I'm partially kidding but can we just get it out there that "MOST" PSVR games are NOT going to be super long so we don't have to hear all of the complaining each time a game comes out?
Because? 20+ years ago games averaged about the same, if not less, yet they increased. When you were comparing an hour long experience to something in an arcade they weren't that different, where as now you have something like Moss that is about an hour and a half, where as something similar, say Ratchet and Clank 2016, has a How Long to Beat time of 10 hours. Not only are they similar playing games, Ratchet and Clank 2016 only cost $10 more than Moss.
Or, maybe we can create a separate sub-reddit section for all of the game-length complainers to go to and complain to their hearts content?
Anyway, I'll never understand the "I don't like that you don't like something, so let's make a subreddit for those of you that dislike it" logic. First and foremost, it's a negative reaction to a negative problem, instead of being a positive reaction to a negative problem. Instead of making a subreddit for those okay with game length, you decide this place is only for those who're okay with it and then proceed to tell them to do the extra work of leaving. Despite the former making much more sense.
Steering (or trying to) people away from buying a GOOD game that isn't long enough (in your opinion), I think is a mistake.
I disagree. Quality is a concept and like all concepts it's grounded in some kind of logic. The best way of putting it is like this. A good essay for a third grader is much different than what would be expected from a college student. The same is true for games.
I don't think anyone here would say Moss is a great game if it cost $100. Just like players expect more content from Destiny, especially when you bring up the $20+ expansions.
In my opinion, games tend to be good or bad based off three elements, which include cost, resources and actual quality. Cost is simply how much perceived value the product has. Sometimes that means it needs a certain amount of content, though it isn't uncommon for people to say experiences are more important. From there the amount of resources each developer has certainly plays a role in how much quality is expected. Obviously I'm going to expect more from Naughty Dog than the two or whatever dudes at The Behemoth. Finally, with these two elements in mind, the actual quality of the experience is judged.
So people boycott a GOOD game (or wait forever for a sale) that isn't long enough (in your opinion), the company doesn't make a profit, goes out of business, and you lost out on a great game.
See, here is the issue. Part of selling your product is knowing what to sell it for, since different considerations come into play. For instance, if Moss sells 100 copies at $30 or 300 copies at $10, it should yield the same profit. The idea behind this step is to find where the best yield is. So, let's say they estimate 100 copies will sell for $30 and 1,000 at $10, then they stand to gain over three times as much profit charging $10.
Furthermore, by supporting this practice you basically say "this is what I think is worth $30" and that causes companies to produce less or not try as hard.
The devs obviously know we'd like a longer game, hence the discounted price on "MOST" games.
Eh, no. PlayStation VR is already kind of expensive, with the estimated cost starting at around $400, so really short games at an extremely high price tag just further decreases interest. Not to mention, the current prices are already a hard sell, so just imagine if they were at $60...