I don't think it is a completely different discussion. The length of the game affects length of development time, the available budget that they can spend on a game, etc. There are all sorts of effects on development, which circles back to me not feeling the new Halos or the new Assassin's Creeds are as good anymore. I hardly consider length of a game at all in how I feel about it or prefer it, as long as feels like it should be that long, which comes back to pacing again.
The problem with a 500 hour game is pacing, finding natural calls to action and conclusions to those story arcs. And the next game that comes out in a week offers a fulfilling experience in a different way, and it's nice to see a breadth of different great experiences rather than just one really long one. I say that as someone who's put 1500 hours into my favorite game. I'm not necessarily wishing for Baldur's Gate 3 to be shorter, only that Baldur's Gate 3's scope could have been scaled back without affecting how much I enjoy it or how much value I got out of it. I would really like to see a batch of D&D 5e games on this engine the way there was a batch of Infinity Engine games back in the late 90s and early 00s, and even those games were much shorter than BG3. In general, I'd say games over a certain budget threshold sacrifice a lot of enjoyment in order to make their games bigger and/or longer, and games like BG3 and Elden Ring are the exception, so in most cases, I'd rather big games like Halo Infinite or Assassin's Creed scale down to the smaller experiences they used to be.
That wouldn't be the base price; the base price is $70 for the biggest games. I think people are also a bit liberal with labeling games as "incomplete", when really they mean, "this game will have DLC after the fact because it's the best way to make games that take years to make without laying people off". And just to take a brief look along some games in my library, Cyberpunk 2077 would cost a maximum of $100 with DLC, by the time Guilty Gear Strive is sunset (if it runs for 5 years) it will still be shy of $200 in a worst case, and I'm seeing far more games without DLC than with DLC.
I had a hard time making it through this video. This guy's shtick is grating. At 1.5x speed, there's still tons of pregnant pauses for where he thinks I should be laughing, I guess. However, this is a point I agree with:
[In a segment about asking "the right kinds of questions":] "What, rather than scope, do we really want more of?"
Baldur's Gate 3 would be just as fulfilling of an RPG at half the length. I'm in Act 3, about 70 hours in, and I skipped a lot of stuff along the way knowing how much game I had ahead of me. Further still, there's a lot of stuff I didn't do along that same way because my character build didn't open those avenues or because I just didn't know it was there. It's a very dense and deep game, and that's what's important to me rather than the length. It's important to me that they continue to do what they've done well in Divinity: Original Sin with all of those tiny interactibles and the way all of the systems work together to allow you to come up with your own solutions. The raised standard, to me, is that they managed to iterate on that with Mass Effect level production value in the conversation system where you don't just get a story that's written well or voiced well but also performed well. On top of that, the game brings back old standards that this industry mostly forgot in that it has LAN and direct IP connections as well as being available DRM-free so that the game or its multiplayer features don't have an expiration date attached to them. I didn't necessarily need this game to be 100 hours long in order to get the enjoyment I'm getting out of it.
And the thing that the author of this video seemed to miss is that several of the quote reply tweets to that thread were from AAA developers, which is where the IGN video came from (which wasn't even the first video to bring this up). The same thing happened when AAA devs behind the likes of Assassin's Creed were publicly criticizing aspects of Elden Ring as though people weren't fed up with the kind of experience that Assassin's Creed provides, and it led to that famous UI barf mock-up of Elden Ring. Elden Ring, like Baldur's Gate 3, only happened because its team iterated on something smaller, and it too avoids lousy monetization schemes.
They can still have similar production value and not be open world games that take 80 hours to finish. It just makes far more sense to me to bet small with tons of projects than to bet big with only a few, because then you'll find the PUBGs and the DOTAs that Phil is talking about eventually.
This is why, in the past 2 decades we’ve been seeing the scummiest of practices being employed again and again, as well as a 300% hike in base prices.
Two decades ago, games were $50 which, due to switching to discs, was a price reduction over cartridges, so this point in time is a bit cherry picked. But even rolling from there, a 300% hike in base prices would mean games cost $200, and that's just not true.
Of the two options that Phil says Game Pass encourages (and I agree with his analysis), one is the opposite of scummy and something the market could use more of.
Well, it may surprise you to find out that plenty of us don't find these games to be easy if BG3 is the easiest one. One friend of mine bumped it down to narrative, and the rest of us are finding plenty of challenge on balanced.
Larian games are easy enough that you don’t have to min max at all
Including BG3? Because there have been a lot of challenging fights so far. And I only got a handful of hours into D:OS 1, but I remember hitting a pretty difficult fight there as well.
Being the first one out only matters to a few publications. You're not competing with IGN and Gamespot just by being out first, so it doesn't matter to most of them. Review scores tend to fall a few points after the first day the embargo breaks, because those are all the outlets the publisher bet would review it worse. I play Fantasy Critic, and you can observe this happening with just about every major release. That doesn't mean the ones reviewing it with early review codes are any less honest about it.
There are a million reasons for this kind of thing, cited for years now. These reviewers are exposed to more truly awful games than most of us, they're less likely to latch on to one or two gripes in a score, they're more likely to put the person in charge of the review who's most likely to understand the game's strengths (meaning they put the Dark Souls fan on the Dark Souls review and the Madden fan on the Madden review, for instance), and all sorts of other reasons. Were it me reviewing any game, I'd immediately dock tons of points just for the sheer act of requiring a server connection, because it can only ever make the product worse, but that hasn't stopped people from loving Fortnite, Diablo IV, or any other live service game. It's really just as simple as they came away from the game with a different opinion than you would have or expect. It's not a conspiracy or incentives influencing it; not from real review outlets anyway. Actual review outlets don't sweat it if they get cut off from codes, as it's happened plenty of times, and they review the games anyway.
Because this is a "software as a service" product that actually operates sort of like a service. Technology moves fast, and the company that makes the game engine is continually adding those latest benefits for you, especially Unity and Unreal. And again, the risk of building your game is now back-loaded. Unreal is totally free up front, and Unity is dirt cheap up front (sometimes free). The revenue share model means you only pay royalties once your game passes a certain threshold of success, so their incentives are aligned with yours. This is unlike most consumer products where you may never make any revenue off of what you create with them at all, and you're paying up front. The closest analogy would be if your car was free but they only took a percentage of your proceeds if you're a professional driver, and only after you made about $10k in a quarter.