One reader suggested that if they made all single player games shorter, it would not only save money on the budget, but it would also stop people being put off playing them.
Video games are currently in crisis. There's no doubt about it. Console sales are falling, game production costs are rising, and the number of genres that are still economically viable is shrinking by the day. Not only that, but the number of games people play is also decreasing. play User numbers are also declining as many people stick to the same live service games they've played for years and buy fewer new games than in the past.
This is why Game Pass and other subscription services haven't made an impact — not because people don't think they're worth the money, but because they don't think they have the time to take advantage of them.
It's clear why live service games want to keep you playing for as long as possible, but it's unclear why bloat is such a serious problem in modern games. Everyone wants to get value for their money, so why are games like Assassin's Creed, Zelda, Starfield, etc. full of boring, repetitive tasks and missions? Why can't anything just tell a simple story in 12 hours or less and be done with it?
Sure, there are optional side quests, but too many single player games these days fall victim to excessive bloat that makes playing them feel like a side job, when all I wanted to do was have fun and see how the story concluded.
I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way because I see people complaining about this all the time online, in my inbox, and within my own friend groups. No one has time for this, and no one enjoys doing the same thing over and over again. Well, maybe in a live service game, but not in a game that's supposed to be a story-based experience.
My solution to this problem is simple: don't allow single player games to last longer than 12 hours. I'm not saying this should be law, but publishers and developers need to get together and agree that things are getting out of control. If we don't curb this, the entire gaming industry will have more problems.
If you're reading this and thinking “But I like long games!”, that's fine. We're not blaming you. But the problem is that it's unsustainable. Games are already too expensive to make and require too much manpower, and trying to make everything last for 60+ hours on top of that is insanity.
Maybe if the game was shorter it would be harder to sell it for £70/$70, but I'm not sure if that's true – the game would still be profitable enough just selling it for the previous gen price, because it's cheaper to make and more people will want to buy it.
60+ hours is the current standard simply because that's what most games have done. If everything was 12 hours and £50/$50 in a year or so, I think profits would go up and people would be happier. People want value for money, not infinite playtime, so make the game length proportional to the cost and everyone would win.
Reader Kasherun
Readers' opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of GameCentral or Metro.
You can submit a reader feature piece of 500-600 words at any time. If your submission is selected it will be published in the next suitable weekend slot. Get in touch with us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our submission page – there's no need to email us.
MORE: Call Of Duty: Black Ops 6's first gameplay trailer is literally one second long
Read more: Nintendo hints at development extension and new acquisition
Read more: Elden Ring is now under FromSoftware instead of Bandai Namco
Sign up for all exclusive gaming content and the latest releases before they appear on the site.
privacy policy »
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
