Lunchtime Discussion: Modern Warfare 2’s A Bit Short

6.5 hours for your £55? Is this really fair?
Published 21/10/2009 at 12:00 by nofi
Related stories (more)
Lunchtime Discussion: AI [16]
Lunchtime Discussion: Advertising [34]
Lunchtime Discussion: Gaming Style [24]

Yesterday our very own Tuffcub highlighted the news that Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2’s single player campaign will apparently only last six or so hours, much the same as the first game. To be perfectly honest, I would be entirely happy with this news if it wasn’t for the fact that the damned game’s so expensive – whilst our friends at Games Basement have managed to get the price down to £43.99 the RRP, set by Activision, is up at £55 which is what the game will likely retail for on the high street.  This makes Modern Warfare 2 one of the most expensive non-import (and non-special edition) games I’ve ever committed to buying.

In times of economic struggle and bad hair, Activision are clearly banking on the Call of Duty name to ensure high sales regardless of the price, and whilst much has already been said about the pricing of the game, which is due on the 10th of November, yesterday was the first time the company has spoken out about the length of the game.  “We try and focus on the experience we’re trying to deliver,” Infinity Ward’s Robert Bowling told IGN, “and we really let the story dictate how long the game is.”

You’ll remember that 6 hours is roughly the same as the first game’s length, and I didn’t have a problem with it then because Modern Warfare was a)fresh and b)£40.  I never touched the online portion of the game and don’t intend to do with the sequel because I’ve got a million other things to do and although there’s a new mode that opens up after completion of the single player again that’s a multiplayer mode so I probably won’t be interested.  That leaves, assuming I buy the game for £45, a very rough figure of £7 per hour’s entertainment, and that’s only because online retailers have all managed to discount the game so heavily in the run up to release.

“We never go into development saying ‘We’re going to make a 20 hour game because people want a 20 hour game’ – we want to deliver an intense experience where you walk away and go ‘wow, I want to play more,’” said Bowling, again playing the multiplayer card: “It’s okay for you to want to play more of something – that’s great but jump into the multiplayer and 14 million people have been playing it for two years straight. That’s a long game, no matter how you look at it.”  Can we really judge the ‘length’ of the game by how long the multiplayer is played for?  In my opinion: no.  The single player campaign is reported to last around six hours and that’s what I’m classing as the length of the game.

So, over to you – what do you think about this?

Comments

Please note that all comments are the opinion of the individual author and not TheSixthAxis.

  1. 6.5 hours may be short for the higher price point, but what about people like me who probably wouldn’t even get halfway through.


    • Surely you wouldn’t buy the game then?


      • My brother hasn’t played a single second of Killzone2’s single player yet. He plays it non-stop… just never single player.

        Some people just don’t care about the story and only want the multiplayer experience. Look at Warhawk.


    • to be honest not i think some people arent buying it for the story they are buying it for the multiplayer


      • yeah, the single player mode will be good, and i will play through it multiple times but the multiplayer online for me and many overs is probably the best thing about this game seeing how COD4 did so well online


    • Must surely be a rental for yourself and nofi then. I would find it hard to justify spending that amount on a game you’ll hardly play after a weekend? Ask activision for a review disk nofi or your pals at gamesbasement for a freebie;-). I clocked 17 days on cod4 multiplayer so I can see myself hammering this one too


      • It took me a hell of a lot longer than six hours to complete Cod 4. Im talking months. I must be really rubbish.


  2. For a game that has gone up in price, you would expect the length and quality to increase too. The only reason they have upped the price is because they know it will sell but if they lowered the price they would sell even more copies and potentially more money.

    Kotick’s fault.

    *cough* cock *cough*


    • I would argue the quality has increased. From what we’ve (the public) have seen, the story is far more cinematic and even the tech is far more advanced. I was very happy to see environmental movement/interaction in those online videos (the tarps flapping in the construction yard).

      Dont get me wrong. Its total BS that the price has been hiked and I don’t like Activision’s chances if it becomes their new RRP, but I think they will get away with it on MW2 just because the first one was successful.. Just like SE are going to get away with a high RRP on FFXIII.


      • Oh don’t get me wrong. I think the game looks good but the length of the single player should be greatly increased if they wanna charge more for it.


