Report: Most gamers don't finish videogames

  • 102 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18171 posts) -

@Cloud_imperium said:

  • The Walking Dead: Season 1, Episode 1 - 66%
  • Mass Effect 2 - 56%
  • BioShock Infinite - 53%
  • Batman: Arkham City - 47%
  • Portal - 47%
  • Mass Effect 3 - 42%
  • The Walking Dead: Season 1, Episode 5 - 39%
  • The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - 32%
  • Borderlands 2 - 30%

Huh. I misread. You got a point then: how did they check achievements for ME3? Unless Origin has them as well or they cheked consoles ones.

#52 Posted by Cloud_imperium (2203 posts) -

@Cloud_imperium said:

  • The Walking Dead: Season 1, Episode 1 - 66%
  • Mass Effect 2 - 56%
  • BioShock Infinite - 53%
  • Batman: Arkham City - 47%
  • Portal - 47%
  • Mass Effect 3 - 42%
  • The Walking Dead: Season 1, Episode 5 - 39%
  • The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - 32%
  • Borderlands 2 - 30%

Huh. I misread. You got a point then: how did they check achievements for ME3? Unless Origin has them as well or they cheked consoles ones.

That's what I'm thinking too .

#53 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

I would like a more comprehensive study done on this matter. Not because I don't believe the data, but more so because I'm curious about the variables.

First off, this is only Steam correct? Does it take into account disabled achievements through the use of mods, console codes, or offline play? I'd like to see how many people complete the game when bought at either full price or near release date. I'd assume people who paid $50 for a brand new game on Day 1 were more inclined to complete it compared to someone that bought it off a whim for $3 two years after release.

#54 Edited by SAPS10111 (13 posts) -

I have not finished any of the instant game collection PS3 games due to time constraints. I prefer to load up a multiplayer game, play a match and turn it off. I played most COD & BF games but rarely bother with the campaign as it starts to feel like a chore, especially if you are in a rush.

As you get older and your time is taken by family and kids you just need a quick fix and COD style games are perfect for those situations. I have wasted money on games that I have not finished like PS3 Diablo 3 which is a very good game but I just can't be bother to grind for gear.

#55 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149977 posts) -

True. Though I'm getting better about it.

#56 Posted by Byshop (11037 posts) -

@Cloud_imperium said:

  • The Walking Dead: Season 1, Episode 1 - 66%
  • Mass Effect 2 - 56%
  • BioShock Infinite - 53%
  • Batman: Arkham City - 47%
  • Portal - 47%
  • Mass Effect 3 - 42%
  • The Walking Dead: Season 1, Episode 5 - 39%
  • The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - 32%
  • Borderlands 2 - 30%

Huh. I misread. You got a point then: how did they check achievements for ME3? Unless Origin has them as well or they cheked consoles ones.

IGN's info is second-hand so they may have just made a mistake.

But my point still stands. You're cherry picking your meaning from a presentation that drew an entirely different conclusion. The whole presentation was about how characters are more important than story because the traditional three act structure of a standard story in a movie or a book doesn't map to the lack of structure that you have in most games, not that single player content is dying or doesn't matter.

-Byshop

#57 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (571 posts) -

@Byshop said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

  • The Walking Dead: Season 1, Episode 1 - 66%
  • Mass Effect 2 - 56%
  • BioShock Infinite - 53%
  • Batman: Arkham City - 47%
  • Portal - 47%
  • Mass Effect 3 - 42%
  • The Walking Dead: Season 1, Episode 5 - 39%
  • The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - 32%
  • Borderlands 2 - 30%

Huh. I misread. You got a point then: how did they check achievements for ME3? Unless Origin has them as well or they cheked consoles ones.

IGN's info is second-hand so they may have just made a mistake.

But my point still stands. You're cherry picking your meaning from a presentation that drew an entirely different conclusion. The whole presentation was about how characters are more important than story because the traditional three act structure of a standard story in a movie or a book doesn't map to the lack of structure that you have in most games, not that single player content is dying or doesn't matter.

-Byshop

i'd love to hear some quick and to the point rationales as to why these numbers are what they are. i know numbers and if you can't tell me these idiot ones in a few seconds i'll quickly discount you.

