kind of see it as the anti-DLC, especially for SP since MP is mostly geared around balance and doesn't lend as much to mods beyond UI. Half-Life and other games broke this mold, however, by being very moddable, creating all sorts of mods that would eventually become standalone.

So I guess what I'm saying is...it really depends on other factors. A HL3 game done well with moddability is beyond good business sense; it's downright essential...but it's make better sense not to have it at all if it's not going to meet any of those goals.

Creston wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 18:20:

Beamer wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 15:06:
Anomalies, in many ways.
A 12 hour game can be blown through in a matter of days. It's then forgotten, far too quickly for DLC to come out. At the same time, consumers don't really feel like paying $60 for a 12 hour game

How many games are you going to call an anomaly before you realize that his statement is just bullshit? Is Last of Us also an anomaly? It's selling like butter, but I guess cuntyb said it wouldn't make any money, so it's not making any money?


It's only been a recent thing that we've started seeing longer single player campaigns again, and probably as a result, interest in those types of games has increased as well. Nobody was paying 60 bucks for the standard 5 hour campaign, but I think 12 hours resonates well with gamers, and as a result there's an uptick in sales.

It could just be correlation and not causality, but it makes more sense than the "Well, SP campaigns don't sell because I said so!" bullshit.

Creston

Is The Last of Us really a 12 hour game?

Regardless, sorry, this very board has complained about how 12 hour games aren't worth $60. Now Cliff says it and suddenly he's wrong and everyone has examples of 12 hour campaigns they loved.
The Last of Us also has multiplayer to keep it going, though that's likely beside the point.

This comment was edited on Jul 11, 2013, 18:58.

Beamer wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 15:06:
Anomalies, in many ways.
A 12 hour game can be blown through in a matter of days. It's then forgotten, far too quickly for DLC to come out. At the same time, consumers don't really feel like paying $60 for a 12 hour game

How many games are you going to call an anomaly before you realize that his statement is just bullshit? Is Last of Us also an anomaly? It's selling like butter, but I guess cuntyb said it wouldn't make any money, so it's not making any money?


It's only been a recent thing that we've started seeing longer single player campaigns again, and probably as a result, interest in those types of games has increased as well. Nobody was paying 60 bucks for the standard 5 hour campaign, but I think 12 hours resonates well with gamers, and as a result there's an uptick in sales.

It could just be correlation and not causality, but it makes more sense than the "Well, SP campaigns don't sell because I said so!" bullshit.

Creston

SpectralMeat wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 16:04:

Beamer wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 15:06:

SpectralMeat wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 12:18:

NegaDeath wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 12:13:
New offices? HL3 confirmed.

Speaking of HL3
CliffyB thinks it makes no business sense for Valve to make it:
https://twitter.com/therealcliffyb/status/355323741024161792

I agree with him, I mean Bioshock, Dishonored, Metro, The Last of Us, are just a few games that made no money what so ever because they were single player only.

Anomalies, in many ways.
A 12 hour game can be blown through in a matter of days. It's then forgotten, far too quickly for DLC to come out. At the same time, consumers don't really feel like paying $60 for a 12 hour game.

So I don't see how he's wholly wrong. 12 hour games are too quickly forgotten for developers to make their money back and too quickly forgotten for consumers to want to pay $60. As a result, they have decreasing revenue.

HL3 would be an exception. Dishonored didn't have a guaranteed sequel. Metro is an Eastern European developer doing it somewhat cheaply.

These games are typically some of my favorite games, but for many... would anyone really miss it if Call of Duty 18 suddenly didn't have its idiotic 7 hour campaign?

So you are agreeing with him that HF3 would make little business sense for Valve to make?
I think he is wrong on a business point of view anyways. It doesn't matter if a game has MP as well as single player part, if the game is good people will buy it and keep on buying it.
Look at Skyrim or the Witcher series, or any other succesfull single player only games like Bioshock or the Last of Us very recently.
A game doesn't have to have multiplayer to keep it o nthe best sellers list. DLC can be sold for both MP and SP games. MP DLC packs aren't the only DLC that sells, or keep a game somewhat fresh, if you can call it that.

If they want to make sure the game stays in the circulation of new games without a MP component just add modding.
There is no valid excuse to not make HL3 whether it has MP components or not.
If there is a will there is a way

Of course I'm not agreeing. "HL3 would be an exception."

You're saying look at Skyrim or The Witcher. Are either of those 12 hour campaigns? Or are they more like 40-200 hour campaigns?

Cliff isn't saying "you need multiplayer to survive," he's saying "you need a game that most people don't beat then stop playing the weekend after release to survive."

