The Impact of Episodic Gaming

GameDailyBiz has a piece up looking at what episodic content is, and what it means to the future of the games industry. From the article: "Our age is one of aging. Mainstream gamers are now older on average than they have ever been. When you are single and unemployed, it is easy to play The Godfather for nine straight hours the day the game hits the shelf. When you are married, it becomes tougher. When you have kids, it might be impossible. It is difficult to slice some time for yourself. And in that slice, you have to carve a portion for gaming. It is no wonder casual games that require no more than 10 minutes to play continue to grow in popularity. This is why we are more likely to login to Call of Duty 2 on Xbox Live to play a quick five-minute Team Deathmatch and leave the Lobby."

Comments

Re:nine hours?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words. Journeyman's Boots.

Re:nine hours?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's crazy. I play to have fun, and playing games for more than a few hours can get really boring, besides the fact it's terrible for your health and excessive marathons have cause people to die.

Not a joke

[MBraynard]

I am still single but I have gotten involves in amateur athletics and started my own company. Before all this started, I could come home from work and play an MMORPG, an Xbox game, or a PC shooter with a mate until I fell asleep. Weekends were pure game time. I ran a guild in one with over 1000 people at one point. Serious time comitment.

Now, it has all changed. I got a 360 at the beginning of the month. I think I have played it a total of 3 hours. I have not played any PC games that I use to. I barely am able to log into Eve just to make sure I am still training something.

It's called growing up. I really do wish I could blow a few days in Battlefield2, and maybe in the future I will try to work that in. But right now, I just do a little Geometry Wars before bed (the demo version) or Blazing Angels demo (a lot of fun, that one).

Re:Not a joke

[GmAz]

I hear that. I used to love to play World of Warcraft all day on Saturdays and after work. But since my baby was born, I get to play when she doesn't need attention (for those of you who don't have kids, thats rarely ever). And when I do play, I can't do anything that takes a while to do because before you know it, she's crying and I need to put the laptop down. It really changes things.

Re:Not a joke

[SetupWeasel]

Yeah, but if you don't have enough time to play The Godfather for instance, will you, as this article suggests, have enough time to play the same exact game distributed to you in parts.

The answer is, of course, no. This is just a way to start a game with little funding hoping that you will make enough money to complete it. It is what I'll call the current PC "patch model" of distribution taken to its logical extreme.

Here's what will happen. Most games will never be finished, and even the ones that do will fall into the "release and patch" format for the individual episodes. No one who didn't have the full time to play the whole game will buy its parts (at least they won't get any more use out of them if they), and nothing worthwhile will come of this.

Two groups want this model of distribution: developers/publishers who hope the price of parts will add up to more than the price of the whole would, and small developers who hope to get their unadulterated vision off the ground with less money. The latter sounds good, but it would be better if they reduce their scope and ensure their fans get the whole game. Maybe then their next game will get the money they wished they had.

Re:Not a joke

[Irish_Samurai]

Here's what will happen. Most games will never be finished, and even the ones that do will fall into the "release and patch" format for the individual episodes. No one who didn't have the full time to play the whole game will buy its parts (at least they won't get any more use out of them if they), and nothing worthwhile will come of this.

Actually, there are a lot of untried business models that eposodic gaming could use to work. Publishers could actually allow user generated content into the game on a regular high frequency schedule. The modding community could be allowed to create full modules that would be looked at by the producers and evaluated. The game producer would then use a much smaller dev team to clean up the one they decided to go with. The modders get credits and a little cash. The producer gets multiple options on story direction while saving money on dev costs.

Re:Not a joke

[C0rinthian]

I ran a guild in one with over 1000 people at one point... I barely am able to log into Eve just to make sure I am still training something.

Gotta ask, was this 'guild' in Eve, and if so what corp was it?

Re:Not a joke

[TubeSteak]

This is just a way to start a game with little funding hoping that you will make enough money to complete it. It is what I'll call the current PC "patch model" of distribution taken to its logical extreme.

Patch model?

I thought most of (all?) the bugs in a game were in the graphics/physics/AI engine.

Designing good levels/episodes may not be easy, but I imagine it has to be a whole lot easier than getting a proper game engine written up.

Even games that use an existing graphics engine still have their fair share of bugs.

Re:Not a joke

[MBraynard]

Nah - Asheron's Call.

Re:Not a joke

[DeadChobi]

Does anyone remember Asheron's Call, the MMO with regular monthly storyline updates including new content, and new storyline? At one point in this game, PvP players were defending a crystal from other PvP players, and the developers had promised that any server on which the crystal was not broken would have a completely different storyline. The only reason there was an Asheron's Call expansion was because there was too much content to release a patch and have it finish downloading in a reasonable amount of time.

AC was also the only MMO that I could play casually and have fun doing it. You could spend hours going over your plan for your character, because there were so many options. I heard that later on it started sucking, especially when they introduced NPC "buffers" in town and other time-saving methods that eliminated the need for knowing magic schools. But early on, it rocked being a fistfighter who knew 3 schools of magic.

The AC team would also host monthly developer chats where they would query users as to what would be an interesting add. And they also used their judgement as developers as to what they would add, too. I remember one update the development team added "blunt swords" which were staff weapons, to placate a request.

Episodic gaming doesnt have to take the form of releasing multiple expansions to deliver storyline. AC was quite successful as an MMO. AC2 is a different story. If there is one game that I wish I could go back to and play all over again, it would be Asheron's Call.

To hell with your fishing sidequests, your quest grinding, your search for the Large Crisp Basilisk Urethra for that recipie. Just let me whip up some healing meat pies and go slay buggies for an hour while I kick back after a long study session. That would be MMO heaven. That was Asheron's Call.

Re:Not a joke

[PhoenixOne]

Yes and No.

You are totally right about your Godfather example. Most games would never get more then a few chapters in before they lost so many players that they couldn't afford to finish. If you're not going to spend $50 on a 80-hour game, you're not going to spend $400 on 80-one hour games (selling for $5 each).

But the model can work. In fact, there are some MMOGs that are doing this now to a certain degree. Some MMOs are obvious about this and sell "expansion packs" while others give out "free" content (which isn't really free when you're spending $12 a month just to play).

I think the next step is making more games that you can pick up, play for 5-30 minutes, and then stop. The real trick is being able to stop at any time (something you can't do in a MMOG). Gameboy style games tend to do this, but I'd like to see more games with some depth that are easy to start and stop (yes, I know it will not be easy). I can only play so much Sudoku! ;)

Re:Not a joke

[Das Modell]

It's called growing up.

And why's that? Am I not a grownup if I don't start my own company and get a wife and two kids (or get involved in amateur athletics), and then loudly complain that there's no time to play games anymore? It was your choice to invest your time in those things. The line of work I'm getting into will be something like a nine to five job (physical labour) which doesn't require me to do anything, like paperwork, when I'm not at work. I also won't be getting married. I guess I'll have lots of time to play games, at the terrible cost of not growing up (for the record, I'm 21 as of now).

Re:Not a joke

[Swanktastic]

This is just a way to start a game with little funding hoping that you will make enough money to complete it. It is what I'll call the current PC "patch model" of distribution taken to its logical extreme.

