The True Price of Cinematic Games - The Last of Us Thoughts: Part 2

There's a lot of ongoing talk concerning games that are highly cinematic and whether they should really be considered "video games" as we understand them or be put into an entirely different category altogether. The Last of Us has particularly been the example game in this debate, but I'm not here to argue for or against what the technical classifications of a game of this type should be. My real issue is with what The Last of Us offers and whether or not it's really worth $60 out the gate.

My previous post about The Last of Us expressed my disappointment in the ending of the game, and coupled with my short play time of only about 13 hours, I personally did not feel like this game warranted a full price tag. If I had picked this game up day one, I would have been upset about spending that kind of money. A general counter to this argument is usually how the multiplayer mode makes up for the short gameplay, but that only brings up another bothersome can of worms. Why does every game need a multiplayer mode? And furthermore, why does the mere existence of a multiplayer mode in a game supposedly justify the cost of a game?

All of this is more or less here to lead up to what could be a bold but possibly advantageous decision to make by a publisher of a story and cinematic-driven game. Instead of creating a multiplayer mode that is statistically destined to die out fairly quickly, how about just saving that money? A successful multiplayer experience in a game is a good way to encourage players to buy new and retain their copy of the game for its replay value instead of immediately selling the game back to stores like Game Stop. If a dev and publishing team cannot ensure a good multiplayer experience, then they might as well leave it out altogether.

Here's where the REALLY crazy idea comes in. Once the decision to leave out a multiplayer mode is made, sell the game cheaper at launch. Hear me out... The reason this could work is because right now, relatively short, cinematic games fall somewhere between longer games with much higher replay value or higher gameplay hours clocked in and epic movie trilogies. If there was a price tag attached to cinematic games that reflected the time commitment and value to playability in relation to longer games and movies, then I would wager more people would be inclined to pick it up new rather than wait for a cheaper used copy at some later time. If used games sales are so bad for devs and publishers, this could be a way to help counteract Game Stop's effectiveness. $40-45 for 13 hours of gameplay sounds a lot better than $60 if you're comparing it to a Skyrim, Fallout, Far Cry etc. that can give you anywhere from 30-100 hours of gameplay.

Obviously this wouldn't work in every situation, and it would be a big risk for a publisher to take, but I would love to see more price flexibility in general. With so much debate surrounding cinematic games' true value, this would be the best starting place for big publishers to take a chance at shaking up the status quo.