A 31% completion rate is industry best for a video game. Games like Bloodborne may achieve this. Most games are about 15% or so. Game length is a non-issue for appearances. What's important is quality. Above all else. By far. The discourse is dumb. As usual.

Developers and publishers know that quality of content and density of content are important to players, and sometimes this increases length, but the goal is never to make a really, really long game. It's to make a good, dense, content rich game. And that is sensible.

Objectively, internally you might quantify quality by assessing how engaged a player is and how motivated they are to continue and to move forward. This promotes density. Good thing about density and fractals is that each part is the sum of its other. Thousands of similar

patterns stitched together which in theory could be infinite but is obviously capped by budget, narrative, engagement, etc. I am not 100% convinced that length is necessarily *the* defining factor in cost.

Rather, it's scale, breadth, and density. I was gonna leave this subject alone but too much "hur dur" happened and I couldn't resist The Discourse.

And yeah, everything is *by definition* sustainable if you *scale appropriately*

WHATEVER you chose to make is sustainable if you scale to sustain it. Not necessarily *successful*, but it is possible to *make the maths work*

I was at Develop and Shuhei Yoshida, teary eyed, said "make whatever your dreams are" (paraphrasing) and that still remains the best advice. Everything else is wank.