No video game should be longer than 12 hours – Reader’s Feature

A reader suggests making all single-player games shorter will not only help with budgets but ensure people aren’t put off from playing them.

Video games are currently in crisis, there’s no doubt about that. Console sales are down, the cost of making games is up, and the number of different genres that are still economically viable are shrinking by the day. Not only that but the number of games people are playing is shrinking too, as many stick with the same live service game they’ve been playing for years and buy even less new games than they ever did.

That’s why Game Pass and other subscription services have not made an impact: not because people don’t think they’re good value for money but because they don’t think they’ll have time to take advantage of it.

While it’s obvious why live service games want to keep you playing as much as possible I have no idea why bloat has become such a serious issue for modern games. Everyone wants to get their money’s worth but why are Assassin’s Creed, and Zelda, and Starfield, and games like that so filled with trivial, repetitive tasks and missions? Why can nothing just tell a straightforward story within, say, 12 hours and then just end?

You can have optional side quests, of course, but so many modern single-player games are victims of such bloated excess that playing them feels like taking on second job. When all I wanted to do was have some fun and see how the story ends.

I know I’m not the only one that thinks like this, because I see people complaining about it all the time, both online, in the Inbox, and within my own friend group. No one has time for this, and no one enjoys doing the same thing over and over again. Well, okay, maybe they do in a live service game but not in what’s supposed to be a story-based experience.

My solution to this problem is simple: don’t make any single-player games last longer than 12 hours. I’m not saying we should make that the law, but publishers and developers need to get together and agree that things are out of control and unless they rein it in then the whole games industry is going to be in even more trouble.

If you’re reading this and thinking, ‘But I like long games!’ that’s fine. I’m not having a go at you. But the problem is it’s unsustainable. Games are already too expensive to make, and need too many people, so trying to make them all last 60+ hours on top of that is madness.

Maybe you’d have more trouble charging £70/$70 for the game if it was shorter but I’m not sure that’s true. Even just charging last gen prices would still provide plenty of profit, since the game was cheaper to make and more people will be tempted to get it.

60+ hours has become the current standard simply because lots of games have done it. Have a year or so of everything being 12 hours and £50/$50 and I think you’d see profits go up and people would be a lot happier. What people want is value for money, not infinite playtime, so make the length of the game proportional to what it costs and everyone will be better off.

By reader Kasshern

The reader’s features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Stuff page and you won’t need to send an email.

MORE : First Call Of Duty: Black Ops 6 gameplay trailer is literally 1 second long

MORE : Nintendo hints at longer development times and new acquisitions

MORE : Elden Ring now belongs to From Software and not Bandai Namco

Sign up to all the exclusive gaming content, latest releases before they’re seen on the site.

Privacy Policy »

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.