How many game play hours should a mobile FPS be?

Hi, I know there isn’t really a right or wrong answer here but hopefully I can get some good advice. We all know a multiplayer FPS has unlimited hours of game play, especially arena type games. But what about a simple single player FPS for mobile devices? Currently I’m in the middle of making one of these for Android and the more I add the bigger the file gets (trying to keep it under 50mb). I’ll probably charge $.99 or make it free with unity ads so given the platform, price, and size constraints, what do you all think would be a decent amount of game play time?

 

How much game time do you THINK your players should have? I have products with unlimited play that are free, and I also have products with 15 mins of content that are $4.99. I will say, that charging up front is a hard sell, whether for $0.01 or for $9.99.

Curtiss

 

Make the basegame, you can always add content later on.

 

Your normal FPS console games are about $50 and typically have 10 hours of game play. So If you charge $50 for 10 hours and keep dividing by half until you get to around the $1 range, you’ll be looking at about 30min of game play. So I guess I’ve found my answer.

 

Some thoughts: There's no real definite answer; what I would suggest is adding just enough content that players want more content, but not so much that they start getting bored or overwhelmed. Boredom can be alleviated with new content, but a 20 hour FPS will probably feel repetitive anyway - There's only so long you can stretch out the run-shoot-hide mechanic for most players.

RPGs get around that by making each quest take a relatively short among of time, and making sure new quests don't overwhelm the player (with sortable journals, for example). Plus, each quest feels new, and the players' brain can dump the info on the old quest.

 

That’s probably why RPG’s are my favorite and my ultimate goal is to make one. I’m still relatively new to Unity and game design in general so I’ve decided to work on a simple FPS first. I appreciate everyone’s thoughts, I think I’ll implement your suggestion and start off with about 30 minutes of game play. I’ll add more content if it’s looking like people are wanting more. This makes more since anyway instead of spending months developing a 5 hour game and people not liking it. I’m glad I asked this question because I probably would have learned to start off small at first the hard way. Thanks!

 

Gameplay Side:
Your FPS should be limited by the number of unique situations you can provide. If you have one enemy, one player, and few guns, that would be a short experience (1-2 hours). If you have more enemies with a variety of attacks, more weapons, vehicles, etc., you can spread it out over a longer time period (5-6 hours). If you have a central story with cutscenes, progression, and a solid ending, you can spread it out even longer (9-10 hours).

If you can provide a large number of unique encounters, the game will be longer. You shouldn't try for a specific length, you should create levels until you start reusing enemies, rehashing old locations, or running out of character progression options (no new guns, no new items to use, no new levels if your player levels up).

Money Side:
Gameplay and user experience answer: One price, up front, $/hour metric. This makes the most people happy, gets you the least money.

Business answer: As many hours as the user pays you for. In-app purchases to unlock chapters as you go, unlockable weapons, unlockable vehicles, pay walls. This makes the most people angry, gets you the most money.

As sad as it is, from a business perspective, you will always make more money in mobile by bleeding people over time than charging a flat cost up front.

 

I disagree in the $/hour argument as a whole. People (especially gamers) love the bandy it about, but only after they are dissatisfied with the product. A really kick-ass game that you beat in an hour or two but charge 10 bucks for... that's ok. I believe strongly that the time value of money argument is wrong because we don't really think like that when we're enjoying a product. When we're NOT enjoying it, that is the reasoning we give because it is easier than trying to really explain our dissatisfaction. If we really believed the $ per hour argument then people would say something along the lines of this: "The game took me 40 hours to beat. I earn 20 dollars an hour, therefore the game cost me 800 dollars."



On to the original topic... I say for a free app the key is you want replayable content. If the game is not replayable I do not recommend going free. I also believe in premium pricing for premium products. If you're making a game worth a dollar, this part isn't for you, but if you're making a game that looks and is fantastic... charge 5 or even 10 dollars. The higher price will let users know the game must be better quality (though if it isn't you'll get ripped to shreds on reviews). It works for several of the people I work with to do this, but they have well known brands and very high quality games. Still, if you're in that league I wouldn't hold back. If you aren't, I am very worried you may be falling into the value trap between free to play and premium.

 

lol you can't compare a console or PC FPS to a mobile FPS lol.

 

That's true but the question I'm trying to get at is why not? Have you played the latest Modern Combat 5? Absolutely this game would have cost $50 on a console yet its free on mobile, which is why I raised the question. I’m just using FPS as an example but undoubtedly you could say Clash of Clans is easily comparable to Age of Empires.

 

"The game took me 40 hours to beat. I earn 20 dollars an hour, therefore the game cost me 800 dollars."

LOL, thats kind of true though. I remember taking off work because I couldnt stop playing Fallout 3. Therefore, the game cost me $100 that day.

 

You can't compare Age of Empires to Clash of Clans. One is a mission-based real-time strategy game with a wide variety of units and dozens of hours of solo gameplay. The other is an instance-based combat sim with much fewer units and time walls in front of all progression.

Mobile vs. PC is different in content to a large degree. Mobile tends to be less content, mostly locked behind pay walls. PC tends to be more content unlocked with a single purchase price.

 

Yes, I stand corrected on the AOE vs COC argument (just kind of threw that out there) however, mobile just recently evolved into this pay for content atmosphere. I do see this being implemented on consoles as well though and seems to be a growing trend on both platforms. Want more songs on your console Guitar Hero? First pay for the network to access the songs then pay for each additional song.

 

You can't stop corporate once they smell money. They don't care about the consumer in any way but the size of their pocketbook.