      • SE’s prices are always higher than average in Japan, whereas they’re usually the standard RRP in the West.


      • its a **************** JOKE 6-8 HOURS


  3. I would expect a longer game than that to be honest, but totally honestly I am buying this game for the online really. It may have suited them better to follow the Warhawk and Battlefiel 1943 model and just do online only.
    I have mine on pre-order and being a mindless FPS enthusiast I will be getting this whenther 6.5 hours or not


  4. Its a shame to see that the story mode (in my mind) is going to be so short. I myself have a ps3 and yet virtually no friends with PS3’s, they all have Xbox 360’s.
    This means I may as well rent the game for a weekend from a rental store, complete it and take it back knowing it then only cost me £1 per hour at the most. The only other option is i fork out £200 on an xbox and gold membership, then another £50 on the game which doesn’t really justify it for me, even though xbox is obviously 100 times better online. I say this because I’ve had a few COD game nights with some work friends on the PS3, but find it takes half hour or so playing about with network settings before we can all connect to each other.


  5. The multiplayer argument wears a little thin as the game is being released on the 360. Essentially they’re saying that you have to pay the £25 or so for a year’s gold subscription to get the full experience out of the game. Multiplayer certainly does add value to a title and adds re-playability, but his argument seems to be that the multiplayer is the core experience of the game. That’s just not something I can get behind.

    However on the length in general 6-7 hours isn’t a bad length for a FPS. Should they have increased the length to compensate for the cost? Maybe, but that opens up an argument for a Final Fantasy length game being priced insanely.


    • They say you need to pay about £40 for the subscription, it’s not down to them that some online retailers do it for around £25-26


      • Actually the they was in reference to IW, not MS. And the “you have to pay” is in reference to what you can actually buy it at.


      • £40 a year isn’t so bad when big hitters (FIFA 10, Operation Flashpoint) work from release. I’m happy to pay £40 a year as it is IMO a much better online experience and there is no denying that Xbox Live is leaps ahead of PSN’s multiplayer experience. If you can get into a game and you are not disconnected, the voice is flawless, inviting friends is a breeze, and you enjoyed a game online without any hiccups – you must be playing on LIVE. So many great games let people down because Sony haven’t deployed decent servers and a stable/consistent experience. I would pay another £40 a year if Sony could offer the same experience and secure online gaming as LIVE.


      • I wasn’t gripping about the actual cost in general, I think it’s good value for money. My point was more that IW seem to be suggesting the MP is the “full” experience, which means that people (not me, I already have live) need to pay more ontop of an already inflated price.


      • I think its good value at £40 – I’d pay that for compulsory demos of every single title on the PS3, throw in the occasional 50% off PSN discount and early access to stuff and its a bargain.


      • Compulsory demos would be nice, potentially saving us gamers a fortune, but that’s what TSA reviews are for ;-) I’ve been let down time after time on PS3 (online) with the exception of Killzone 2. Bad connections, voice chat issues, disconnections. Sure the idea of free online play is great, but you get what you pay for. I would gladly pay to not see “Gamespy” servers hosting the multiplayer portion of a game. If MW2 doesn’t run smooth on PS3 online, it will be a disaster! Sony need throw more weight into this – axe “home” and throw the money into dedicated servers and online improvements. Hell – I won’t spend £4.99 on an apartment for a virtual orgy – but i’ll give you £40 to offer a Xbox Live equivalent.


      • I was so hyped for BF1943 & FP that when they ‘fell over’ online it pee’d me off so much.

        I played FP recently and I was greeted by invisible players and no voicechat, I hear BF1943 is still the same as it was with random disconnects and randomly dropped voicechat. Both a disgrace really – refunds should be given on the faulty products/services.


      • @FRUITOFDOOM – you clearly haven’t played the Uncharted 2 MP. It can be slow to find a game occasionally, but otherwise perfect!!


      • No I haven’t played the Uncharted 2 Multiplayer, sadly. But I bought a PS3 for more than just the “odd” game that works online. It’s a great system, just let me down in terms of online performance.


      • I think saying PSN is rubbish for online is a bit harsh….the only game I have that has voice chat and disconnect problems is BF1943, other than that I can’t think of any others. UC2 is excellent online and COD4 had no problems before?


