Maximum PC

So are 60 to 100 hour single player campaign games for PCs a thing of the past? Quite frankly I have no interest in multi player online gaming. Nor do I want to participate in MMO's that in order to succeed become like having a second job.

So someone tell me what is the point in PC gaming today?

I disagree with you on PC gaming not having a point today, it does. It just might not be what you appreciate. In regards to single player gaming, I do agree that I prefer a good campaign along with a good multi-player. Often times the selling point for me in a game is its storyline. This is why I've liked such titles as Mass Effect, Batman, Half-Life, etc. It's natural for things to change, PC gaming is no exception.

60-100 hours of single player gaming? Sure, maybe for an RPG or simulation sandbox (well, technically you can't win those). But most of the other genres I've played I could finish in 20 or so hours if I didn't care about 100% completing them.

Skyrim will give you a lot more game play than 50/100 hours. I have a little over a 190 hours into it and haven't finished the main storyline yet, as I am doing as many side quests as I can. This game is huge! At any point in the game your guy doesn't become omnipotent and kick azz everywhere. It looks like the game knows your level and the bad guys are right there with you, so you have to think in order to beat them. The graphics in this game are really great if you have a computer powerful enough to turn on all the eye candy. You can climb a mountain and just look at the vista, I do that a lot in the game because some of the sights are just super.

....But you are right most of the games today are short 8/20 hours and for 60 clams they aren't worth it in my humble opinion. I have been buying games for a long time and have quite a library....so instead of buying the latest greatest short game that they want to sell me extra chapters for 15 bucks instead of selling me a complete game...no thank you.

Nasty

I have also noticed the short gameplay time becoming more prevalent. It's as if I'm paying $10/hourly to play six hours worth of a game for a total of $60. Another issue I personally have with PC games coming out is the micro-transactions that are beginning to appear in games. More and more, developers are pushing out DLC for a $1-10 fee. I remember when ME3 came out, that they basically had day one DLC with the Prothean level DLC. Then you have people at E.A. saying that gamers want micro-transactions to exist when clearly this seems to be a deep dividing issue amongst gamers.

Part of me thinks that people are too used to a time when our economy was grand and this thing called inflation didn't take place. And that paying $60 today is just worse than paying, say $40 15+ years ago.

For instance, let's say we take Quake. If you were a decent player, you could probably finish the single player campaign in about the same time it would take any other FPS game these days. I don't know how much the release price was, but we'll go with the $40 or so that games were back then (well, CD based games). If we use http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/ , we find that $40 in 1995 is worth almost $60 at the low end in 2011, $81 at the upper end.

Meaning, we're paying the same for games today as we did years ago. Of course, I'm probably just splitting hairs since $40 in 2005 before every game took a price hike is about $41-44 today.

I don't think it's a price issue as much as it is a gameplay vs price issue. Unfortunately, the current state of things for single player is not likely to change. Online / multi-player gaming is not going to loose popularity anytime soon unless companies try to drastically increase monthly fees, or start monthly fees where they had not been charging. To make profits & be able to continue developing new games, companies must go where the money is, which leaves single player gaming in the sewer for the most part.

I've been so frustrated over single player aspect of new releases that I just won't buy a new release game anymore. Last payday (Friday Aug 31st), I purchased Metro 2033 & finished it Sunday afternoon of that same weekend. If I had purchased it at full new release price & finished it that quick, I would have been pissed off. As is, the price I paid was decent for the amount of gameplay, but I was still disappointed that it was over so quickly. 4 of the last 5 new releases I purchased pissed me off due to the very short single player campaigns, with the 5th being Oblivion which I loved.

As Chaosdsm said, gameplay is just too short now a days for the price they're charging. I understand completely that companies have to make a profit, as I think all of us do here; however, I would be may more willing to pay for a game for an extra $20, if they really took their time to make the singleplayer aspect longer and better. I think we here are among a rare breed of gamers, who enjoy single player campaigns more than we do the multiplayer aspect. That's not to say we don't enjoy the multiplayer part of it, not at all, but that we appreciate good storytelling, too. Mass Effect brought that for me, despite the ending that many people, including myself, complained about.

Would you guys be willing to pay a bit extra? If so, how much, and where would you draw the line at paying for a video game?

I won't even pay 60 bucks anymore. I have had it with wimpy stories and short game play along with the bulls**t add ons you buy in some games. I now wait for the price to hit 20 bucks, then buy it. That is all they are worth to me now. The exception would be Skyrim, I feel I got my moneys worth out of it. This is the way games should be written. The game is a lot like the old Baldur's Gate series. It had a great story and funny interaction between the characters along with great game play.

