Is Sony's Spider-man 2 worth its $70 price tag being only 15 hours long?

Sony fanboy debates whether Spider-man 2 being only 15 hours long is worth its $70 price tag. I think 15 hours is pretty good for a movie game with bland outdated Batman combat. Any longer and youd think your playing Assassins Creed. Although with this game being so short, should it be priced the same as games that take 60-100+ hours to complete. What say you System Wario's?

I care more about the experience of a game then it’s length. I’m fine with a story focused action game being this long to complete. Would much rather have an enjoyable experience then something being artificially padded just to make it longer. I’m a slower gamer anyway so it’ll probably take me longer. Also will spend more time trying to complete all the side stuff anyway.

@mesome713: I think with side quests it's longer than that.

But, Sony fans are used to coughing up $70 for 30-40 hours of game play, no?

15 hours? I hope they are charging $39.99 for this DLC.

Let me answer your question with a question, mesome. Does your LABO collection worth anything over 5 cents?

Super hero stuff is just silly. Hard pass.

I’m really jealous of how much free time y’all seem to have. I took 2 days off work for Starfield and I’m maybe 10 hours in… I’m relieved when I find out a game isn’t 80+ hours long. Especially when it’s just padded nonsense like in those Assassins Creed games. No thanks

How long were the other spiderman games?

I'll wait till it's on PSN+

@eni232: It was longer.

Its DLC why did you expect anything else.

If the experience is good, yes.

@mesome713:

What were the hours, I mean who is paying for the main story anyways. It's such a idiotic post to make when there is much more to the video game. Who paid 60$ for the main story only in spiderman PS4 and miles morales. They probably have big side quests in the game as well.

@eni232: You’ll have to watch his video to find out more.

15 hours seems like a win.

I hate long games. What matters is fun per hour. I would rather have a game like spiderman 2 which is 15 hours long, than something like BG3, which is 40 hours long and most of it is completely uninspired.

@mesome713:

I refuse to, it looks like a doofus.

That's a 30hr game w/ Starfield load times. lol

---

I'm totally fine with it being about the same length as the original.

Doesn’t sound that bad for the main campaign if the sidecontent is of decent quality

I think a 15 hour main quest with hours and hours of side quests is enough......

I don't really want 80 hour slogs of the same shit over and over.

Armored Core 6 takes around 20 hours to beat and I felt like that was plenty, it also encourages additional play throughs if you want more

Yes, we should never determine worth based on hours of playtime. AAA industry already started padding their games, adding grind because of that.

Also do you know why they call him dreamcast guy?

Because the last time he made a good video was in the dreamcast days.

@R4gn4r0k: I’m pretty sure that Clown Cow was on meth in those days and has never recovered.

That game will trash on Starfield all over it.

False. It isn't. Spiderman 2 is longer than Spidey as tweet stated above

Better this than a story that takes 30 hours to get good.

About the same, as well as all of the Arkham games. The main story is about 15 hours but the game will take about 30 hours to fully complete.

Maybe in the CowSpot review. But, we'll still be playing Starfield by the time... Spider-Man 3 comes out.

Regardless of length, this is a one-and-done game.

@kvallyx said:

When i saw who he is and his list of who he follows. True Xbox idiot following another Xbox idiots :

Rather trust this dude :

Spider man 3. Oh snap. Two better games and higher rated than trashy Starfield. That game is already forgotten. Still got stuck in loadings

I won't be paying this for any game.

Spider-Man PS4 took me like 3 weeks to complete, I rarely rush through the main game and doing side quest were a lot of fun, it took most of the time doing them than the main game. I did it again for PC version and 15 hours to beat doesn't really tell you much as everyone's free time of playing games is different.

I don't have a problem paying $70 these days but I'm questioning myself do I really need to play Spider-Man 2 when I know it's coming to PC I the future? I love Spider-Man but I'm not exactly in the rush to play it either.

I blame Sony on this one.

Insomniac has been carrying Sony this gen by pumping out these quick releases that Sony charges $70 for.

Ratchet and Clank RA was also short, even with the padded collecting.

Reviewers keep giving great scores and the hype train keeps rolling.

This wouldnt be an issue if there was some sort of multiplayer or community content to add value.

@loudheadphones: False. You should have watched the video mate. The first Spider-Man is longer in main story and longer for 100% completing.

I beat the first spiderman over a weekend. I wouldn't say I rushed through it but I did pass on a few side quests initially. It's fine if you don't mind waiting another year or two for a PC release. Everyone has their preference. The reason I don't like doing this is because since this is a story driven game, I don't want the story spoiled for me. That one or two years is enough time to get spoiled.

I've been playing Starfield and only Starfield for the last month, and still got much to go. Whenever I retire it, I'm sure I'll welcome some short but sweet game or few.