The article addresses this issue, "We believe it is less about the big guy vs. the small guy, or the mitigation of risk in the face of escalating development cost. It is about controlling the subscription model for gaming."

Their contention is that this is all about redistribution of the value chain, or more precisely, what share will retailers get in the future?

I would tend to agree with them, in that the majority of game development expenses are not in building levels, but in creating the foundation for those levels- graphics/physics models, game rules, etc. It doesn't take blizzard anywhere near the resources to pump out the umpteenth instance as it did to create the first few. It doesn't make sense to use patches as a risk mitigation technique if you plunk down the majority of your expenses before you get an indication from the market as to whether the title will be a winner or loser.

Re:Not a joke

[MBraynard]

Yeah, I guess you have a point. I am playing a different game now - 'chase the benjamins' and 'be a decent athlete.' It is far more rewarding than the other games out there though it doesn't deliver the same immediate gratification on demand.

Trust me, you will probably curse yourself one day for the time spent on the games when you could have been working out or growing a business. And it sounds like you are going down the 'work harder, not smarter' route.

Re:Not a joke

[PreviouslySeen]

Im in a similar situation (albeit with two kids now). I dropped out of WOW because of the time commitments needed at the high levels to run instances.

I now play DDO on occasion with friends late night friday if I have the energy to stay awake, and sneak in an hour or so of oblivion when I can.

I figure once the offspring are older, I can go back to more time gaming with them if they can stand playing with the old man and they have the inclination to play games at all.

However, I will try (and most likely fail) to insist that sedentary game time be earned with activity so they can avoid the example of their parents who are now paying for their lack of activity when younger :)

Re:Not a joke

[GmAz]

That I can agree with. I want my kids to be active in their youth. I was very active in my youth because I didn't have video games. All my friends had Nintendos and Segas and all those other ones. But I didn't. My parents wanted me to be healthy and active. When my child (and future children) get old enough, the gaming will probably quit completely, or as you do, play late at night when they are in bed so I am not setting the example of 'I can do it, but you can't'. Either way, gaming is going bye bye and I will miss it. But there are more important things in life other than gaming, a lot of things.

Re:Not a joke

[karnal]

I'm 2 weeks back into working out. Age 31. Attempting to get rid of a mild case of beer gut (210lbs, 6'3")

I've found that I'm way too tired in the evenings to stay up past 11pm now to play UT2004 with my clan members... kinda sucks in a way, but I'm way more energetic at work.

Re:Not a joke

[PreviouslySeen]

You definitely will miss it somewhat, but at the same time it becomes more fun when you get a chance to play since you wont burn out and the games take longer to complete.

Besides, given a choice between playing with the kids and gaming, the kids are more fun (and get me to be more active--which is a feat in itself :)

Re:Not a joke

[MBraynard]

Totally hear you. That was me a few years ago. But every day is a chance to turn it all around. I went from 25% Body fat to 8 - and I weigh the same.

Most important to you now is diet. South Beach or Atkins. No alcohol.

Maybe look into some races or sign up from a marathon that is 6 months away. Good luck.

Re:Not a joke

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"I was very active in my youth because I didn't have video games. All my friends had Nintendos and Segas and all those other ones. But I didn't. My parents wanted me to be healthy and active."

Your parents wanted to teach you that you are unable to moderate yourself and would instantly stop functioning as a human being if you had a video game system. Were they forced to buy only enough food for a single meal at a time for fear that, if food for more than one meal was available, you'd gorge yourself and eat it all? Your parents didn't think very hard about what they were doing. Either that, or they were poor and just wanted to give you an excuse that would let you look down your nose at the other kids.

Funny thing is, I raise my children to know that too much sitting in front of the television is not good for them.

Re:Not a joke

[pokeyburro]

How in the world did you have time to have the baby in the first place??

MGS3: Subsistence...

[amrust]

... perfect for coming home, completing a quick zone or two, then saving the game in time for supper. The seperate zones take a little time to get through, but provide a natural break for short gaming sessions. And then there's the online content added, great for a quick team event or deathmatch.

Why is it about older gamers?

[Fool_Errant]

Honestly, episodic content's great across all demographics. Because there's not this drive to complete a game instantly, it makes it far more replayable. If you get tired of a game for a while, it's easy to put down, but when that urge comes back, it's right there again. That's not just an "older gamer" thing, that's across all age categories. Little kids do it, teenagers do that, college students go through it, and older gamers do it. I suspect it's one of the great successes of the early eras: those games, when they did have story, were easy to pick up and play and put back down. Sure, you could marathon finish the game, but you don't feel the driving NEED to finish it in a marathon. So, of course, you play it for longer.

Re:nine hours?

[drdewm]

FBSS, Fishbone earing, small goblin earing, epic, that f-ing unicorn, ARG!...

Ugh

[Digital Vomit]

Subscription-based video game consumption via digital distribution appears to be one of those paradigmatic shifts that could dramatically and permanently alter which side gets how much in the foreseeable future.

I hate newspeak. I buy games in order to play them. This has worked fine up until now. I can buy a game for $50 and play it for 4 or 5 years. I'm happy with that.

The main problem I see with this push toward "pay us via subscription" is that there's only room for a handful of successful games with the kind of monthly charge they're expecting. $1/month? Fine. $20/month? Homey don't play dat.

Re:Ugh

[AuMatar]

On the other hand, there's things like gamefly- rent N games at a time. For less than the cost of a game a month, you can get and beat 3 or 4 easily. That may well be worth it, if the price is the cost of a game or less.

Re:Ugh

[Xugumad]

> I can buy a game for $50 and play it for 4 or 5 years.

Yeah - I'm kinda puzzled by this idea of "Of course you'll want to complete the game you paid for, as quickly as possible."; if a game lasts me a month or two, it's a good thing! In particular, when I hear episodic gaming, I think Half-Life 2, and I think SiN. I don't know how SiN will turn out, but the idea of buying something shorter than Half-Life 2 is absurd - I completed the game in 3 days, and would neither consider myself particularly skilled at games, or as having significant amounts of free time to devote to games!

What I really want out of games is more things like Marble Blast Ultra (off XBox Live marketplace), that I can pick up, play a level of (or fail repeatedly a level of), and then put down. Or Burnout, where I can do a couple of races when I have time.

What I'm really looking for is the ability to feel I've done something, in 30 minutes or less, and in 10 minutes or less for some games (which are ideal if I have dead-time between things I have to do). This doesn't mean making the game short, it means ensuring that save points are frequent, and levels are not too long. Games with parts that take more than 30 minutes are fine, as along as they're exceptional (so, maybe a major mission), and it's made obvious they'll involve a reasonable time committment, so I'm not going to make a start then have to put them down half way through.

Marriage Vs. Single

[darthservo]

Ever since I got married, I don't have time to play games as much anymore. At least that's what I've been told.

But, in all seriousness, it is true. My life no longer focuses on, "What should I do tonight?", it became, "What should we do tonight?" Otherwise, if I was to tell my wife that I was going to sit down for a few hours and game, my marriage would not be as happy as it is. I enjoy spending time with my wife much more than gaming.

