It's that time again folks! Two of my writers are at it again and this time they arguing what direction the industry will take with future games. Could this be the beginning of shorter, cheaper games? Read on and find out.

Point (Beau King, Contributing Writer)

The next-gen concept has seemed to arrive in waves. We first congratulated the visual enhancements these games provided and thusly bought shiny new HDTV’s to bring that picture home. Next, there was more emphasis on gathering a wider audience. Next-gen is all about everybody and everybody getting to play.

Now we have come into the throes of something different. In my mind we have truly hit that next-gen notion through the features we have recently seen displayed at E3. The systems in our homes are now an all-in-one social arena. More is there for the user to gain in content, entertainment, and quality of software. Speaking of software, the PS3 conference was mainly a lame duck in presentation, but they showed something truly revolutionary through the PlayStation Network.

Jack Tretton discussed, in the most monotonous tone possible, how PSN will provide quality titles for download in the form of somewhat diluted versions of their disc-based game counterparts which will deliver the same experience; just a shorter one. More notably, these will be at a much lower price point than the current offerings. Some took this as a jab at XBLA and their pursuit of adding titles even if they are sub-par. Going beyond this little spat one will see that Microsoft is moving in somewhat the same direction with exclusive DLC for their games like GTAIV and Mass Effect.

Episodic or fractioned gameplay may be the future of the industry. Tretton himself said that Ratchet and Clank: Quest for Booty is like the real deal, just smaller. In this way many more people can enjoy a wide variety of titles. Taking this concept further, gamers and developers alike complain about two big issues; development timelines and price. Many can’t pay $60 plus for a title, especially when it was rushed through the development cycle and given a half-hearted attempt; however, with this potential solution, a resolution may lie close at hand.

We’ve already seen PC titles take the approach of sending bits of their game one at a time. Look to Steam for their episodic releases of the Half Life 2 story. What if developers did this with the games they make today? Instead of providing a full featured game on one disc, developers can opt to release missions or chapters of their games in chunks. For example, making a Gears of War 2: Missions 1-5 downloadable for $14.99 then one to three months later roll out with Missions 6-9 for the same price.

Doing so will inevitably make games longer and possibly turn more revenue for the developers. 5 episodes at $15 a piece with about 4-8 hours of gameplay between them goes beyond the current $59.99 sticker price. Looking deeper into this idea reveals even more extensive pricing structures through sending single and multiplayer modes with these installments.

Going with the same developer, EPIC, they can choose to send a single player episode as well as two maps/modes simultaneously in that chunk. On the other hand some developers recognize the importance of multiplayer but feel it a mismatch for their game and when added looks terrible. Why not allow the choice of one of the other. Frontlines: Fuel of War was a multiplayer game, no doubt about it, and the single player component only brought the game down. Contrarily, Dark Sector was a decent game made worse by a painfully average multiplayer mechanic.

I would most certainly take one or the other if it means chopping the price a bit. Most gamers would agree here also. Besides saving us money on the front end, this would also allow developers to adapt and lengthen the amount of time they spend on their games.

Next-gen is finally here; nonetheless, for a full integration between players, developers, and their publishers, some compromises can be made… offering a win-win situation for all.

Counterpoint (Peter Skerritt, Managing Editor):

I understand the push to try to cut the cost of software. These are tough financial times for almost everyone, and the amount of disposable income that consumers have with which to buy video games is decreasing steadily in response to rising costs of living in other areas. Personally, I’ve gone from buying 3-4 games per month to buying 1-2 per month.

I don’t, however, buy the theory that episodic gaming or selling shorter or less-functional games for less money is the way to go. There’s no worse feeling than, in an episodic game, reaching the end of the initial campaign and then being prompted to purchase and load the new content or just start at the beginning again and see if you can squeeze some more replay value out of a game that just ended. Episodic games aren’t entirely new on PSN, either; Ape Quest (for the PSP) had multiple episodes to download. Shorter games will feel unfinished to a lot of players, especially seasoned players who have been used to deeper and more functional games. Sure, $15 is a great price tag, but if the whole experience ends in 3-4 hours, I know I’d be asking why.

I think that the release of the PSN Ratchet & Clank game will be important. How big will the file be? How long will the experience last? Will there be any replay value? What kinds of features may be omitted due to file sizes or the comparatively low purchase price of the software? If Quest for Booty feels like a full game, but is only somewhat shorter (maybe 5 planets as opposed to 10), then I might be able to get behind more of these. If there are obvious holes in the experience, though, it’s going to feel empty and like an attempt at a quick cash-in instead of an experiment in smaller games to fit the PSN identity.

Unfortunately, while we are in agreement that game prices are high, the market is apparently willing to bear these prices. Video game software sales are up, so why would publishers want to cut prices—and therefore take potential revenue out of their coffers? It’s akin to occasional questions as to when Nintendo will cut the price of the Wii or DS Lite units; people are buying these things in droves and supply is still less than plentiful, so Nintendo would have nothing to gain and money to lose in the process. Simply put, there has to be a sign of decline or distress in the industry itself to support a price cut before we’ll see software prices drop.

Sony’s experiment with PSN-friendly versions of their disc-based counterparts will be an interesting one to follow, but I just don’t see this becoming a trend. I don’t see digital distribution overtaking disc-based (or cartridge-based) games any time soon—if at all. If Quest for Booty succeeds, and it means bite-sized versions of other quality Sony franchises to whet our appetites for the real-deal, disc-based games, then I’ll be thrilled.