15 hours isn't necessarily bad, depending on things like replay value. But, if people are having issues about this now, consider the larger complacency of the greater gaming community as essentially inviting this upon themselves. The Miles Morales 5 hour DLC and the re-release the games and DLC on PS5, and all the ceremonious praise the game got for all the sales of all the PS4/PS5 double dippers, and the free pass it got re-releasing on PC while selling both the main game and the Miles Morales DLC piecemeal $60 + $50 for dated content, rather than combined for $60 or less like most games do when they do such a late staggered port. Getting away with ALL that, well, no question why they think they can get away with selling a 15-hour game for $70.

But it needs to be said, they didn't pull on over on gamers, they read the room.

CDN$89.99 ugh.

@mesome713: yes, its time to make butt hurt threads about Playstation games. I almost feel sad, because Playstation has no games 🤣

I'll wait for a sale. No more than $39.99

How do you goobers weigh the time to entertainment value proposition?

If you go to the movies for a 2 hour movie, that's probably $15. If you buy a cd (I know), that's $10. Escape rooms are roughly $20-25. Concerts are $40+. And so on. So a 15 hour game for $70 is a pretty good value, comparatively. And the games that offer an even better value are championed as the baseline. Have any of you claiming this, actually created something? Do you have any concept of how hard it is to build joy?

Movie = $7.50 per hour

Bowling = $10 per hour

Music = $10 per hour

Escape room = $20 per hour

Concert = $15 per hour

Video game = $4-5 per hour

So the question becomes, why are games so undervalued? Of course I want the most bang for my buck, but how could I claim one of the best, if not THE best, values in entertainment isn't good enough? Now if you want to claim the whole package lacks substance, or that you personally weren't entertained for the full length of the game, that would change the value. Not all games are equal. And a lot of these companies are certainly guilty of predatory, and shady practices, and should definitely be called out for it. But in general, this whole situation just reeks of entitled ass wipes.

If a product can deliver a quality experience that you enjoy, $5 an hour seems like a pretty good deal. If you don't enjoy the experience, adding 50 more hours to it wouldn't help.

I've never understood the mentality of playing a game "to beat it". I play games for the experience. I'd rather a game is so long I don't complete it and maybe I go back to it at some point.

There's too many games now. Imo, it's better to focus on fewer games that you really like, rather than as many as you can.

So Sony are charging $10 more and you're getting the same or less than the first game, that's crazy.

Cows should be questioning Sony over this. I mean after a week Spiderman 2 will be a memory, and the cows will be waiting on the next Sony game, by the way what is the next Sony big budget first party single player game coming, and when is it releasing?

I don't think 15h is too short. The original felt like an eternity.

@dimebag667: You can tell gamers their hobby consists of some of the most expense to produce entertainment for an ever shrinking barrier to entry and they will continue to bitch about the cost. $70 is a lot of money for some folks. I get it. But $70 doesn’t stretch very far anywhere. What you get from a $70 game is far more than anywhere else.

And then folks bitch about devs/writers not getting paid or treated well. Gamer economics don’t make much sense.

if you can’t afford it, wait for a sale.

@dimebag667: You can tell gamers their hobby consists of some of the most expense to produce entertainment for an ever shrinking barrier to entry and they will continue to bitch about the cost. $70 is a lot of money for some folks. I get it. But $70 doesn’t stretch very far anywhere. What you get from a $70 is far more than anywhere else.

And then folks bitch about devs/writers not getting paid or treated well. Gamer economics don’t make much sense. Look at this thread. Folks want 100+ hours of entertainment for $30 or less.

@loudheadphones said:

@kvallyx said:

When i saw who he is and his list of who he follows. True Xbox idiot following another Xbox idiots :

Rather trust this dude :

@dabear said:

@loudheadphones said:

@mesome713 said:

Loading Video...

Sony fanboy debates whether Spider-man 2 being only 15 hours long is worth its $70 price tag. I think 15 hours is pretty good for a movie game with bland outdated Batman combat. Any longer and youd think your playing Assassins Creed. Although with this game being so short, should it be priced the same as games that take 60-100+ hours to complete. What say you System Wario's?

That game will trash on Starfield all over it.

Maybe in the CowSpot review. But, we'll still be playing Starfield by the time... Spider-Man 3 comes out.

Regardless of length, this is a one-and-done game.

Spider man 3. Oh snap. Two better games and higher rated than trashy Starfield. That game is already forgotten. Still got stuck in loadings

I agree. Not a good look for Insomniac and Spider-Man 🥺

If this was a game I wanted to play, $70 would be fine. 15 hours for main campaign would take me a month or more to complete. I don't rush through games and I don't play for more than an hour or two at a time.

@loudheadphones: My goodness... that's a lot of copium.

Your tears... They're so salty sweet.

Actually no. Just a reality. Man, Xbox will be crushed soon

@loudheadphones: Your posts are so rediculous they border on "parody of a cow".