In fact, my wife isn't opposed to games. She grew up with the same games I did - old school DOS Games like Commander Keen or Cosmo's Cosmic Adventure. Or, we'll play FloboPuyo or Jump N Bump together. Sometimes we'll fire up DOS-Box and one of us will play those games for a while. Or, we'll even fire up the NES and play Mario for a while. My wife plays my old Gameboy Advanced more than I ever did, and sometimes we'll link them up and play against each other. However, we play more board/card games together than electronic games.

But, I don't feel that I'm missing much, especially with newer games. Mediocre titles and long gameplay are factors that turn me away. If anything requires that I have to spend over an hour focusing on, forget it.

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[Anonymous Coward]

When the old lady is out, I have to debate whether to spend my freetime with pr0n or gaming. She hates both with a passion. Marriage comes with so many sacrifices. *sigh* Enjoy your single life while you can, you youngsters!

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you guys just married the wrong person. My girlfriend is a gamer and also doesn't have a problem with my other hobbies. Or pr0n.

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[DerekLyons]

Ever since I got married, I don't have time to play games as much anymore. At least that's what I've been told.

But, in all seriousness, it is true. My life no longer focuses on, "What should I do tonight?", it became, "What should we do tonight?" Otherwise, if I was to tell my wife that I was going to sit down for a few hours and game, my marriage would not be as happy as it is.

Frankly, you show the classic signs of an immature relationship with an overdependency on each other.

Many is the time when my answer to the question 'what am I going to do tonight' involves a solo activity, sometimes even outside the home. When my wife gets home, we talk over dinner and proceed forward - sometimes with my plans altered, sometimes not. (The exception is Wednesday, because I'm going to fighter practice that night unless one of us is ill or the weather is truly beastly bad. No discussion required.) Sometimes we are solo in seperate rooms, sometimes solo in the same room, sometimes a shared activity of some kind.

If your (post marriage) life consists solely of shared activities - with no chance to 'tell your wife you are going to game for a few hours' - then (IMO) your marriage is extremely unhealthy.

To forestall the inevitable peanut gallery: We've been married for sixteen years, were last mistaken in public for newlyweds in April, and last held hands in public Sunday while shopping. Our marriage is healthy, happy, and stable. Tonight will probably match our usual routine during baseball season - the game will be on in the background while I read and she works on one of her puzzles.

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[TheJodster]

Yep. Been there done that and still have the T-Shirt. I remember when my marraige was new and things were fun. We had sex and did things together. Those were the days.

Now I game and am celibate. I can only assume these two life truths will hold until I die or get divorced. Enjoy it while it lasts. On the upside, it won't be too terribly long before you have a lot more gaming time on your hands once again. That is an upside, right?

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[Kuang_Eleven]

What, are ya in the SCA? Seriously though, I'm curious, who else calls their practice "fighter practice" other than us in the SCA?

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[DerekLyons]

What, are ya in the SCA? Seriously though, I'm curious, who else calls their practice "fighter practice" other than us in the SCA?

Nobody of whom I'm aware! :)

From An Tir, Greetings.

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[Kuang_Eleven]

And from Caid, likewise.

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[PhoenixFlare]

My life no longer focuses on, "What should I do tonight?", it became, "What should we do tonight?"

Otherwise, if I was to tell my wife that I was going to sit down for a few hours and game, my marriage would not be as happy as it is.

If you honestly can't tell your wife that you're going to game (or do anything else, for that matter) for a few hours by yourself, then perhaps you should consider whether something's wrong there.

Speaking as someone who's wife is also a gamer, and much more so than yours sounds to be, we will often (aside from non-gaming activities) spend time on a MUD together, play games like Katamari Damacy or Smash Bros., or a co-op PC game like Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate.

Just as often, however, I will throw in a console RPG and play for several hours while my wife reads, chats, or does some websurfing - and vice-versa with her own particular absorbing solo activities.

All that said, our marriage is quite healthy and happy. Even if you're still in the same room with your spouse, spending time doing something that doesn't require constant interaction with them can be very recharging - The decision between solo and shared activities doesn't have to be all or nothing.

If anything requires that I have to spend over an hour focusing on, forget it.

Combined with everything else you mentioned, I have to say that you really sound like you're limiting yourself for no good reason, and in a rather unhealthy way. If you're happy, though, then so be it.

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[darthservo]

Frankly, you show the classic signs of an immature relationship with an overdependency on each other.

Thanks, but I don't need marriage counsel from /., especially when people try to demean my life by calling it 'immature'. Go ahead and live your life how you do, and I'll live mine.

If by overdependency you mean we work together as a team, then I suppose your view of dependency is skewed. I view marriage as a partnership - two people working together to bring happiness to each other; not two people doing their own thing, but who happen to sleep in the same bed.

But, hey, your views may be different and whatever works for you, works. All I can say is that by knowing we can rely on each other, we've been very happy and successful.

If your (post marriage) life consists solely of shared activities - with no chance to 'tell your wife you are going to game for a few hours' - then (IMO) your marriage is extremely unhealthy.

I choose to share in activities when possible, because I thoroughly enjoy spending time with my spouse whom I've chosen for life.

Granted, we both need personal time. However, it is unhealthy to purposely avoid doing things with each other. I'm not saying we're joined at the hip and cannot be separated at any point in time - that is unhealthy, and I recognize that. We are also sometimes like you say, "I read and she works on one of her puzzles," except the activities are different. For instance, I may choose to game for a while - I never once said marriage has suffocated my gaming life, just made me refocus my priorities. However, when we're absolutely bored out of our minds, we'll think of things we can do together. In this scenario, never have I said, "Sorry you're bored, I'm busy."

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[darthservo]

If you honestly can't tell your wife that you're going to game (or do anything else, for that matter) for a few hours by yourself, then perhaps you should consider whether something's wrong there.

Sorry if you misinterpretted. I never tried to imply that I cannot do anything without her when she's around. However, I won't let her be bored out of her mind while I'm in my own world. We both recognize the need for personal time every now-and-then, but we enjoy spending time with each other moreso.

Combined with everything else you mentioned, I have to say that you really sound like you're limiting yourself for no good reason, and in a rather unhealthy way. If you're happy, though, then so be it.

I'd rather refer to it as being selective with my time. And, yes, I am happy.

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[karnal]

In this scenario, never have I said, "Sorry you're bored, I'm busy."

I've actually told my wife that before. It doesn't get you very far, what being a negative statement and all.

It is depressing when you have a hobby (gaming, music, cars, whatever) and my wife felt like pestering me... "You don't spend enough time with me!"

After communication and working through life's issues, though, I've found that we have "our time" and "quiet time". I now have my time for hobbies, and we still do things together. It's all about give and take. Of course, once we have kids.... that'll be give give give :) Oh, and to the parent, don't let anyone here get you riled up. Everyone has their own view of what they feel is the perfect relationship - hell, my best man really didn't want me to get married... but that's their overstated opinion, FWIW.

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[DennisInDallas]

married? may I suggest bridge. Have 5 other couples over once a month, play a rubber at three tables then move the winners east and the losers west. When your partner wins the bid you bring drinks.

