That would depend on what you mean by “completed”. If you’re talking about just getting the keystone and wiping your character, well, okay. I wouldn’t call that completed, but whatever gets your motor running.
What is “completing” a game? To someone it’s rushing through the main quest, which in most games can be done in a matter of a handful of hours, including Elder Scrolls, the Mass Effect series, Witcher 3, etc. To others it’s exploring every corner, talking to every NPC, completing every side quest, collecting every collectible and completing all Steam Achievements.
If someone bought Conan Exiles for the main quest, they probably bought the wrong game.
Beating the main quest and/or getting all the trophies/achievements. Same reason people say games like Call of Duty is a 6 hour game, even though fans of the series put thousands upon thousands of hours into each iteration of the game.
In other words, “completing” has no functional meaning in this discussion. I value my games on the number of hours I play the game, not how quickly I could have “completed” it.
A single playthrough of Transformers: Devastation takes ~eight hours (if you don’t chase every Kremzeek on the maps). I’ve played it for over 70 hours. So I’ve got 70+ hours of enjoyment for the dollars I spent on the game. Similarly, I’ve played Conan Exiles for over 800 hours, so I’ve paid for 800+ hours of fun.
I’ve bought books I’ve read only once, and I’ve bought books I’ve read several times. Even if I pay the same amount of dollars for each book, I get more value out of those books I read more than once.
Beating the main quest isn’t the point of sandbox games. It says so right on the tin: “Survive. Build. Dominate.” Not “Escape!”
It has more meaning than an arbitrarily assigned number. I could play rock, paper, scissors for 2000 hours, but that doesn’t mean it the game itself has a play time that long.
No, it really doesn’t. Saying that Conan Exiles can be completed in two hours, or four hours, or 14 hours, however long it takes to collect those artifact pieces and get the heck out of there, would be totally misleading. “Completing” the game isn’t the point of the game.
If you go on a roller-coaster ride, reaching the finishing line isn’t why you do it, it’s the excitement of the ride itself. If all you want is just to finish the ride in a minimum amount of time and be done with it, maybe you don’t really enjoy roller-coaster rides in the first place.
The same applies to sandbox survival games.
There’s no plans to make Conan Exiles free to play (at all). However, it’s possible we’ll be offering free weekends on Steam from time to time like we’ve done in the past so new players can try and decide for themselves if the game is worth their time before investing in it.
We’re quite comfortable with this model and we’re going to keep going with it for the foreseeable future.
We’re also committed to make Conan Exiles the best it can be, so please send us your constructive feedback via the regular channels so we can keep improving.
for me CE is very fair as it is. Why ?
- it got a lot of free new content where others sell expansions
- the online play is free. Their model is special because they have to pay for a lot of servers without getting any revenue. A max of 70 persons per server shows how many servers are necessary to let 70 000 people play……
A company must generate revenues. As far as I see they only earn from selling copies & dlcs.
For that it is an outstanding product (of course I do not agree with all their priorities and have many open wishes for the game)
The problem is not the price. the problem is there is no casual fans. And i say problem as in population count being low.
Casual fans want one of 2 things, content to make them want to return every so often or for competitive casuals, a system where someone who plays 10 hours a week can at least compete with someone who play 50 hours a week (that is what makes battle arenas game more popular. If i learn enough on the game, i can jump in for 1 hour and have “fair” fights, CE i can’t do that.). And CE is tilted to the hardcore 50 hour guy. Material count matters. Yes, i may be able to hit you with my 200 bombs i built in 10 hours week, but the 50 hour guy has at minimum 1 decent sized base in a box he can throw up in 1 hour and then wipe me to nothing. Thus defeating the competitive part of the casual player.
No, getting to the end is what matters when comparing games objectively. Everything else is subjective.
So the shorter the game, the better? Shorter games should cost more because you can complete the game more efficiently? When going to watch a movie you should pick the shortest available because getting to the end is what matters, objectively?
I don’t think there is a way to compare games objectively, at least not in any sense that would matter from the point of playing the game. The purpose of games is entertainment, and people are entertained by different things. Some like bare boobs, others find flying rhinos hilarious, some just want to build great cities, and yet others have fun shooting both arms off people with a single arrow.
I still submit that if you’re looking forward to seeing the Game Over screen, you’re probably not actually enjoying the game, so maybe you should pick another game.
No, unless you are an achievement hunter, shorter is worse.
Objectively speaking a game has to have a proper ending, to be a proper game. Story doesn’t have to end tho, just the game. In other words a game needs to have objective boundaries (reachable goals, matrix) for the sake of enough transparency (heavily customer based perspective). Whenever the boundaries of a game isn’t defined enough, result is a “soft launch” in similar fashion to Fallout 76, Anthem, Sea of Thieves et cetera. We all know where the path of naivety leads when it comes to these publishers. This is why I consume indie titles mainly these days. High quality resides in indie games.
But there are games where the story ends, but the game doesn’t. You can continue to play Skyrim or Starpoint Gemini or Battletech, for example, after finishing the main quest. And all of those felt like proper games to me.
So madden is what a 30 minute game. I can beat the AI in 1 game of 5 minute quarters (default). Nice to know it is a waste of money. should be free to play as well i guess.
Story can end, but it isn’t necessary for a game to end. There are games where the story ends or receives a pause (resuming every following installment), but game continues.
Then there are those I refered to. Products that are designed to pray on customers. Those are intentionally designed to last forever, but in a shallow way and this is reflected thorough their bloated matrix.
Games do always end tho (in a way or another). Question is how they do so. Best games in my experience are those that are honest about their purposes. Ending is a strong enough variable how to deduce whether or not a game prays on customers or not. Like how the SW BFII was initially coded or any other similar product. People didn’t buy the “pride and achievement” part coz there was no such goal present. It was merely a petty slogan.
I never played Morrowind, so I can’t comment on that.
I like this idea of making free for official servers.
I never play on those, so let the people that think a game should be free for all play on the server that are basically a “free for all”, with no rules really go there
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.