#58 Posted by udUbdaWgz1 (571 posts) -

here's um, one: game devs are greed idiot who will choose profits over gameplay.

does THAT fit the equation?

devs spend unwisely: i'd buy crappy games just as less if they had advertising. in fact, game on: for all you idiots: the only game worth playingis the one where consumers win. screw the idiot greedhounds EVERY time .

period.

#59 Posted by Byshop (11037 posts) -

i'd love to hear some quick and to the point rationales as to why these numbers are what they are. i know numbers and if you can't tell me these idiot ones in a few seconds i'll quickly discount you.

Are you trying to ask me a question?

-Byshop

#60 Edited by Jacanuk (3851 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

Don't speculate about things you don't know about.

And please do show how a multiplayer game is cheaper than developing a singleplayer game.

I've done so. Go back and read. Or don't, as always. It's not like dvader is wrong about you, you know.

LOL you just keep coming up with the bad answers dont you.

Honestly i couldn´t give a cent about what you or some butt-hurt Dvader thinks.

But again perhaps instead of just pulling something out of your backend, try to actually have some source to back up your statements, right now all you do is just blow hot air and if anyone questions it you get all hurt and act like a 4year old.

#61 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18171 posts) -

@Byshop said:

IGN's info is second-hand so they may have just made a mistake.

But my point still stands. You're cherry picking your meaning from a presentation that drew an entirely different conclusion. The whole presentation was about how characters are more important than story because the traditional three act structure of a standard story in a movie or a book doesn't map to the lack of structure that you have in most games, not that single player content is dying or doesn't matter.

-Byshop

I don't care what their point was in the presentation. I'll restate my point: developers are noticing a decrease in demand for single player content, especially in the new generation of gamers. Now, you can argue that this is not happening and that's a whole different argument but if it is happening, you have to agree that the only logical result from that trend would be single player content taking a backseat to multiplayer and being excluded entirely from many games as a waste of budget. If in 10 years only a small fraction of the audience will demand single player content, do you see companies spending dozens of millions to produce it?

#62 Edited by Byshop (11037 posts) -

I don't care what their point was in the presentation. I'll restate my point: developers are noticing a decrease in demand for single player content, especially in the new generation of gamers. Now, you can argue that this is not happening and that's a whole different argument but if it is happening, you have to agree that the only logical result from that trend would be single player content taking a backseat to multiplayer and being excluded entirely from many games as a waste of budget. If in 10 years only a small fraction of the audience will demand single player content, do you see companies spending dozens of millions to produce it?

People not finishing their games and a lack of demand for single player content are two very different things, so no I don't agree that the one element from this presentation that you are choosing to not ignore supports your argument. Plus, if they are basing it just on Steam achievments then that data is very skewed for the various reasons that I posted earlier, along with many others in this thread.

-Byshop

#63 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18171 posts) -

@Byshop said:

People not finishing their games and a lack of demand for single player content are two very different things, so no I don't agree that the one element from this presentation that you are choosing to not ignore supports your argument. Plus, if they are basing it just on Steam achievments then that data is very skewed for the various reasons that I posted earlier, along with many others in this thread.

-Byshop

As I said, you can argue that the demand is not really decreasing and I hope you are right, but do you at least agree on the theoretical scenario? That if the demand is decreasing then single player is in danger because no one invests capital into something that has little demand?

#64 Posted by platinumking320 (663 posts) -

@Byshop said:

People not finishing their games and a lack of demand for single player content are two very different things, so no I don't agree that the one element from this presentation that you are choosing to not ignore supports your argument. Plus, if they are basing it just on Steam achievments then that data is very skewed for the various reasons that I posted earlier, along with many others in this thread.

-Byshop

As I said, you can argue that the demand is not really decreasing and I hope you are right, but do you at least agree on the theoretical scenario? That if the demand is decreasing then single player is in danger because no one invests capital into something that has little demand?

Id argue that the decrease of interest in single player is a slightly engineered process from the biggest publishers given the rise of mobile. Not necessarily reflected of all the views of players alike.

Sure there are those of us who don't have as much time with work and family, but some adult players of the 6th console/gaming rig gens found ways to make their gaming lives work. It was common to save games at any time rather than our current checkpoint dependence. And now we buy a lot of games, we have gamefly and more common backlog too. Plus finishing the story in most cases does not equate 100% completion and hasn't for decades, so we also have that y'know?

