Acceptable game length

What is minimum game length acceptable to you for full price (70 USD)?

  • Flappy Bird

    Votes: 13 5.8%

  • 10 hours

    Votes: 70 31.0%

  • 20 hours

    Votes: 76 33.6%

  • 30 hours

    Votes: 32 14.2%

  • 50 hours

    Votes: 15 6.6%

  • 100 hours

    Votes: 5 2.2%

  • 200 hours

    Votes: 13 5.8%

  • Minecraft

    Votes: 2 0.9%
  • Total voters
    226
reezoo

reezoo

Member
Industry seems to be struggling with cost of game development and trying to discover the right game size. Let's give them some feedback on what us gamers think. Choose the option which makes you think game length worth the money.

For me it's 30 hours, anything less and game feels expensive to me.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the type of game. I prefer single player games to be on the shorter side without collectible BS or any sort of fluff.
 
A dollar per minute.

Saturday GIF
 
If it's a tight and amazing game, 20 hours would be the bare minimum, and really that's a game I'm hoping I'll replay a second or third time. When I hear media peeps say "Make games shorter! Give me a great 8 hour game!" I just shake my head. Maybe for $40, but not for $70.

But I may be an outlier at this point. I only buy 2-3 games a year at $70, and mostly to show support by voting for things I want to support (From Software, Astrobot, etc). I have zero sense of FOMO and happily pick up games months later on sale.
 
Depends on the type of game. For example

Space Marine 2's replayable 10 to 12 hour campaign is fine since it's replayable and has multiplayer mods both pve and pvp like the good old Halo games during their primes.

Resident Evil games could also work well as a 12 to 15 hour replayable campaign. They also got amazing replay value. I think I replayed RE2 Remake and RE3 Remake both around 10 times already.

RPGs like FFVII Rebirth should be at least 40 hours.

Witcher 4, Elder Scrolls VI, Fallout 5, and GTA VI should have at least a few dozen hours for the campaign because of what those games are.

Ratchet and Clank also works well as a game with around 15 hours of playtime since it's replayable.

So yeah depends on the game.
 
Some of the best games I've ever played aren't even 20 hours. Some games I love have infinite hours of content. Still, it we are talking about a minimum I'd say 10 hours like the first Uncharted is the gold standard of not overstaying its welcome but not being just a piece of a game. Pretty sure you can beat Loaded in less than that but it'd require practice.

Edit: scratch all that. Daytona USA was about 5 minutes and was better than 99,99% of what it's produced today. Yes, the Sega Saturn port as well.
 
Last edited:
For me the most important part if the game is satisfying.....it can be 10 hours long or 200 hours, if im satisfied with my experience then I'm happy.
 
Where's the fuckin 6-8 hour option?

A good (and I mean good) 8 hour game will always beat a 20-30 hour game with filler. And there's no such thing as a 30+ hour game without filler.

But I also recognize my brain is probably broken, because I've beaten Mario 64 over 400 times. It's probably over 500 at this point.

It's not as impressive/sad as it sounds, though. I used to speedrun Mario 64 every morning in college to help wake me up. I usually beat the game in around 20-30 minutes.
 
A game should be as long as it needs to be. Quantifying by x dollar per y hours is why most games these days are bloated and wear out their welcome.
 
15 hours is the sweet spot to finish the main game. Just give it some replay value. For example, optional side quests, meaningful decisions that affect the direction of the story, etc. I'll take 15 hours of well crafted content over 30-60 hours of bloat. Many games outstay their welcome by taking content for a 10-15 hour game and stretching it over 40+ hours.
 
I don't need to rush from game to game. I take my time and enjoy it. If a game doesn't click with me, I simply drop it and move on.
 
bender said:
A game should be as long as it needs to be. Quantifying by x dollar per y hours is why most games these days are bloated and wear out their welcome.
Click to expand...
This is true, but I will never pay 70 $ for a 2 hour movie, same goes for game, no matter how good a game is there is a point where it's length vs hours of entertainment I can get out of it matters. Example AstroBiot is my GOTY but felt short, DLC is making up for it. On the other hand I feel like I got way more value for every dollar I spent on Elden Ring.
 
