The case for shorter games

Following the post-pandemic slowdown of global games revenue growth, cost-cutting measures are now in full force. However, games continue to grow in scope and length, with budgets often exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, growth and profitability are increasingly challenging to achieve.

Yet, in a market where many are so focused on producing the next megahit, smaller games like Helldivers 2, Palworld, and Stellar Blade have been some of the best-selling and most-talked-about titles in 2024. As the games market’s period of efficiency is underway, there is a major case to be made for efficiency via content. Are ‘blockbuster’ AAA games still the best way to grow? Do players complete these games? Do they even have the time to? And are publishers leaving profit on the table by continuing to make giant, sprawling games?

MIDiA’s new gaming report, titled “Bigger is not always better: Premium gaming’s AA opportunity” answers these questions and explores how making smaller games can be beneficial for both game makers and gamers. The report shines light on the low completion rates of key premium story-driven titles and looks at the negative correlation between completion rates and the average length of a game.

Of course, it would be unrealistic to aim for every purchaser of a game completing it. If, however, completion rates are particularly low (e.g., with less than half –– or in some cases even less than a quarter –– of purchasers finishing a game), it suggests that too much money and focus may have been put toward the length of the game.

For story driven games, the finale is typically the culmination of a player’s emotional attachment to the title. If players do not even get to the story’s crescendo, they are less likely to develop as much emotional attachment to a title compared to those who do. Content should always aim to leave audiences wanting more, rather than failing to keep their attention throughout the experience.

While the vastness of a game may deliver marketing value upon launch, if most gamers are not actually able to finish it, they may begin questioning whether the increasing price points of premium games are still justifiable. This raises questions about the effectiveness with which capital is deployed in making games today.

Has growing through games’ scope surpassed the point of diminishing returns?

In the past, there was good reason to keep making games bigger in scope and

budget. The messaging of ‘bigger = better’ could justify growing price points and aid marketing. However, there is a point of diminishing returns in growing a games business through increasing title scope, length, and budget. Where this point of diminishing returns sits is determined by two key factors: players’ limited time and budget.

As our report explores further, gamers are time poor. Those in the higher income and games spend brackets even more so. Shorter titles can entice more time-poor gamers towards buying premium games in a number of ways, including involving less time commitment, potentially lower price, and higher desire for more play achieved through higher completion rates.

Over time, games developers of story driven premium titles will see increasing opportunity in making smaller games. What the ideal scope is will very much depend on each individual title, genre, and specific audience. But it is certainly time for developers, publishers, and investors to look more closely on what the ideal game size should be.

The report is available for all MIDiA clients here. If you are not a MIDiA client but would like to get a hold of this report, please get in touch.