Its 'Risk Aversion' to the Megapublishers. They decided they want to make more profits off of walled garden online games, and constant transactions, rather than make the traditional long term investment, long term payoff for player, dev and publisher thats found in a good single player.

When video games started in America, we always had a more social-leaderboard comparative perspective of what games should be. When mario came into the picture and side-scrolling narrative titles came on, it seems like narrative SP was more of a japanese contribution, that the rest of gaming around the world expanded upon.

But in short the megapublishers don't want success to be contingent on the game being good, fun and smart. They want success regardless, so I feel they're pushing this 'single player is in the past' shadow campaign.

#65 Posted by Treflis (11418 posts) -

While I'll be the first one to admit I still have a selection of games to complete and ones I haven't even started, I also have those that I've played through several times. Now Naturally this doesn't solely apply to me or a single individual.

I will say though that you're drawing a much more pessimistic conclusion then I would have. If we wanna get really pessimistic about this then I'll ask you, Which device is the one that people use the most to play a game. The Cell Phone. Candy Crush, Flappy Bird, Facebook games now that phones have Facebook.
If aiming for the majority was the main focus, then every single studio would aim their games to the cellphones.

There may be a increase in time, I'd frankly be surprised if there isn't in the same matter I'd be surprised if there aren't more Muliplayer games like Titanfall or Left 4 Dead coming out. But I severely doubt singleplayer games and even Singleplayer as a whole are doomed.

This is they way the industry works, it's constant shifting either with new consoles, hot theme of games ( Modern day war, Post Apocalyptic,Western,Fantasy) and how games are as opposed to how they were. Despite that there are always those that bring a part of the past along with them because they remember them fondly and they know the consumer does too. Even more so now when we have more and more Indie Developers getting free reign to make the games they want to make and that they can see people are excited about, infact I wouldn't be surprised if they are the ones that make some really great singleplayer and even multiplayer games.

So while I see the data and I understand your concern, I do think it's not only early but also a exaggiration to say we'll all be given COD Clones and pure focus on Multiplayer from here on out.

#66 Edited by Byshop (11037 posts) -

@Byshop said:

People not finishing their games and a lack of demand for single player content are two very different things, so no I don't agree that the one element from this presentation that you are choosing to not ignore supports your argument. Plus, if they are basing it just on Steam achievments then that data is very skewed for the various reasons that I posted earlier, along with many others in this thread.

-Byshop

As I said, you can argue that the demand is not really decreasing and I hope you are right, but do you at least agree on the theoretical scenario? That if the demand is decreasing then single player is in danger because no one invests capital into something that has little demand?

Of course. Big development studios will put their money into what they think will make them money, and fringe categories of games will be relegated to the indie developers and crowdsourced projects. If the demand for SP games completely dropped off then sure, developers would start just focusing on multiplayer just as if the demand for any game that isn't a Barbie Horse Adventure sequel dissapeared then every game would be Barbie Horse Adventure, but I don't find either scenario particularly likely.

I don't think that this is a concern and the push for more multiplayer is more complicated than that. Heavy Rain is a game that has absolutely no multiplayer content and is made up pretty much entirely of story with little "gameplay" by modern standards, but it still made Sony over 100 million since its release. Regardless of demand, companies may be incentivised to create multiplayer games because of the increased opportunity for monetiziation.

-Byshop

#67 Posted by insanegame377 (332 posts) -

I finish around 90% of the games I play, no matter how long it takes. The games I don't finish are usually games I haven't liked, got bored with or got stuck with and never went back to them.

#68 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18171 posts) -

But in short the megapublishers don't want success to be contingent on the game being good, fun and smart. They want success regardless, so I feel they're pushing this 'single player is in the past' shadow campaign.

Good point, and why is that? Because single player is a massive investment they would gladly do without because rule #1 of any industry is to make as much profit as possible with as little investment as possible. They can't wait for people to only demand multiplayer, which is cheaper to develop and in face of server maintainance costs opens the possibility for paid subscriptions, paywalls and microtransactions that single player for the most part doesn't readily allow.

Bottom line: it's up to us to keep the demand high for quality SP content. If we don't, they'll gladly phase it out in time. Look at recent PC exclusives. How many of them are multiplayer only? On that front the war is already lost.