Im good with 2-15 hours. Depends on the game.

I wouldn't mind a 3 hour AAA game if it was high quality.

I dont need endless hours of entertainment to enjoy something.

I dont need endless hour of entertainment to think I got value.

Value comes in the experience I had with said thing, doesn't matter how long it is. Could be 1 hour, I dont give a shit.

Good sex is 2 minutes sometimes.
 
Last edited:
every game length is acceptable if the game is designed well around that playtime.

the only playtime number that is unacceptable is the one that clearly shows the game at hand is more filler than actual well designed gameplay.
 
reezoo said:
This is true, but I will never pay 70 $ for a 2 hour movie, same goes for game, no matter how good a game is there is a point where it's length vs hours of entertainment I can get out of it matters. Example AstroBiot is my GOTY but felt short, DLC is making up for it. On the other hand I feel like I got way more value for every dollar I spent on Elden Ring.
Click to expand...

I'd never buy a movie that I didn't want to watch multiple times and there are plenty of movies I love that are worth more than $70. You need to factor in replay value for games. Vanquish was a full price release and an average play through is probably 6-7 hours. I've replayed that game a ton and never regretted buying the game at launch. From a replay standpoint, I'd argue a shorter runtimes favor any given game. To use your example of Elden Ring, for as much as I liked the game and DLC, wanting to create a new character and run through that game is daunting. I'd rather just run through DeSo, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne instead as I'd probably still have some time left over compared to an Elden Ring + DLC playthrough. I'm also playing through the SH2 remake right now and the design feels padded compared to the original, so much so that in the back of my I head I'm thinking I'll probably not replay this game any time soon even if I'd like to see the multiple endings. I have this problem a ton with modern games as it feels like the vast majority would be better suited if their lengths were cut in half, if not more.
 
The longer the better as I like to immerse myself in the world. I don't knock out points off a game if it's on the shorter side though...as long as it respects my investment. For example, Resident Evil 3 Remake didn't feel like it respected my investment for a full price game, as a cheaper paid dlc it would have been fine.

I'm seriously tired of hearing the bullshit phrase "I'll take an 8 hour game over a bloated 30 hour one". FF7 Rebirth took me a little over a 100 hours to finish and I would have taken 500 more. It never felt bloated to me. Was Chrono Trigger bloated? Fuck no!
On the other side of the spectrum Silent Hill 2 Remake took me 15 hours and it felt right.
 
20 hours is the sweet spot imo for most games but semi/open worlds like Rebirth, Witcher 3, Fallout, Xenoblade I love getting immersed in the worlds and spending 100+ hours.
 
This is not a big deal to me. I could quit a "40 hour" game 20 hours in. Or I could watch the credits roll on a 15 hour game and start up a new game plus.

The "shortest" game I can think of at $70 is returnal. Let's just say I got my money out of that one and it took a lot of time. Remember when gaming magazines used praise games for being challenging? Some even rated challenge and weighed it in reviews.

Uninterrupted run time is a thing but it's not at all the whole story when it comes to value for you money.
 
Depends on the game. Imagine if Bethesda forced Skyrim into a 15 hour experience because that's how long someone thought all games should be?
 
50+ hours for 70 USD game.

But it's very rare for me to buy games day 1 since most of them aren't that appealing or offer anything fresh. And no, I am never going to pay full price for a movie game.
 
I'm fine with 10 hours or even slightly less IF the game has proper replay value, like RE2 Remake, Bayonetta 2, Hi Fi Rush (wasn't a full priced game, I know).
If it's more of a "one and done" type of experience I think the 20-30 hours range is the sweet spot for me.
 
Last edited:
The game can't be too long that it overstays its welcome, but it can't be so short that I feel like the devs rushed it because budget ran out or release timeline set in stone had to be met

Exact number of hours is a retarded metric, nobody measures 'acceptable movie length' by how long a movie is
 
$70 huh... havent bought a game at release in a while. Id say the golden number for me is 20. However, it better have good replay value. Im the guy who rather play same game for many hours vs many games for a few hours.
 