      • Bilbo – this is entirely based on my experience, with perhaps a few similar views from others i have spoken too: 1) Midnight Club LA – couldn’t connect/couldn’t invite any friends that were the 50th (or greater) in your friends list 2) Saints Row 2 – managed a game with Nofi but encountered connection issues when attempting to connect with others. 3) GTA4 – could connect but lost connection too many times. 4) Battlefield Bad Company – Connections were fine but lost voice chat and removed from friends squad withing minutes. 5) Battlefield 1943 – connections were fine, but same voice/squad issues. 6) Fat Princess – connections were hit and miss, never stable. 7) FIFA 10 Cannot connect 8) Operation Flashpoint 2 – struggled to connect – once connected lost connection

        Killzone and Mercenaries 2 worked fine. Xbox Live – 1) Halo 3 launch struggled to find a game due to strained servers. That’s it. So based on “my” experience the PS3 online needs a complete overhaul and if they charged me for it to work as it should – i would pay. Otherwise – i consider PSN (not PS3) rubbish.


      • Most of the games I’ve played online on my PS3 have been solid. DiRT 2, GRID, Wipeout HD, Uncharted 2, Soul Calibur 4, Resistance:FOM, Crash Commando, Inferno Pool and Heavy Weapon rarely gave me any issues online. A few games are laggy (LBP being the main example) and a couple of games just straight-up didn’t work (Gunstar Heroes, Zombie Apocalypse), but I don’t have too many complaints on the whole.


      • Just thought I’d add my thoughts – never had any issues with PSN with regards to stability/services etc. Besides the odd disconnect or connection issue I can honestly say that PSN has been perfect for me, no more hassle than what I do on PC for free even playing on Japanese based servers (from the UK) in Wangan Midnight was great with no lag. Burnout Paradise, Eye of Judgement, Uncharted 2, Saints Row 2, Motorstorm: PR, Buzz! Quiz TV, Killzone 2, GTA4, Midnight Club Los Angeles, Resistance 2, Little Big Planet, Need for Speed: Shift, Street Figher IV, Stuntman Ignition, Warhawk, Everybody’s Golf World Tour, Wipeout HD, Fat Princess etc etc – I have enjoyed playing those all online for many many hours without any aggravation. As I said before there were the odd few disconnects/connection issues but no more or less than I get with LIVE or gaming on my PC.


  6. It’s a bit sad that so many people have committed to buying these games regardless of price or length, the only reason Activision has dared put the price up this far is they know that consumers won’t stop to think about the can of worms they’re opening.

    I can’t tell you how often I hear someone complain about the price of MW2 and hope it isn’t a sign of things to come, but then ask them if they’re buying the game and they always are. I used to feel sorry for consumers when industry takes them for a ride but it’s becoming clearer and clearer that the consumers just ask for it.


  7. Activision are becoming money grabbing fools lately.
    However… I think I will get my moneys worth out of MW2, as I will actually play the online.

    The onlines great and will last ages, but this is no reason for Activision to put it at this price.
    For people who only want to play through the Single Player once, they may as well just rent it for a fiver.

    It’s all about the Price with this game, eh?0


  8. In todays age it is pretty much all about the online gameplay. CoD 4 didn’t really do much that was “new” as a singleplayer experience. Though the story was great and the action was intense, other FPS games have done the same. IMO it was the online experience that was “fresh” and gave it the replayability. I see CoD MW2 as a multiplayer game with a single player slapped on, sure I hope the singleplayer is as good as the one before and other FPS titles, but as with CoD 4 – I’m looking forward to the “fresh” mulitplayer offerings. New custom perks, Kill streaks, Death streaks, AC 130 Gunship in multiplayer, host migration and all the other new stuff. 6.5 hours in a campaign doesn’t bother me when I know i’ll get months out of the multiplayer.


    • I know what you’re saying, and agree to a certain extent. As you probably know I play a game for at least a couple of hours a day that is over 2 years old, clocking up 330 hours in Warhawk, which I’ve owned for less than a year.

      Titles like KZ2, Borderlands, Operation Flashpoint and many many others offer months/years of multiplayer gameplay and all for a standard retail price and with regards to their campaigns probably offer either similar or far more than 6.5 hours

      So does it come back to the higher than normal RRP? probably or maybe definitely.