Re:Marriage Vs. Single

[Avatar8]

Wow, something must be seriously wrong with my marriage and family.

Let's see, during the day my wife plays with our 5 year old and plays WoW. I came home yesterday to see the 5 year old playing WoW for the first time. :-) When the 8 year old gets home from school, she chooses to watch TV, play with her sister or play her hunter in WoW with Mommy after her homework is done.

In the evening, we have dinner together, maybe watch a TV show (Dirty Jobs is a family favorite), or the girls will play outside or in their room until bedtime. My wife and I may or may not play WoW.

When the girls go to bed, it's either movie time, WoW time or mommy & daddy time.

When mommy goes to bed, I'm up for another few hours playing WoW or doing work remotely. :-P

On the weekends we may go to a movie, out to eat, to a Ren Faire, to an event, to a theme park or on some occasions the girls go visit the grandparents. When the girls are gone it's mommy & daddy time or WoW time. Sometimes they alternate several times over the weekend. /sigh Ah, bliss.

We've been married 12 years, been through our struggles but doing quite well now. I think we're in a pretty good balance. WoW has simply replaced other just as time-wasting forms of entertainment: TV, movie, etc. We definitely enjoy it as our preferred form of entertainment. The fact that it is episodic, that we can enjoy it in bits and chunks here and there and schedule major instance time on weekends, makes it even more convenient and attractive.

THIS is the model all games will seek to follow: FIT within your players' lives so they can enjoy it when they want.

Re:nine hours?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you haven't entered the work world yet... I'm a coder and I spend nine hours a day in front of a comptuer programming for a living. Too bad I can't spend that time playing games every single day.

Not really a new idea

[spun]

My family bought it's first pc back in 1979, a TRS80 Model 1. My dad loved computer games back then, but he hated how long it took to get anywhere. He said, "why doesn't someone come up with a game where you can define how long you have to play, and it will make sure you finish something meaningful in that amount of time." Well, no one has made anything like that, and now he doesn't play games.

Back then I thought it was a dumb idea, but now that I'm in my thirties I know exactly what he meant.

Re:Not really a new idea

[Sigma 7]

My family bought it's first pc back in 1979, a TRS80 Model 1. My dad loved computer games back then, but he hated how long it took to get anywhere. He said, "why doesn't someone come up with a game where you can define how long you have to play, and it will make sure you finish something meaningful in that amount of time." Well, no one has made anything like that, and now he doesn't play games.

Most games nowadays implement something called "Saved Games". Good or bad, you can save the game at any time after doing whatever accomplishments you wanted to do.

While there might not be as much accomplished in five minutes (especially in real-time strategy games where you have to remember what you were doing), it is still something where you can resume from your last location.

From my experience, most games are geared towards at least 15 minute sessions. In that time, you can at least see significant progress - with the exception of grinds (e.g. some nameless RPGs.)

Re:Not really a new idea

[xenocide2]

Arcade games came up with this in the early 80s, and Nintendo perfected it in the SNES. What I'm talking about is Super Mario Bros. This is a game where in five minutes you either finish a level (make progress) or time expires. If you're complaining about situations where don't have five minutes to play and nothing accomodates your needs, perhaps its time to check into a clinic ;) This is probably the biggest problem with Zelda. Your average dungeon is epic in scope. It's fun when you have the time to dedicate to finishing (or don't but try anyways and ignore that paper due date), but if you only want to invest 30 minutes you may be SoL.

Note that episoidic gaming doesn't address this really. It's like getting a new dungeon every 30 days, while you still don't have 2 free contiguous hours to sit down and solve it. Some games address this with a save anywhere approach. Pokemon was like that. In five minutes you could at least make progress, if not accomplish anything exactly "meaningful." The original quake was save anywhere. And while it might not fit your definition of "meaningful" there are plenty of First Person Shooters with a time cap on multiplayer. Although, I'm pretty sure that rearranging a sequence of bits on a computer isn't the highest of human endevors anyways.

Re:Not really a new idea

[shawb]

Most games with this "Saved Games" option have something called "Save Points."

You can't just save the game in any old spot, just certain locations. If you are in the middle of some tedious part between saves and you get bored or simply can't keep playing, the only options are 1)keep playing untill you eventually hit the save point 2)eventually replay the game or 3)give up the game completely. Then there are games like Black that take it even a level further... There are checkpoints that you will respawn at if you die, but if you quit the game and come back later you are dumped back at the beginning of the level.

Re:Not really a new idea

[steveo777]

I agree. That's why it took me well over 2 years to finish Xenosaga Ep 1. Sure, you could pause the FMV's, but it doesn't matter unless it's a bathroom/food break. I've got to got to work and may not have and game time for two or three days. The only reason I finished Xenogears is because I was in high school and I didn't have anything else to do.

Basically I don't play a lot of RPGs anymore because the 45min + time investment for progress cannot be guaranteed to me.

Re:Not really a new idea

[Sigma 7]

Most games with this "Saved Games" option have something called "Save Points."

I find that it is a 50/50 split - some saves use the save-point system, some others use full quick saves. For the PC, the games that go by save-points are generally less popular than the quick save counterparts. There are exceptions (e.g. FarCry and to a lesser extent, PainKiller), but these are generally more common with console games (or on old computer systems.)

I AM the Godfather...

[__aaclcg7560]

... it is easy to play The Godfather for nine straight hours ...

When I was younger, we used to watch The Godfather for hours at a time. (Or was that Conan The Barbarian on the VHS tape that got worn out.) Anyway, sheesh... these kids and their interactive entertainment these days.

Section Length Can Stop You, Too

[turbopunk]

I have to agree with the idea on casual games. I am surprised, however, that it hasn't been carried through to other game formats. I'm in the middle of about 3 or 4 games right now that I would love to finish. all three require you to go to a savepoint. The problem is that, as the game progresses, the savepoints get further and further apart. Therefore, I get 20 hours into a 30 hour game, but I can't finish it because I don't have a block of 4 hours to set aside to get to the next checkpoint.

The problem isn't going to be fixed with edispodic content. As long as the game makers keep placing checkpoints farther and farther away to increase difficulty, then the problem will always persist.

Re:Section Length Can Stop You, Too

[Rude Turnip]

I ran into this in a way with a couple games. In GTA III, I lost patience in trying to complete a timed level (the one where you have to crash into coffee stands). I haven't touched the game in almost a year since I have better things to do. Same deal with Spider-man 2 and another level that began to piss me off. In the end I'm probably going to give away my PS2 and all my games to a friend with more time on his hands or with more patience. And, no, none of you are my friends :)

Re:Section Length Can Stop You, Too

[pest]

haha, thats funny, i gave up on the same mission in GTA3... timed levels can be BS some times. there are a few games that i've just stopped playing because i couldn't get past a level and there were no cheats to bypass it.

Re:Section Length Can Stop You, Too

[iainl]

I abandoned GTA3 at that level for well over a year as well. Fortunately, when I eventually went back to it I noticed that the coffee stands are always in the same place - if you can figure out a good route (start from the furthest one away, to give yourself the easiest route back after the last one has gone) it's actually pretty simple.