#69 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18171 posts) -

@Byshop said:

Of course. Big development studios will put their money into what they think will make them money, and fringe categories of games will be relegated to the indie developers and crowdsourced projects. If the demand for SP games completely dropped off then sure, developers would start just focusing on multiplayer just as if the demand for any game that isn't a Barbie Horse Adventure sequel dissapeared then every game would be Barbie Horse Adventure, but I don't find either scenario particularly likely.

I don't think that this is a concern and the push for more multiplayer is more complicated than that. Heavy Rain is a game that has absolutely no multiplayer content and is made up pretty much entirely of story with little "gameplay" by modern standards, but it still made Sony over 100 million since its release. Regardless of demand, companies may be incentivised to create multiplayer games because of the increased opportunity for monetiziation.

-Byshop

You don't see it as likely, but 5 years ago did you see as likely that EA would switch to a free-to-play business model for all their frachises? Because that's what they are planning for the near future. The fact is: the current status quo of the industry isn't making them as much money as they would like. They need to cut budgets and what better way than to lop off the most expensive component of game development by riding the shallow multiplayer craze?

#70 Posted by yngsten (188 posts) -

If I don't find it interesting or fun, then I quit playing. Long and captivating games (often RPGs ) can keep me going for hundreds of hours though.

#71 Posted by platinumking320 (663 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00: theres one thing i'd argue that SP has in its corner, and thats the consumer cost of always-on. cheaper broadband keeps the install base high. but when ISPs decide they want more and throttle or cap below the avg amount of data an online only gamer uses or when servers crash on release day people will at least want to play the games content for themselves. we've seen the effect withholding 'fun' behind paywalls and lobbies has.

#72 Posted by Namgis (3572 posts) -

Not really surprised to be honest. Although who's to say this hasn't been the way of things since the beginning?

If I paid good money for something expecting to be entertained and wasn't, I wouldn't want to finish the experience. Apparently a lot of Steam gamers share that sentiment. Doesn't mean those unfinished titles will remain so for all eternity. New games get released all the time, what's so bad about wanting your fingers in many varied pies? I would guess a good percentage of those users have just been jumping around playing what they're into at the moment. Sounds like another way to shoehorn in ditching the SP experience because it'd be easier than doing the work.

"That's what corporate America wants: people who seem like bold risk takers, but never actually do anything"

#73 Edited by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

it's already been pointed out that those numbers likely aren't exact. people play offline, mod up their games, or whatever. still, i wouldn't be surprised if the general idea that tons of people never finish their games holds true. with that said, i don't think it's a matter of people not enjoying single player games. i think it has more to do with most people enjoying games for the moment-to-moment stuff rather than the overall experience.

for contrast, i'd look at movies. think of movie trailers and how they are often just plot summaries without the bit about the ending. that's because the hook for a movie is generally "what happens next?" it's pretty similar to how people talk about movies. if someones asks "what's avatar about?", most people don't respond "well, you watch a guy jump into a giant blue body, fight indigenous wildlife, and kick some space marine ass." they start talking about the overall conflict between the humans and the environmentally friendly natives.

with games, the message is different. bioshock infinite gets touted as a story driven game, but in the TV trailers you never hear anything about american exceptionalism or a man, a lighthouse, and a city. you just see the moment-to-moment bits about shooting crazy-looking enemies and protecting elizabeth. that's because the mass appeal hook isn't "what happens next?" like in movies. it's "what am i doing now?"

i don't think this distinction means that people aren't enjoying single player games in general (although perhaps for some particular games you could make that point). i think it has more to do with people enjoying single player games as chances to do general activities (shoot things, slay dragons, etc.) rather than as narratives like movies.

#74 Posted by Byshop (11037 posts) -

You don't see it as likely, but 5 years ago did you see as likely that EA would switch to a free-to-play business model for all their frachises? Because that's what they are planning for the near future. The fact is: the current status quo of the industry isn't making them as much money as they would like. They need to cut budgets and what better way than to lop off the most expensive component of game development by riding the shallow multiplayer craze?