      I wonder if they’d ever think about going the Warhawk route and not bothering with the SP… but then they wouldn’t be able to charge the higher amount for it, so they probably wouldn’t.


      • Warhawk route would be ideal. Or both – £20 for a single player experience another £20 to “unlock” the multiplayer. Operation Flashpoint was a 13hour experience (for myself and my Live Party) but the multiplayer is no where near as “engaging” as MW. So it’s a tough call. Regardless £55 RRP is just taking the pee, add to that the DLC that will be required to play in game-modes online and it’s very expensive. But then for months perhaps a couple of years (like yourself) worth of entertainment – it might not be such a bad price.


      • Fantastic idea

        £20-£25 for a single player campaign depending on quality and length, and a further £20 to download multiplayer – You should be employed as Future Technologist for somebody


      • Glad you like it. Whilst i’m here can i suggest serperate achievements/trophies too! Some people really don’t want to grind away at a trophy for 10002 kills or win 100 matches online! Not to mention when a game is dead online and you end up with a 50% complete list because the other 50% is based online! Seperate achievements for single player and online – hear these words!


  9. Well i played COD4 online for well over a year and half, so i definately got more than my money’s worth and it will be the same with MW2!

    Plus i only paid £35 for MW2 anyways :D  


    • exactly if you play the game to it’s full potential then the higher price is a choice the player must make. I’m not a massive fan of COD4, but the multiplayer was immense, it kept alot of people playing for a very long time.
      MW2 has single player and online (more options perks/game modes etc) and also has Special Ops, another part of the game. For people to say you are being ripped off makes no sense to me. You either pay it, or you don’t. I pre-ordered for £35 from Tesco, I don’t care if it’s a week late, I know I payed a decent price for it.


      • to play it to its full potential requires an additional subscription.


      • what for xbox players? Or is that for PS3/PC too?


  10. I played COD4 multiplayer once about a year after buying it, got slaughtered and gave up and never played it again. Way too twitchy for me, prefer Killzone. I probably wont buy MW2 and just rent it, TBH i can see Eyepet giving more more hours of enjoyment than MW2.


  11. I didnt get into the MP side of COD4, so I doubt Ill get into the MP side of this, which leaves the singleplayer side, which IMO, is the reason for purchasing the game..  As I finished the SP side of COD4 in just over one sitting (plus an hour the next day to finish off) and I felt ripped of by the length of that.  This doesnt seem to be any longer, so £55 for one night’s entertainment, is not good enough imo, so Ill prolly just rent this, if I get it at all..


  12. Well that pretty much settles GOTY 2009 then, congrats Naughty Dog!


    • Don’t rule out Assassins Creed 2. Borderland may end up a little gem too. My game of the year has already gone out to Shadow Complex. Cheap, engaging, great graphics, fantastic gameplay, challenging – not over hyped. But MW2 will more than likely get it because it’s….well MW2 of course.


      • Shadow Complex is a good choice, I don’t know if I’ve enjoyed anything else more. There’s nothing I can think of as being “wrong” with it.


      • I saw an advert during the footie last night for Borderland, it has great use of the word bazillion.


      • I’m hopeful for Assassins Creed 2 as well. Judging by what I’ve read about it and the trailers I’ve seen, I’ve got a feeling that all the criticisms from the first game have been ironed out.


      • @BadBoyBoogie: Agree completely! Everything I’ve seen suggests that they’ve taken the first game (which was good, but missions felt hollow and repetitive with an average story) and fixed it to make it waesome


    • While we’re throwing GOTY contenders around, I’d put forward Demon’s Souls..  Got many months of pain and suffering ahead of me with that gem.  :)


      • True Demon’s Souls is a worthy competitor, I just think it’s a tad to unique for the mainstream.


  13. I think its better to judge when we have our hands on it.


  14. I’ll just rent if for a week, in fact for free. I joined Blockbuster the other day in order to trade in a game and got a voucher to rent a game or movie for free. Happy days.


  15. The Multiplayer aspect of the game is rubbish unless you have your friends playing as well.
    If you play on your own you find that all you get on there are the weirdo’s who play music down the mic or talk rubbish.


    • you will be able to mute other players in the lobby before each match for MW2 I read somewhere.