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

One reader suggests that making single-player games shorter will not only help save budgets, but also ensure that people aren’t deterred from playing them.

Video games are in crisis right now, there’s no doubt about it. Console sales have fallen, the cost of making games has risen, and the number of different genres that are still economically viable is shrinking by the day. Not only that, but also the number of games people play to play is also shrinking, as many stick to the same live-service game they’ve been playing for years and buy even fewer new games than they ever have.

That’s why Game Pass and other subscription services haven’t had an impact: not because people don’t think they offer value for money, but because they think they won’t have time to take advantage of them.

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 problem for modern games. Everyone wants value for their money, but why are Assassin’s Creed, Zelda, Starfield and similar games so filled with trivial, repetitive tasks and missions? Why can’t anything tell a simple story in, say, twelve 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 a second job. When all I wanted to do was have fun and see how the story would end.

I know I’m not the only one who thinks this way, because I see people complaining about it all the time, both online, in the Inbox and within my own group of friends. No one has time for this and no one likes doing the same thing over and over again. Well, maybe in a live service game, but not in what should be a story-based experience.

My solution to this problem is simple: make sure single-player games don’t last longer than twelve hours. I’m not saying we should make that a law, but publishers and developers need to come together and agree that things are getting out of hand. Unless they rein in this, the entire games industry will be in even more trouble.

If you’re reading this and thinking, “But I like long games!” that’s fine. I’m not going to work with you. But the problem is that it is unsustainable. Games are already too expensive to make and require too many people, so making them all take another 60+ hours is madness.

Maybe you’d have more trouble charging £70/$70 for the game if it were shorter, but I’m not sure that’s true. Even charging last-gen prices would still generate enough profit because the game was cheaper to make and more people will be tempted to buy it.

60+ hours has become the current standard simply because many games have done this. If you have everything 12 hours and £50/$50 for about a year, I think you’ll see profits increase and people will be a lot happier. What people want is value for money, not endless play time. So make sure the length of the game is proportional to what it costs, and everyone will be better off.

By reader Kasshern

Reader characteristics do not necessarily represent the opinions of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500 to 600 word read 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 don’t need to send an email.

MORE: Call Of Duty: Black Ops 6’s first gameplay trailer is literally 1 second long

MORE: Nintendo hints at longer development times and new acquisitions

MORE: Elden Ring is now owned by From Software and not Bandai Namco

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