Those are still two different things. On the one hand is what consumers want and consumer demand, and on the other hand is what companies might do to maximize profit. These things are not always in alignment, because companies like EA will bank on their good will to stretch as much out of the consumer as they can. This is the point I was alluding to in my previous post, that game companies might -want- to go multiplayer regardless of what the consumer wants so that they can add additional monetization methods (i.e. f2p models). Sometimes this happens at the expense of the product. Can you remember how much backlash Blizzard got over Diablo 3 having no offline capability? Or Sim City? In some cases a company will even try to shoehorn a monetization mechanism into a single player game where it has no business being, like in Dead Space 3. I can think of nothing less condusive to horror than being able to buy more guns and ammo using a real world transaction store if the game gets too tough or scary.

Sadly, if you have an established franchise you REALLY have to piss off your fanbase to completely kill off your sales. Dead Space 3 didn't make sales expectations, but it still sold 600k in its debut. Halo Wars was a wild departure from the rest of the Halo series and it only sold about 16% the copies that Halo 3 did in its debut, but it still tripled Command and Conquer 3 on 360 even though they were both comprably reviewed.

-Byshop

#75 Edited by Kuromino (1260 posts) -

Some of the people who I follow on YouTube collect hundreds of games each year and always put time into the majority of them. The amount of time put into each will depend on the game and the impression it makes. They never actually finish the majority of these games though. This is because they're mainly trying to experience as many games as possible. I guess that's understandable. As long as they're having fun, that's really all that matters.

I'm in the minority though. Once I start a game, I'll play until I've completed the main storyline and any other extras that might interest me before moving on to something else.

#76 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18171 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00: theres one thing i'd argue that SP has in its corner, and thats the consumer cost of always-on. cheaper broadband keeps the install base high. but when ISPs decide they want more and throttle or cap below the avg amount of data an online only gamer uses or when servers crash on release day people will at least want to play the games content for themselves. we've seen the effect withholding 'fun' behind paywalls and lobbies has.

Yeah, that's when even online-only paladins realize how unsustainable that model is. Then the servers come back online and they forget it ever happened. What's pathetic is that in 15 years, the only way to play the latest SimCity, Diablo III or Splinter Cell Conviction on PC will be to crack them, because the servers will be long dead. Games like Titanfall and DayZ on the otehr hand will be gone once the servers shut down, unless someone forks out the money to run a private one.

#77 Posted by Jacanuk (3851 posts) -
@Byshop said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

I don't care what their point was in the presentation. I'll restate my point: developers are noticing a decrease in demand for single player content, especially in the new generation of gamers. Now, you can argue that this is not happening and that's a whole different argument but if it is happening, you have to agree that the only logical result from that trend would be single player content taking a backseat to multiplayer and being excluded entirely from many games as a waste of budget. If in 10 years only a small fraction of the audience will demand single player content, do you see companies spending dozens of millions to produce it?

People not finishing their games and a lack of demand for single player content are two very different things, so no I don't agree that the one element from this presentation that you are choosing to not ignore supports your argument. Plus, if they are basing it just on Steam achievments then that data is very skewed for the various reasons that I posted earlier, along with many others in this thread.

-Byshop

Good point Byshop, not to mention that for pc which these numbers looks to be based on, have a massive problem with a huge amount of players out there "trying out" the game first before they might get it on sale. And thats not even considering that most play sp games offline and a lot of other factors.

So i must admit i dont share BK´s fear for single-player games and particular not with the huge amount of absolute terrific developers moving into indie development, where we see a whole different quality and refinement in games.

#78 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18171 posts) -

@Byshop said:

Those are still two different things. On the one hand is what consumers want and consumer demand, and on the other hand is what companies might do to maximize profit. These things are not always in alignment, because companies like EA will bank on their good will to stretch as much out of the consumer as they can. This is the point I was alluding to in my previous post, that game companies might -want- to go multiplayer regardless of what the consumer wants so that they can add additional monetization methods (i.e. f2p models). Sometimes this happens at the expense of the product.

Correct, companies have the bad habit of ignoring consumer feedback and games suffer for it, hence they don't sell and that's how franchises die: Namco has made an Ace Combat set in the Middle East, which looked generic and put off fans of the franchise. Now Ace Combat has gone F2P, with a token single player component and a 90% focus on microtransaction-based multiplayer. The final stop before the grave. They know this, they're trying to rake in as much money as possible with the franchise's swan song.

Yet the problem I'm referring to is upstream: what happens when most of the consumer base itself stops demanding single player content? By "demanding" I mean playing it. It's naive to think companies will still invest money into it when the demand is for something else.