I've since abandoned it again, however. The final level is difficult in the cheapest possible ways; right from the off it steals all your weaponry so you have to do it on foot with rubbish firepower. Thank God they didn't pull the same stunt for the finale of Vice City, which is much more satisfying.

Need more gaming time??

[revlayle]

Get a divorce and let them have sole custody of the kids... BAM! instant gaming time attained!!!!!11

Re:Need more gaming time??

[BobT63]

Amen Bro!

Re:Need more gaming time??

[Anonymous Coward]

To those of us who actually LOVE our children, that's not an option.

Re:Need more gaming time??

[steveo777]

You forget that you're gaming time decreases again proportional to the amount of child support you have to pay. Oh, and she probably got the big screen out of the deal, and the 360 she will never play. Sorry man...

Now you're rooming with your single buddy who never stops partying and broke the PS1 your ex didn't know about and always watches porn on the 9" TV you found in the appartment dumpster. Sure sucks to be you.

Football Vs. Basketball.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But, in all seriousness, it is true. My life no longer focuses on, "What should I do tonight?", it became, "What should we do tonight?" Otherwise, if I was to tell my wife that I was going to sit down for a few hours and game, my marriage would not be as happy as it is. I enjoy spending time with my wife much more than gaming."

The NFL, NBA has ruined many a marriage.

Compatibility Check

[xNoLaNx]

Maybe I'm too obsessive of a gamer, but when I was first dating the woman now my wife, I thought it was important that she was into gaming at least half as much as I was, just generally interested in my interests. My wife attends LAN parties I go to, we play WoW together, and she kicks my ass at Dr Mario when we play.

Re:Compatibility Check

[Anonymous Coward]

Well let's take the number of (heterosexual) guys interested in gaming, and then subtract from that the number of (heterosexual) girls interested in gaming. We now have group A, guys who get a gaming girl, and B, guys who are out of luck.

Group B has three options:
1) Spend the rest of their lives alone
2) Settle for someone who isn't nearly as interested in gaming as they are (and possibly hope to encourage an interest in games, with no guarantee of success)
3) Hunt down the people like you who made it into group A and kill them, thus freeing up some of the gaming women.

Re:Compatibility Check

[ocbwilg]

Maybe I'm too obsessive of a gamer, but when I was first dating the woman now my wife, I thought it was important that she was into gaming at least half as much as I was, just generally interested in my interests. My wife attends LAN parties I go to, we play WoW together, and she kicks my ass at Dr Mario when we play.

I'm not that obsessive of a gamer, and I didn't even think to bring it up with the woman I was dating (who is now my wife). This was an unfortunate mistake on my part. It wouldn't have been a deal breaker for me most likely, given the number of women in my age group who game is almost zero. But it probably would have headed off quite a few disagreements.

Re:nine hours?

[Odin_Tiger]

32 hours at a friend's frat house. Morrowind, about 3 months after it came out on XBox. The rule was that you could play as long as you wanted, but you had to a) keep drinking (beer, coffee, pop, water, didn't matter), and b) hand over the controller to the next guy when you needed a piss break.

Re:nine hours?

[XenoRyet]

Here, let me fix that post for you:

That's crazy. I play to have fun, and playing games for more than a few hours can get really boring for me, besides the fact it's terrible for your health if your too obsessive to take breaks, and excessive marathons have cause one or two otherwise mentaly ill people to die.

There, now your post is more accurate, and isn't judging the whole of the gaming community by your own personal standards.

Re:On top of old-foggie.

[Valdrax]

What with all these "getting older" stories? Is the gaming community having a mid-life crisis?

Basically, yes.

Those of us who grew up as the first generation of video gamers are growing older. Sure, there's all sorts of new gamers, but we're starting to see gamers in their thirties who started on video games in elementary school. As a result, there's a lot of navel-gazing about people who still love games but can't play all the games they used to as a kid.

I'm a big console RPG gamer. When I was a kid, I used to regularly rack up over 50 hours on a run through FF4, and I probably played the game from start to finish over 8 times. I'd disdain strategy guides on the first run or two while trying to find everything myself.

Now, as a gainfully employed adult, I'm lucky to have enough time to play through one of my RPGs once. I don't have time to get everything I missed on a second run, so at this point, I'm hitting FAQs from before I start the game and using cheat codes at the end to bypass some of the tedium of finishing side quests. I have a lot of games that I've bought thinking that they'd be great that are sitting on my shelf unopened because I just don't have time anymore.

I also haven't played a good 4X TBS game in ages because I just can't see myself spending a week to finish one play-through.

That's a demographic shift for gamers that does actually mean something in terms of what kinds of products we buy, and since we're the money makers now, the industry is catering to us. That's why you're seeing so much about this.

Don't nickel and dime me ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be fine with Episodic Content if companies were offering a decent upgrade for the price; that is if you got an aditional multiplayer level for $0.25-$1 or $1-$2 per aditional hour of single player gameplay, I'd be happy to pay. What annoys me is companies that (will) charge you $2 for a texture for a horse or for a 10 minute quest; that's right, Oblivion and the XBox 360 were taken off of my shopping list on principle alone (these charges are outrageous and I will not support companies who gouge people like this).

Hrm... I see the problem here.

[vertinox]

When you are single and unemployed, it is easy to play The Godfather for nine straight hours the day the game hits the shelf. When you are married, it becomes tougher.

Ahhh... So the problem is the kids, then the wife, and then the job.

Well... I need a job to support my drinking habbits so I can't really give that up.

But the wife and the kids I could do without.

I came close to getting married and then realized I was a horrible person when it comes to being loyal and later discovered the joy of being in a permanent "open relationship" with someone.

Secondly, I don't see the need to procreate. It occurred to me one day that I for one have no reason to be having children (and I wish a lot of people would realize this too). I mean you have made it this far without having children yet, have you really sat down and thought it over why you really want kids? To make yourself happy? Grand experiment? Living vicariously? Creating life like god? Passing your genes into the gene pool? Make the wife happy by fufilling her natural instincts? I'm not saying having kids is wrong, but sometimes I am under the impression that many people get married and have kids because they think it will somehow make them happy or they do it because everyone in their family expects them to do it.

But... If you already have them then you gotta love them because anything less would be wrong. People should have kids for the right reasons and strive to be the best possible parents possible which is one of the reason I have decided to decline in the act.

Besides I've got insane psychotic relatives on one side of the family and the other is alcoholics with personal issues.

I don't want to force those genes on anyone... Maybe if I settled down I'd adopt some poor asian kid, but I digress.

But here is the crux of the matter... Many people think growing up involves getting married and having kids. Actually, that has nothing to do with. I knew plenty of people who have kids and are married (or divorced) yet they still are immature bastards.

Secondly, having kids and getting married doesn't entail you not having fun.

I've got two seperate friends who have kids, yet one plays city of heroes and the other plays tons and tons of console games (xbox and ps2) and yet they both hold full time jobs and spend plenty of time with their kids. (In fact the xbox one plays the games with them)

Sure its tougher for them to find more free time to spend 9 hours a day grinding on their RPGs, but so is it for me when I'm spending more time at work, working on small business stuff, and out drinking and clubbing.