I don't think in game length vs price.

If a game has high production value, shitload of content and/or an amazing overall experience, it could be worth full price, imo.

Having said that, 99% of the time, I buy games at full price at launch. I never buy discounted games.
 
Beyond 40 it's padding. 10-40 depending upon game and genre. But everything gets increasingly grindy after 40 hours. I mean chasing Riddler Trophies or Odins Ravens is just a chore.
 
jrpgs 60+ hours

western 'cinematic' movies like Uncharted 10-12 hours.

checklist games like Spider-man, Ghosts of Shushima 20-30 hours
 
in most cases around 12-15 is good, but it really depends on the game.

I think I've said this many times by now, but Titanfall 2 has one of the best FPS campaigns of all time and is less than 5 hours long.
 
With how much useless unjointed time waster mechanics games have these days since Order 1886 "4 hooourss!", I would advocate to only 20hours condensed fun.
 
Everytime i replay Re4 i feel like it hits the sweetspot in terms of length in an action-adventure game.
So i guess ~ 12 to 15 hours or so.
 
Depends on a game. If it has good replay value, I don't mind if it's 10-15 hours. If not then 20-30 would be expected from a $70 title.

Thing is I almost never buy games for $70 at launch as 80% of the time they are riddled with bugs and technical issues. So I might as well wait a few weeks, months or even years sometimes for a game to get patched up and stable. At that point it will be on sale for a lot less as well.
 
Last edited:
10 hours probably that's something you can replay over again and probably bring down the length and just play it over again once u git gud. The longer the game the less replayable it is. not a lot of ppl are going back to replay 100 hour epics if their time is limited ur not gonna form the memory and muscle memory to run through those games again like you can with short games
 
Depends on the type of game. The worst offenders are the ones that want you to play through the entire game multiple times to get the "proper" ending.

Armored Core 6 is guilty of this, I don't have the time nor the patience to go through NG+ let alone NG++
 
Last edited:
200 plus, cause if you not getting that, you getting ripped off. Sorry but it needs to be said, they are just charging you the DLC of the rest of the game aka CP2077 /s lol

Look, I'm sure this has already been stated, but this can never make sense. this is dependent on genre, type of game etc. There can never be 1 acceptable length, that is even player dependent, as in a game can be 40 hours as its main story and someone can spend 100 plus hours 100%ing the game or something, so.....depends on what you like and how much you want to play.


I'm at the age now where I want quality and some entertainment, if its good even if its short, I think its worth full price if I feel I enjoyed the experience, so 12, 15, 20, 30 etc doesn't matter, if they are able to provide a fun experience, i'm fine
 
Last edited:
Because I have a family, 20 hours is the maximum I can tolerate, and I prefer shorter campaigns 8-10 hours long.

During my days of school, when I had the luxury of 6 week holidays, the length of the game had no bearing or relevance to me.

On the whole I don't see the point of longer games when most people don't even reach the half way point of their games based on Playstation Trophies.

Arachnid said:
Anything less and I feel like I wasted money at $70.
Click to expand...
Then don't buy the game at $70.

Furthermore, do you complain when you go to a restaurant? Food is considerably more expensive on a per cost basis.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Assassin's Creed Shadows Length Between 40 and 80 Hours
News  2
66
4K
violence replied
What is the average individual battle length in Baldur's Gate 3?
17
1K
Sentenza replied
Nintendo Tree House Announced for April 3 and April 4, Nintendo Direct Length Confirmed (60 Minutes)
News  2 3 4 5 6
296
12K
Killer8 replied
Phantom Blade 0 Game Length Is 30-40 Hours, Features Multiplayer
News 
16
3K
Rain432 replied
Realistically, what would have been an “acceptable” price for the PS5 Pro?
3 4 5 6 7
329
11K
Gen.Grievous replied
Top Bottom