#79 Posted by Byshop (11037 posts) -

@Byshop said:

Those are still two different things. On the one hand is what consumers want and consumer demand, and on the other hand is what companies might do to maximize profit. These things are not always in alignment, because companies like EA will bank on their good will to stretch as much out of the consumer as they can. This is the point I was alluding to in my previous post, that game companies might -want- to go multiplayer regardless of what the consumer wants so that they can add additional monetization methods (i.e. f2p models). Sometimes this happens at the expense of the product.

Correct, companies have the bad habit of ignoring consumer feedback and games suffer for it, hence they don't sell and that's how franchises die: Namco has made an Ace Combat set in the Middle East, which looked generic and put off fans of the franchise. Now Ace Combat has gone F2P, with a token single player component and a 90% focus on microtransaction-based multiplayer. The final stop before the grave. They know this, they're trying to rake in as much money as possible with the franchise's swan song.

Yet the problem I'm referring to is upstream: what happens when most of the consumer base itself stops demanding single player content? By "demanding" I mean playing it. It's naive to think companies will still invest money into it when the demand is for something else.

I don't think that's the issue here, though. Whether or not the average player beats a game doesn't tell you the whole picture of how much SP content is being played. Let's look at my Steam account, for example. I have over 600 games. Of those, I cound 48 that I've beaten on Steam (my guess of 50 earlier in the thread was almost right on the money). If that were the only metric you were looking at, one could assume that I don't care about SP content but nothing could be further from the truth. If you dig a big more, you'll see that another 23 of those games are games that I have beaten outside of Steam (either console versions or non-Steam PC version). Dig deeper and you can see where I actually spend all my time. The numbers listed below are not 100% accurate since Steam just records how long the game was open, not how long you were actively playing it.

Games that are SP only or games where I would have spent the vast majority of my time in SP:

XCOM: Enemy Unknown 57.1h
X3: Reunion 65.4h
X Rebirth 9.7h
Wasteland 2 6.8h
War for the Overworld Bedrock Beta 4.0h
Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines 3.0h (waaaaay more outside of Steam)
Two Worlds II 33.5h
Trials Evolution Gold Edition 5.5h (more on 360)
Total War: SHOGUN 2 59.3h (all SP campaign)
Total War: ROME II 2.6h
Tomb Raider: Underworld 28.5h
Tomb Raider 13.5h
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction 5.3h
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Blacklist 20.3h
Thief 5.2h
The Witcher: Enhanced Edition 23.4h (more on the boxed version)
The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Enhanced Edition 29.9h
The Walking Dead 3.4h
The Stanley Parable 2.0h
The Swapper 1.3h
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim 173.8h
Strike Suit Infinity 25.9h
Strike Suit Zero 11.4h
Sleeping Dogs™ 52.0h
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion 7.2h
Sins of a Solar Empire: Trinity 1.4h
Sid Meier's Civilization V 5.2h
Shadowrun Returns 42.3h
Serious Sam HD: The First Encounter 3.8h
Saints Row IV 38.4h
Saints Row: The Third 16.0h
Sam & Max 102: Situation: Comedy 3.7h
Sam & Max 103: The Mole, the Mob and the Meatball 5.9h
Sam & Max 104: Abe Lincoln Must Die! 3.7h
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl 4.7h (more outside of Steam)
Rogue Legacy 10.1h
Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale 15.6h
Red Faction: Armageddon 6.6h
Red Faction: Guerrilla 20.7h
RAGE 6.8h
Portal 5.7h
Portal 2 14.6h
Orcs Must Die! 4.2h
Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath HD 33.1h
Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 13.1h
Need for Speed: Undercover 3.1h
Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes 8.4h
Mirror's Edge 7.2h (more on 360)
Max Payne 3 8.9h
Mass Effect 37.1h (more on 360)
Mass Effect 2 13.3h
Just Cause 2 23.1h
Jazzpunk 1.9h
Hydrophobia: Prophecy 14.5h
Hitman: Absolution 20.0h
Grand Theft Auto IV 118.1h
FTL: Faster Than Light 33.4h
Game of Thrones 6.0h
Gemini Rue 6.9h
FINAL FANTASY VIII 11.7h
Fieldrunners 2 3.8h
Far Cry® 3 268.8h
Fallout: New Vegas 101.4h
Fable III 13.2h
Fallout 2.4h
Dragon Age: Origins 166.1h
Dishonored 47.2h
DmC Devil May Cry 11.4h
Deus Ex: Human Revolution 38.1h
Deadpool 18.4h
Dead Island 40.1h
Dead Island Riptide 16.0h
Dead Rising 2 11.7h
DarkStar One 30.3h
Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition 228.1h
Crysis 2 24.0h
Batman: Arkham Asylum 19.9h
Batman: Arkham City™ 77.4h (more on 360)
Batman™: Arkham Origins 30.8h
Assassin's Creed II 86.5h
Alpha Protocol 21.5h
Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs 2.3h
Amnesia: The Dark Descent 6.2h