I agree with that. The $60 I played on games that I beat in 4-6 days ends up feeling poorly spent. From his own games, I dug Bulletstorm more than most. At $40 it was worth it. But the 8 hour campaign wasn't enough to satisfy me. I played multiplayer for another 8 hours just because I liked the mechanic (multiplayer wasn't great.)

I can name a bunch of other games that I did that with. 8-12 hours, then just forgotten. Ended before I was finished.

This comment was edited on Jul 11, 2013, 18:22.

Surprised they're not just asking the "community" to build them one. That's how they support all their games now.

Beamer wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 15:06:

SpectralMeat wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 12:18:

NegaDeath wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 12:13:
New offices? HL3 confirmed.

Speaking of HL3
CliffyB thinks it makes no business sense for Valve to make it:
https://twitter.com/therealcliffyb/status/355323741024161792

I agree with him, I mean Bioshock, Dishonored, Metro, The Last of Us, are just a few games that made no money what so ever because they were single player only.

Anomalies, in many ways.
A 12 hour game can be blown through in a matter of days. It's then forgotten, far too quickly for DLC to come out. At the same time, consumers don't really feel like paying $60 for a 12 hour game.

So I don't see how he's wholly wrong. 12 hour games are too quickly forgotten for developers to make their money back and too quickly forgotten for consumers to want to pay $60. As a result, they have decreasing revenue.

HL3 would be an exception. Dishonored didn't have a guaranteed sequel. Metro is an Eastern European developer doing it somewhat cheaply.

These games are typically some of my favorite games, but for many... would anyone really miss it if Call of Duty 18 suddenly didn't have its idiotic 7 hour campaign?

So you are agreeing with him that HF3 would make little business sense for Valve to make?
I think he is wrong on a business point of view anyways. It doesn't matter if a game has MP as well as single player part, if the game is good people will buy it and keep on buying it.
Look at Skyrim or the Witcher series, or any other succesfull single player only games like Bioshock or the Last of Us very recently.
A game doesn't have to have multiplayer to keep it o nthe best sellers list. DLC can be sold for both MP and SP games. MP DLC packs aren't the only DLC that sells, or keep a game somewhat fresh, if you can call it that.

If they want to make sure the game stays in the circulation of new games without a MP component just add modding.
There is no valid excuse to not make HL3 whether it has MP components or not.
If there is a will there is a way

Beamer wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 15:06:
These games are typically some of my favorite games, but for many... would anyone really miss it if Call of Duty 18 suddenly didn't have its idiotic 7 hour campaign?

Would anyone miss Call of Duty 18? These types of franchises are killing gaming.

SpectralMeat wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 12:18:

NegaDeath wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 12:13:
New offices? HL3 confirmed.

Speaking of HL3
CliffyB thinks it makes no business sense for Valve to make it:
https://twitter.com/therealcliffyb/status/355323741024161792

I agree with him, I mean Bioshock, Dishonored, Metro, The Last of Us, are just a few games that made no money what so ever because they were single player only.

Anomalies, in many ways.
A 12 hour game can be blown through in a matter of days. It's then forgotten, far too quickly for DLC to come out. At the same time, consumers don't really feel like paying $60 for a 12 hour game.

So I don't see how he's wholly wrong. 12 hour games are too quickly forgotten for developers to make their money back and too quickly forgotten for consumers to want to pay $60. As a result, they have decreasing revenue.

HL3 would be an exception. Dishonored didn't have a guaranteed sequel. Metro is an Eastern European developer doing it somewhat cheaply.

These games are typically some of my favorite games, but for many... would anyone really miss it if Call of Duty 18 suddenly didn't have its idiotic 7 hour campaign?

NeOCidE wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 14:41:
Fed up of ClittyB opening his damn trap. He has something to say and we all must listen.

He's an amoeba floating in a pool of sputum.

I think in this case he's right for the wrong reasons. At this point, Valve is a retailer that happens to pretend to release games every once in a while (although more recently they seem to just buy a studio that's working on a game they like and release it... hello L4D and DOTA2). I don't see how a lengthy development cycle for a top-tier game really helps out their business model, unless it's basically to serve as a marketing vehicle for a next-generation Source engine to license to independent devs...

Fed up of ClittyB opening his damn trap. He has something to say and we all must listen.

He's an amoeba floating in a pool of sputum.

I wish people would stop paying attention to cuntyb. He's literally just trolling now.

Creston

NegaDeath wrote on Jul 11, 2013, 12:13:
New offices? HL3 confirmed.

Speaking of HL3
CliffyB thinks it makes no business sense for Valve to make it:
https://twitter.com/therealcliffyb/status/355323741024161792

I agree with him, I mean Bioshock, Dishonored, Metro, The Last of Us, are just a few games that made no money what so ever because they were single player only.

New offices? HL3 confirmed.

Just remember that the desks need to roll on the LEFT side of the office in the UK, Gabe!

Creston