To generalize this as growing up doesn't always hold true.

Re:Hrm... I see the problem here.

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Growing up" part of all these discussions comes down to the fact that as you mature (I'm not saying age, because I've met some pretty immature 60 year olds) you realize that there are a lot more important things than your instant gratification; in other words Mature people will choose productive uses of their time and only do "pure" (instant gratification) entertainment in moderate portions.

I'm not going to comment on your views on children except to say that I have seen several people who (in their 30s) were major "Playboys" become the most depressed people in their 50's and 60's because they're single and alone and don't have anything to do except retire and die; children provide purpose to life, they are not there to strenghten a relationship nor are they to make you happy, that can be a side effect of leading a purposful life (not saying they're the only way to lead a purposful life but many people who dislike children don't fill their life with anything).

Re:Hrm... I see the problem here.

[mgabrys_sf]

re:"children provide purpose to life"

Children can provide -"A"- purpose to life. Children are not -MY- purpose in life.

I'd rather start a (or several) business(es) - create jobs & wealth for others, and if I'm -very- lucky perhaps leave some art behind that a few people might find some value in. It's how you build and devote your life and apportion the time. I'm hoping to free up more time in the future so I can enjoy my game collections. But I've even put casual dating on hold until my first 50 canvases are painted. Relationships and everything else is a HUGE time (and money) suck. Once my goals are met, I'll move-on - but what other people keep harping on about "to be happy" is mere shorthand to pissing me off.

What I'm doing -now- makes me happy. Everything else is just time & energy expended before you're dead and gone. So - please - spend your time - not mine, and enjoy what you have while you have it.

Thanks for your time.

Re:Hrm... I see the problem here.

[Anonymous Coward]

That "children as antidepressant" idea seems pretty silly. My younger sister left home a couple of years ago, and my parents are now very obviously lonely and not particularly happy with no-one else in the house. Raising children gives you a purpose then takes it away when you're getting near retirement. Ouch. When the dog dies they're really going to feel it.
I've never had a purpose, I conciously decided to drift through life in a relaxed way, and I'm certainly better off than them at the moment. Time will tell, I suppose.

Just anecdotal evidence.

Same here.

[antdude]

I am 30 years old and single (never had a date or relationship before). I am finding lack of free time during both full-time work days (and some overtimes) and non-work days. I barely play games these days even on weekend. If I do, then I get maybe 1-2 hours a week. I used to play a lot before. I even made a poll on my Web site about free time as a full-time worker as a single adult.

Quake 3 Arena

[Sunlighter]

You know, in Quake 3 Arena, you can hit Single Player, Skirmish, pick a map, hit Next, pick your opponents, and set a Time Limit and no Frag Limit. Like say for 15 minutes. And that's when the game ends.

I've been doing that for years.

one of the main reasons for episodic content IMHO

[Sathias]

Half the price of a full priced game with less than half of the length. The developers make more money in terms of how much content they create. There is other benefits such as the more episodic nature of the game and the possibility of the storyline changing based on player feedback, but I believe these are secondary considerations.

The impact summed up in one word...

[aztektum]

Minimal.

Especially at the 20 bucks a pop method that I keep hearing rumored Valve will use. Particularly when it will just amount to a few linear shooter levels.

Meanwhile I continue to play Gal Civ II over and over with all the different outcomes for 29.99. Or even Civ IV for 50 bucks is a better investment.

Re:The impact summed up in one word...

[ocbwilg]

Especially at the 20 bucks a pop method that I keep hearing rumored Valve will use. Particularly when it will just amount to a few linear shooter levels.

I agree. As it stands now, most new games debut at $40, $50, or $60 for an entire game. But if you wait just 3-5 months you can usually pick it up for $20-$30. There are hardcore gamers who "must have the game" and will pay nearly any price to get it. They are the low hanging fruit. Once you have sold copies to all of them at $60 in the first week or two, you drop the price to $40 or $50 to pick up some more sales from people who think that $60 is outrageous. After those $40 sales are mostly done, you've really got to cut the price to milk the market. Eventually you hit $19.99, or even the dreaded Best Buy $11.99 price.

I submit that the casual gamer is willing to wait until the price hits $19.99 to buy the full version of the game. After all, they are probably still working their way through last years big hits that only recently hit $19.99. So if you price episodic content at $19.99 per episode, all they are seeing is you offerring 20% of the content for the same price. Who wants to pay for that?

Valve had a great idea to create Steam and circumvent the publishers. It allows them to cut some expense and keep a larger share of the profit. It also allowed them to offer several different products for the same game at different price points. IMHO this is good because it rewards the content creators rather than the content distributors. Sure, there are other issues with Steam (that we won't go into here). But it's also the perfect vehicle for episodic content. Before you had internet-based content delivery, you had to sell boxes of software at retail outlets. The expense of packaging and distributing those boxes made it unprofitable to create episodic content (aka, smaller pieces). All they have to do is figure out what is the correct price, but I submit that $19.99 isn't it.

Re:The impact summed up in one word...

[mshurpik]

As always, the smartest person is the one who figured out how companies cut product and keep the price the same. We might as well be talking about Charmin's "Less is More" commercials or a 13.5 oz. "pound" of potato chips. Or any of the various products, like margarine, soda, mp3 downloads, or even compact discs, which literally cost nothing to make, but sell at nearly the same price as their "real" conterparts (butter, juice, vinyl).

For established businesses, this is the ONLY trick in the book.

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[SpecialAgentXXX]

I'm your age and single. I have just as much free time as when I graduated college and started working. In fact, I have even more free time since I'm not sucking up at the office and putting in O.T. to get on the boss's good side. I'm in cruise mode at the office.

The reason you, a single guy with no g/f, have less free time is because you are unorganized. Here, do this. Put 15-minute blocks for the whole day in MS Excel (96 total). Now fill in what you have to do in those blocks. i.e. 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work, 1 hour of commuting, etc. The blocks that you have not filled in are your free-time blocks. It may surprise you how much time you have. Maybe you waste time surfing /.? I know I do. ;-)

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[zoomba]

Or it's possible that he does other things offline that don't necessarily involve dating? I know I could fill my non-work time completely with any number of non-computer hobbies if I wanted to. Just because he doesn't have the time he wants for gaming, doesn't mean he's disorganized, just that maybe he has different priorities.

set your f'ing priorities!!!

[QAChaos]

seriously...that child and married thing is getting old!!! get them INVOLVED!!! instead of paying the kid to mow the lawn have him/her as a gaming consultant...the wife ( if she really loves you) will understand....

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[antdude]

Well, here's the thing. I don't drive. I car pool from others due to my physical disabilities. Commutings suck. It can be up to four hours total due to L.A. traffic (35 miles ONE way). And I work from 10/11 AM to 7/8 PM evening. Traffics still suck though. Living closer would be nice but have you seen the crazy high prices? Ugh.

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[SpecialAgentXXX]

Wow, er, I feel bad for ripping a handicap guy. I'm sorry. Could you possibly telecommute?