Versus games that are multiplayer focused or where I would have spent most of my time playing multiplayer:

Tribes: Ascend 22.5h
Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition 44.9h
Street Fighter IV 17.2h
Street Fighter X Tekken 17.2h
Mortal Kombat Komplete Edition 2.2h
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning™ 17.6h
Left 4 Dead 3.5h
Left 4 Dead 2 11.6h
EVE Online 198.0h
Defiance 18.2h
Crysis Warhead 17.8h
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Multiplayer 22.8h

Now obviously that tells a VERY different story.

-Byshop

#80 Edited by Byshop (11037 posts) -

Oops, KoA should have been in the SP column but editing the list would screw up the spacing. :P

#81 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18171 posts) -

@Byshop: I hope you're right. Trust me, the last thing I want if for my prediction to come true in this case.

By the way: 14 hours on Hydrophobia? How many times did you replay that game? it's like 4 hours long!

#82 Posted by 187umKILLAH (1337 posts) -

I usually don't finish most games I play, mainly due to boredom or annoying boss fights. I'm not a big fan of most boss fights.

#83 Posted by Neonakaa (78 posts) -

How the hell am I supposed to complete Just Cause 2 and Fallout New Vegas???

#84 Posted by Jacanuk (3851 posts) -

@neonakaa said:

How the hell am I supposed to complete Just Cause 2 and Fallout New Vegas???

Eh? you go to the end and then after the last mission it says "The End"

#85 Posted by Byshop (11037 posts) -

@Byshop: I hope you're right. Trust me, the last thing I want if for my prediction to come true in this case.

By the way: 14 hours on Hydrophobia? How many times did you replay that game? it's like 4 hours long!

That's one of the flukes. I've never beaten that game. I must have left it running sometime.

-Byshop

#86 Edited by Neonakaa (78 posts) -

@Jacanuk: I meant the games are SOOOOOO long that its painful.

#87 Posted by MaddenBowler10 (8814 posts) -

It's a bad habit that most gamers need to shake. People should quit buying for a few months, sit down and actually enjoy the games they already own.

#88 Posted by Korvus (2811 posts) -

I finish all my games; I'm always offline for single player games whenever given the chance.

#89 Posted by i-rock-socks (3046 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00:


Don't like to repeat myself, but do you see why single player is being put aside by developers? Because even when games have kickass campaigns, people don't play them. Prepare for a future with nothing but CoD clones and identical MOBAS, people.

there is a big leap from people not completing their games, to there being nothing but COD clones and mobas in the gaming market. not beating a game doesnt hurt the developer and therefore doesnt impact the market. so people that bought skyrim didnt beat it, as long as they bought it, its irrelevant. now if people didnt buy it cause they dont intend on beating it thats one thing, but the fact that people rarely beat their games means nothing, its a "fun fact" at best. developers want people to buy their games they dont care if they beat em. game trends are a lil too complicated to be influenced by such a trivial fact to such a degree.

#90 Edited by platinumking320 (663 posts) -

It's a bad habit that most gamers need to shake. People should quit buying for a few months, sit down and actually enjoy the games they already own.

When release cycles were longer in the past for big titles, 6th gen and earlier it was a healthier environment. You knew when taking to your friends they were anticipating the next big release at the same time you were. They finished or struggled at the same points you struggled, and creators put a wealth of variety, tact and content into what was coming out, like it was going to be their last release.

Maybe with the future having AAA releases a little more sparse with independent filling the gap, its possible people may have more time to appreciate and finish what they get.

