Games are split into informative and relevant category's right? Well, I disagree for me if a game is a shooter/RPG/RTS/MMO/Adventure (or whatever else they are using now) is not actually very helpful to me. As a long time gamer I play most things but gravitate to any new idea/concept in a game or a really great story so instead of wasting the packaging space on ‘Genre’ lets put more useful information on it.
Average time to completion (in gameplay hours),
DRM Type (nasty, online only, passive or none),
And finally DLC planned? (a simple Yes or No).
My reasons are simple, when I purchase a game for £25 (a reasonable price for a PC game i think) I want to know if its crazy short or some times even worse, crazy long. After all i do like finishing games (eventually)
As for the DRM i think if publishers where forced to make this nice and public (on the box is pretty public) then we would see a fast shift to more agreeable DRM.
Planned DLC. This is a personal curiosity. Do developers and Publishers think to themselves “we should hold this back so we can get more cash later” or do they not plan on making DLC but end up having some great ideas and maybe unfinished levels that they can release later?
I don’t think i will ever see my new labelling and categorising scheme in place any time soon, or ever but i think this information is way more relevant to gamers that RTS/FPS is.
I think for most gamers the days of “I only play Shooters” are gone and as a whole we just play the games the think will be good. Saying you only play one type of game is like saying “I only watch action movies” you may gravitate towards the hi-octane-gun-opera but some times everyone just want’s to watch Purple Rain.