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[antdude]

SpecialAgentXXX: Nope. I am not high level enough (not a manager) and that would be hard to do over since I deal with lots of big files (GB!). Heh, not good for dial-up and slow cable modem connections (especially with uploads).

Wow, what games have you been playing?

[MMaestro]

What have you been playing lately? Episodic gaming has historically been slow to be released, lacking in replay value and short in terms of gameplay time. HL2: Episode One STILL isn't out, BF2's version of 'episodic' expansions have been hit-or-miss, and MMORPGs that attempt this route have generally had too small or too infrequent (free) 'expansions.'

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[SpecialAgentXXX]

Actually, if you were that high (a manager), wouldn't you have to go into the office everyday? It's the grunts like us that can work from home. i.e. if you job can be outsourced, then you can most likely work from home.

As for dealing with big files, why not ask about using Microsoft Remote Desktop? Just connect to your Win XP Pro PC at work from your Win XP Pro PC at home. Or you can use VNC if you desktop is Linux.

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[antdude]

That will be too slow. I need access to physical computers like reimaging my HDDs, etc. I deal with disk utilities, various operating systems, etc. as a SQA tester/analyst.

Oblivion

[SmallFurryCreature]

Now if there is one recent game you can't complete in 10 minutes that is it. 9 hours? HA!

So if this article got a point this superlong game would not be selling. Except that it is.

So the story is complete and utter crap.

What is "important" for people with other demands on their time is the ability to segment their gaming. Or in other words. Save anywhere.

Call of Cthulhu is another Betsheda game yet while it is much shorter (except for some fake replay forcing) I can play it far less. In Oblivion I could play for say 5 minutes before saving and doing whatever is demanded of me. CoC would mean I had to quit and next time do whatever I did over again because I had not reached a save point.

The online 5 minute FPS section offcourse can't be saved but then again doesn't need to. Same with MMO games wich in way save CONSTANTLY.

I think the most important lesson game companies should learn is that older players with real live demands on their time will have less patience for being forced to play from savepoint to savepoint. Being forced to replay a game if they want maximum difficulty (what the fuck is up with that? Consoles are weird) or all the goodies.

Putting out games in small bits is not going to solve anything. So what if the godfather was segmented into 1 hour episodes. That STILL would not meet your 5 minute game session time.

I just wish gamemakers would wake up and realize that savepoints are a leftover from the days consoles didn't have enough memory to save a full game.

It is a tech limit NOT a design feature. I paid for the product, I decide how to play it.

If you think about it savepoint system is like that recent Philips patent to disable your TV controls during ads. It is the content maker telling you how you should play. Fuck that.

Re:Oblivion

[argStyopa]

I'd disagree with you. I hve precisely the same time issues as the original submitter, and Oblivion is great. Yes, there are probably HUNDREDS of hours of content there, but if you only have a half hour you can jump in, find a wilderness dungeon, and have a great time doing it.

IMO this is one thing that the MMO games haven't yet come to grips with.
I played WW2OL for 4 years straight, and loved it (still do, actually) but as the realism and fidelity to the actual military experience increased, it became less and less possible to accomplish anything alone (ala Rambo). This, to me, was a good thing but it meant that not onl couldn't you accomplish anything alone, capturing a hard-fought town became a 4-hour+ event. I simply don't have blocks of time like that.

So I drifted to the other MMOs, and WoW suited me for quite a while because 1-59 and even level 60 content can be solo'd (no spending precious minutes trying to get a group together that might disintegrate at any moment), and 'progressed' in fits and starts according to my schedule. But now I've HAD to start alts because my main is nearly UNPLAYABLE, because the only thing for long-time, accomplished, geared 60s to do is massive, 20- or 40-player instances that take 3+ hours at a sitting.

So having bought Oblivion, I'm delighted that I can fill a spare 30-45 minutes having fun, not spamming Ogrimaar or IF "LFG".

Re:Oblivion

[iainl]

As someone who has been playing Morrowind recently in 20-minute (or so) blocks, I'd definitely agree with you on that one.

Meanwhile, I've got Black sitting virtually untouched, because I don't have time to play the whole second level in order to reach the next savepoint, and I never actually managed to get past the opening cutscene of MGS2.

Re:Oblivion

[elrous0]

Save anywhere.

Man, that reminds me how much I *hate* that damn "checkpoint" system on so many console games.

That was the one downside to Halo 1 & 2. Drove me abosultely *NUTS* (especially when in "Legendary" mode). I'd work my butt off, finally clearing that notorious hanger on legendary setting, only to have some Elite ambush me before I could make the checkpoint.

It left me with the constant feeling of just having wasted a lot of time. I'd complete whole gaming sessions with absolutely NOTHING to show for it.

I play games to have fun, not to be frustrated.

-Eric

Adventure games?

[Aramgutang]

Maybe this is part of the reason why adventure games have nearly died out (not the only reason, obviously). It's one of the few genres where continuous playing for a long time is crucial to an enjoyable experience.

With, say, an FPS, as long as you stop playing when you finish an area/level, it's easy to pick up again on the next day. With an adventure game, it can be pretty crucial to have a lot of things fresh in your memory, like "I've definitely tried using my rabbit's foot with that checkout counter" or "I think the blind hermit mentioned something about frogs and WD-40 being an explosive combination".

Otherwise, trying things over and over again in separate gaming session gets really old really fast. So older folk don't have the time to enjoy playing them, while the kids, dumbed down by TV and MySpace, don't have the attention span.

Episodic gaming,Casual gaming

[Frozen Void]

I'm usually not going to waste hours to reach game goals or just have fun.
for example if i like i can load Starcraft and Play a single map for half-hour(not melee) and leave.

Episodic gaming is widespread because,
there few reasons:
1.Lack of time.
2.Games are not interesting after you
familiar with them enough.I.e. no novelty factor in spending time on old games.
3.Games aren't important enough to use up free time.If there is something else it takes priority over gaming.
4,using games as recreation isn't much fun.Games are less interesting then books or film to casual player.
5.Gaming as hobby vs programming as hobby,looks like less productive use of time.besides gamign expirience or gaming skills are typically restricted to single domain.

This all contributes to small gaming sessions,lack of interest in learning game skills,tendency of casual gaming.
Flash games are popular becuase they
largely designed for casual players.
I'm viewing this as healthy trend,since hardcore gaming is detrimental to personality and lifestyle of gamers.

Re:nine hours?

[aichpvee]

How did you hold it for 32 hours?

The Original Doom

[DimGeo]

I suppose 'episodic gaming' refers to either games being released as small episodes, or having players that can only spend small amounts of time for playing. Anyway, I think the original Doom/II/TNT/Evilution shows the power small episodes. Just check the doom wad archives. You can easily get thousands of levels or complete episodes, with fans releasing at least a few completely new levels each week. That's what, like 12.5 years after the release of Doom? Just get your copy of ZDoom/ZDaemon and start blasting. Want some casual fun? Log on to your ZDaemon account and blast some CTF. Nice, easy, available. Always new content to enjoy. Want to experiment with a new special effect for Doom or just make some single-player trap levels? Fire DETH or Yadex and you are on the way.