Nasty

Well here's the other thing...

How long have you been playing video games? I've been playing them for almost 20 years. Over time you're going to see similarities, things that look 'worse', etc. Take for instance, my experience with Super Mario 3D Land. I found it fun because it actually blended how stages are made in 2D Mario games with 3D really well. Except it didn't take too long before I beat the first half of it. Was it because it was easy? Well considering I have something like 10+ years of Mario experience (though I haven't played a Mario game in earnest since Sunshine back in 2004), I don't think it should be a surprise that, aside from a few hiccups, it felt a little easier than what I was expecting. This is compared to say how much I spent on Super Mario Bros 3 or Super Mario World, my first two Mario games.

Basically, I've played certain genres for so long, it doesn't take much effort to actually beat them. So I moved on to other genres in the meantime that I haven't fostered much skill during my youth, notably fighting games (mostly doujin fighting games, so I can avoid conversations with people who are into mainstream fighting games), music sims (BeatMania now), and bullet hell games (Touhou series), if I want action games.

But there are still plenty of games out there for the PC that actually last for more than 20 hours. Especially in games that are usually that long in their respective genres. For instance, the first and third STALKER games kept me occupied for at least 40 hours, with Call of Pripyat lasting 80, according to my counter on Steam.

EDIT: I should point out that this problem exists in video gaming in general. This isn't a PC gaming only issue (I'm still wondering where OP got 60-100 hours from...)

I have been playing pc games since 1995 when I first bought a pc. My friends twisted my arm to do it too. I am glad they did...they aren't because I am on the pc and not with them....I told them I didn't want to.

Well, now I just got a panic call from two of my friends. One has a pc that won't start and another one has a pc that wouldn't go to a special business site....arg! When it rains it pours!

Nasty

I've been playing computer games since the days of the Commodore VIC-20... though the salesmen at Sears et.al... didn't take to kindly to a little pre-teen brat playing with their serious business machines.

Very first PC Game I purchased was the original Kings Quest. That was a good year... convinced my grandpa that he could better keep track of his shop's inventory with a computer. Then landed a job (at 12) building the database for the shop & making it all work.

If there's one thing I've learned in all those years of gaming... while games in any given genre may be similar to one another, the good ones usually introduce a little something different (& sometimes unexpected) to the mix. Thus being good at a particular genre doesn't automatically mean that you're going to be good at new releases in that genre.

I checked my Steam account. Metro 2033, a game I never played untill 2 weeks ago, beaten in 11 hours, though before I checked, I would have sworn it was closer to 18 hours. Return to Castle Wolfenstein, a game I've beaten at least a dozen times in the past, took me 32 hours on my last run through. Even at $20 Metro 2033 represents a poor value if your primary or only interest is in single player.

Actually that tickled a nerve.

I don't like the whole hours/cost metric in video games. It's flawed. By that math, free games are infinitely better than paid games. Which means that Solitaire included in Windows is infinitely better than any game you will ever play... because it's free.

Rather, you should measure the worth of a game best on the experience you have with it. There are games where I had a blast with the 15-20 hours I played with it. Sniper Elite V2 for instance. Best sniper based game ever.

I like sniper games but sniper elite2 sucked for me. my favorite sniper game is sniper ghost warrior, and I cant wait for the next one which will be run under the cryENGINE3, due out in jan,2013

I can agree and see that point of view, LatiosXT, BUT (there's always a but!) the quality of gameplay for single player gaming seems to be rapidly going down hill. Sure, one could make the argument that it's based off of a player's perception of how well they enjoyed a game, as I can't speak for everyone; however, I remember playing nice, long games like HL, Halo, Brother's in Arms, etc, that were well worth what I paid for. It seems like the quality of single player games is going down, and making way for multiplayer games. We're even starting to see more games come out now without a single player game aspect. I think the last, best game I played, that was totally single player, was the original Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2.

I have been noticing this as well, very little content for single player, but the preorders for almost all of the next series of games has bonus content for multiplayer only. nothing as a preorder bonus for the single player. I am playing through ME1 2 3 again now.

Or you could look for games with high replayability.

According to Steam I've played around 209 hours in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I'm sure I have similar stats in the other games in the series.

I don't really like this metric either. I've spent countless hours on music simulation games (which I could've dumped actually learning how to play, but whatever~). But I can't get the same experience from say beatMania that I did with Final Fantasy VII or Half-Life 2.

Half-Life is the shit.

touche!