Many people have a view traditionally on spending for computer games, in $ per hour. Some compare it to movies. If a game if fun for 10 hours, then X dollars are fine to pay for it.
But more and more, games are offered with other models which offer far more time playing per dollar.
For example, a Magic-like card game, Spellweaver, can easily be played for a thousand hours without spending a cent.
Marvel Heroes 2016, I've played for nearly 200 hours and don't even have a top level character yet, and have spent only $22.50 which didn't even need to be spent.
You can play World of Tanks for thousands of hours and have fun without spending a cent.
So, the old traditional model of, this adventure game has 15 hours of gameplay, this wargame has 25 hours of gameplay, and so on, for $30 or $50 dollars - it that endangered?
Some types of games are labor-intensive - like the adventure games mentioned. Dialogue, puzzles - these things might take minutes to consume and many hours to create.
But other types of games have far more re-usable content. Put new teams on a map in world of tanks, and you have another 15 minutes gaming with no new content created.
MMO's found this out, when new zones could be 'used up' in 2 hours of a player arriving, and so they needed to create repeated use - like a hundred 'collect items' quests.
The original type games can only compete as long as people are willing to pay that far higher dollar per hour of gameplay for them, and some still are - but will the new model push them out of the market?
It's a bit concerning in that it's a real loss of a type of gaming the more that happens. We've already seen some types made obsolete, such as the text adventure.
Is there going to be another "Day of the Tentacle" made if people flock to the 'free to play' games?
My feeling is - no. It's about the money, and investing a lot in the traditional games seems a worse and worse investment.
(Ironically, two of the oldest and best games show this difference: Zork and Rogue.
Zork is a play-one-time-and-you're-done game with the experience hand created, while Rogue has huge replayability with no new content - just procedurally generated new dungeons.
And today, we see interactive fiction an extinct game type, while "roguelikes" are a major fad.)
It's a somewhat analogous issue to tv programming: an hour of tv is an hour of tv, so the studios are tempted by low-cost "reality tv" over costly but higher quality shows.
Find a new situation to throw people in and boom, a cheap hour of TV. Who needs Star Trek or MASH or Person of Interest or Black Sails when you have amateur singers and celebrity judges?
But more and more, games are offered with other models which offer far more time playing per dollar.
For example, a Magic-like card game, Spellweaver, can easily be played for a thousand hours without spending a cent.
Marvel Heroes 2016, I've played for nearly 200 hours and don't even have a top level character yet, and have spent only $22.50 which didn't even need to be spent.
You can play World of Tanks for thousands of hours and have fun without spending a cent.
So, the old traditional model of, this adventure game has 15 hours of gameplay, this wargame has 25 hours of gameplay, and so on, for $30 or $50 dollars - it that endangered?
Some types of games are labor-intensive - like the adventure games mentioned. Dialogue, puzzles - these things might take minutes to consume and many hours to create.
But other types of games have far more re-usable content. Put new teams on a map in world of tanks, and you have another 15 minutes gaming with no new content created.
MMO's found this out, when new zones could be 'used up' in 2 hours of a player arriving, and so they needed to create repeated use - like a hundred 'collect items' quests.
The original type games can only compete as long as people are willing to pay that far higher dollar per hour of gameplay for them, and some still are - but will the new model push them out of the market?
It's a bit concerning in that it's a real loss of a type of gaming the more that happens. We've already seen some types made obsolete, such as the text adventure.
Is there going to be another "Day of the Tentacle" made if people flock to the 'free to play' games?
My feeling is - no. It's about the money, and investing a lot in the traditional games seems a worse and worse investment.
(Ironically, two of the oldest and best games show this difference: Zork and Rogue.
Zork is a play-one-time-and-you're-done game with the experience hand created, while Rogue has huge replayability with no new content - just procedurally generated new dungeons.
And today, we see interactive fiction an extinct game type, while "roguelikes" are a major fad.)
It's a somewhat analogous issue to tv programming: an hour of tv is an hour of tv, so the studios are tempted by low-cost "reality tv" over costly but higher quality shows.
Find a new situation to throw people in and boom, a cheap hour of TV. Who needs Star Trek or MASH or Person of Interest or Black Sails when you have amateur singers and celebrity judges?