Portable consoles

[rishistar]

I find that having a decent current gen DS (though same may apply for PSP) is the saviour of gaming. I don't always have access to the TV in the lounge with the console connected to it and after sitting at a PC at work all day means I'm not so enthusiastic about the hassle of setting up the game to run on that. But the portable is great way of getting the gaming fix in a manner that fits into the lifestyle better (eg when dinners being cooked, and best of all when on the khazi!).

Plus the fact that I've got a couple of cartridges I carry round on my keyring means I've got the variety to suit what mood and time I've got.

Diablo II

[0311]

I like Diablo II a lot. It's the only game I play. It's a lot of fun because I know I can sit down for 10 or 15 minutes or whatever and make a small contribution to my next level. I guess I would call it incremental gaming. After spending 4 or 6 hour chunks of time studying ochem or material for the MCAT in August, it is nice to run around whacking monsters and finding magical stuff. And since I play a little here or a little there, it doesn't really affect my family time at all.

Re:Diablo II

[{tele}machus_*1]

I agree. It's like that for me in WoW. I have an alt character that I'm grinding to 60, but by grinding I mean, I log in and out right next to the optimal grinding spots for my level. That way, I can log in for a half hour, get some good XP, then log out. However, at some point, my desire for progression takes hold and I just need to sit down for an entire Saturday and do nothing but focus on getting to the next level.

Also, that character is my alt. On my main, I log in three nights a week and participate in a 40-person raid for 4 hours straight (sometimes to the great disgust of my wife). Then on weekends, I probably log another solid 6 hours over two days gathering the stuff I need to raid again the next week. Basically, WoW is my hobby to the exclusion of all other hobbies.

The big difference between logging that many hours on WoW as opposed to any other game, is that I can log out at any time, and return to the same point (except during a raid). Thus, I can accummulate a lot of game time in a single week just by logging in for short chunks.

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[antdude]

Yes, I do other things that sucks up free time. I wished we had more hours or don't need to sleep. :) Of course sleep takes up a lot of those hours!

Re:nine hours?

[iainl]

Meanwhile, I normally play it for around 20 minutes at a time on the PC. It's not the length of the game that matters, but how reasonable they are about you saving when you have to stop.

Casual gaming

[bookofbiff]

Now that I'm married casual gaming is a better fit with my life. It's great to fire up a 15 min death match or go a couple rounds in a fighting game or a couple laps in a racing game. I would be more interested in more updates to those types of games. New death match levels, new fighting environments/costumes, new tracks. The long 80 hour single player games aren't very fun when the other person feels like they have to leave the room so they don't get plot points ruined. At this point in my life I'm more interested in trying to get a new high score in Galaga then playing through the Godfather.

more likely

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely to log into xbox live for a 5 minute game? More likely than what? "More" is a comparative word. You need things to compare when you use it.

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[MacroRex]

Oh crap that's bad (though I'm sure there are worse). Myself, I work 8 hours a day with at most an hour of commute/shopping/etc which works out to 4-6 hours of free time every weekday. This is why I would not even consider moving to a town with longer commutes. Occasionally I have to do a day in the next town which is 2 hours away, but I refuse to do that very often.

Re:On top of old-foggie.

[Slider451]

Yes, Generation X is turning 40. We were in our young teens when Space Invaders hit the arcade and the Atari 2600 hit the home. We haven't stopped playing, and we have more disposable income than ever. The only thing we lack is time.

Give me something that rewards me in short sessions and allows me to save anywhere and anytime. Also, give me a good quest log so I can easily re-immerse myself in an RPG or adventure game after some time away.

Do all those things and you can have large portions of my kids' college fund.

Re:nine hours?

[beh]

My worst was about 18 years ago - the release of Carrier Command on the Atari ST; it kept me awake for just over 104 hours until I had finished it... (that included 3 breaks to go to school (with slowly degrading attention)...

That was when I was 17 - today, the occasional all-nighter might still be in - but they're rare....

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[illumin8]

Hate to flog a dead horse, but you should ask your manager to look at VMware. I can do everything from home now. I had to add new CPUs to a few servers and I did it from home on a Saturday night. Anyway, good luck. I can sympathize because on the days I do work in the office, I find myself only having about 3-4 free hours of time a day.

Re:Same here. - no free time lost

[antdude]

illumin8: We do use VMware (been using it since v3.x), but we CANNOT fully replace real machines for testings especially when we have to test disk utilities, firewall/security products, performance, etc.

double-speak

[tabby]

ah I see. Episodic gaming = "we want you to pay full price for games while we only give you half the content & then expect you to pay additionally for the rest of the content over time."

Re:On top of old-foggie.

[no_mayl]

A PSP is close to what you want.
The standby feature is quite handy: need to pay some attention to the significant other during a boss-battle? Push that button, and done... game saved in memory. No more 10x "5 more minutes hunny...".
Switching games in the middle is not possible, but now games like GTA or Untold Legends are manageable.
I carry my PSP everywhere (baggy pants with 400 pockets) and play in 3min-slices while picking up somebody for carpooling, waiting in line at the supermarket,...

Re:nine hours?

[Avatar8]

I guess I'm obsessive compulsive. I remember a few episodes where something similar to this occured.

Christmas 1985(??) - I received my first console, the 8-bit Nintendo. I started playing Legend of Zelda at 6pm and finally stopped the next morning at 9am when everyone started getting up. To me it felt like 3 hours.

1990 while at college, Ultima VI was released. A few days before it was released, I vowed that I should play back through Ultimas I through V to remind myself of the world and the philosophy. For about a week I went to school, went to work, came home and played while eating dinner. I slept about 2-4 hours each night. I finished U5 the night before the release, got a decent night's sleep then started U6 the next night and repeated the 2-4 hours of sleep a night for the next week. I was the first person to officially finish U6 (I have the certificate signed by Lord British, and my character name is in Ultima VII on a tombstone. WOOT!)

October 1997, I started Ultima Online. I tried to get my wife interested, but she didn't like the PvP aspect. On weeknights I'd get 4-6 hours of sleep, but on weekends I'd sometimes play about 48 hours straight with only breaks for food and the bathroom. Thankfully, that decreased steadily over the next 7.5 years. On occasion I'd end up just staying up until 1 or 2am Saturday mornings with short bursts of play during the week.

September 2004 - WoW Beta. I knew this was going to be a great game. I played as much as I could during the stress load beta week, but my sleeping habits improved and I typically got 6 hours of sleep.

November 2004 - WoW retail release. I get my wife interested in online gaming. We alternated playing a single account a couple hours each night. She returned from a business trip to find her own WoW account and the fun ensued. We now play frequently whenever time allows. When the girls visit Granny's on some weekends, she'll even stay up with me until 1 or 2am Saturday morning. While I'll occasionally stay up late during the week, I'm still averaging 6 hours a night and I think I'm doing fairly well.

In all of these cases, the time flies by. I remember hearing a theory of why this happens. Mostly it has to do with our brain being so distracted by fun, creative things that the logical brain doesn't have time to consider that time is passing.