#91 Posted by MaddenBowler10 (8814 posts) -

@MaddenBowler10 said:

It's a bad habit that most gamers need to shake. People should quit buying for a few months, sit down and actually enjoy the games they already own.

When release cycles were longer in the past for big titles, 6th gen and earlier it was a healthier environment. You knew when taking to your friends they were anticipating the next big release at the same time you were. They finished or struggled at the same points you struggled, and creators put a wealth of variety, tact and content into what was coming out, like it was going to be their last release.

Maybe with the future having AAA releases a little more sparse with independent filling the gap, its possible people may have more time to appreciate and finish what they get.

I most definitely agree. The big problem today is like you said, game companies are releasing games within short release cycles. There are more 'AAA' games(COD4, COD5, COD6, BFBC2, BF3, BF4, Assassin's Creed, AC2, AC3, etc..) coming out year after year and gamers feel the need to get every one of these games right when they come out. Inbetween all the major releases are a lot more indie games/arcade games as well. Too many games, not enough money and yet gamers still buy them and don't have the time to finish them.

#92 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15885 posts) -

Let's see.....

I haven't bought too many PC games since 2010. Not counting simulators such as ARMA 2/OA and Aerofly FS:

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Bulletstorm, Hard Reset, Crysis 2, Alan Wake, Far Cry 3, Crysis 3, Mass Effect Trilogy (1, 2, and 3), Bioshock Infinite, Metro Last Light.

Of the above, I have yet to finish Mass Effect Trilogy, Alan Wake and Metro Last Light. I blame Ubisoft for including the patch that reset the outposts in Far Cry 3. I'm having a blast with it which is unfortunate for the unfinished games I mentioned plus any new game I contemplate buying.

Only Bioshock Infinite got me to set aside Far Cry 3 (for about a week). As soon as I finished Bioshock Infinite, it was back to Far Cry 3 for me.

#93 Posted by jobosayo (17 posts) -

I am proud to say I have finished every pokemon game only until gold and silver though. Takes a bloody long time to catch em all ;P pokemon fans will get the phrase haha. Actually haven't had the chance to play the new versions since ruby and sapphire or emerald. And yes most video games you just get so fed up like GTA. The new one is really hectic and when I watched my friend play it, it seemed pretty awesome but then it would have been a repeat of similar missions and what not. Online games like Everquest, WoW or Daybreak, could they be considered video games that can be finished though?

#94 Posted by platinumking320 (663 posts) -
#95 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (18171 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00: Well. Part of me believes there may still be some future for single player out there, but if one thing there are definitely industry people 'post WoW' eager to close the curtain on it.

GDC 2014 Narrative, Racing, and Platforming Games are Dead

Depends on us, really: we steer the industry through our purchases. If we continue buying single player-centric games, SP will prosper. If we start playing nothing but deathmatches, MMORPGS and MOBAS, we're fucked.

#96 Posted by MDK12345 (349 posts) -

What about tv shows? Do most people finish? Why not just make the games shorter then?

#97 Edited by Fantasy721 (148 posts) -

I think the issue is one of budget. A couple years ago (and on this website) there were many discussions about budgets and gaming. While many games do cost a lot to develop, that does not mean people will play them. Gamers will buy them, but not play them. The other issue is the costs of the games. Right now many people cannot afford $20 or $60 games. The reason why The Walking Dead: Season 1: Episode 1 was completed was because it was offered for free for many premium gamers and they got curious about the game. I own almost all of the games listed, but I haven't had the time to play them all. I can tell you, I will finish The Walking Dead and Skyrim before playing the other games. Ironically, it seems that the independent games are being played more than the big budget ones. How many of you have played Journey?!

#98 Posted by Vatusus (4342 posts) -

I'm definitely not one of them. I always finish my games sooner or later. Nowadays though I see that pile of unfinished games growing though...

#99 Edited by MasterTankallex (94 posts) -

I didn't finish Red Dead Redemption. I've been meaning to go back and finish it though.

Also I already finished Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion on a separate account, tried to play it again after Skyrim was released and I just couldn't do it.

#100 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29062 posts) -

What's the denominator on the Steam game numbers, the number who own it or the number who have ever played it? If the former that actually doesn't surprise me that it's lower since a lot of people will buy games during a sale and not play them for a while.