How many hours is worth the money?

[Sughs]

For single player games, 1h = 1€ for me.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Quality > quantity. I'm rather irritated by the amount of padding in games. Persona 5 and Witcher 3 might be "100+ hours long", but was that 100+ hours of good gameplay? Hell no. I'd rather that they had been cut down to 30 hours of great gameplay. Those games do not respect my time.

On the other hand, for a $60 game with nothing going for it but a campaign, a campaign less than 10 hours long better be the most amazing campaign I've ever played.

[Amarys]

400 plus hours usually. That includes multiplayer, replays and doing achievements and everything.

Less if it's a very high quality game I want to support but it's rare.

[Asrialol]

Probably a couple of hours at least, I suppose.

[InflaterMouse]

I think the easiest way to equate your entertainment value of a said product is to compare it to other forms of entertainment that you spend money to as a service (netflix, wow sub, cable, ect...). If you watch 40hrs of TV per week put a value on that which is comparable to the time spent on the video game. It's of course 100% subjective and you might place a higher or lower value of your time than someone else.

Edited to add: You might also place a value on your time not doing something else that costs money, i.e. spending time at a bar, eating out too often, watching movies in the theater and so on. If and friend and I went a bar with current prices as they are it would be very easy to drop $100 on drinks. So if you went to the mart and picked up a a 6ixr and went back to the flat to game you just saved a shit load on your entertainment for the night.

[Rockstaar]

So many people are saying they'd pay $1 per hour and thats great value. I live in Canada and going to see a movie costs about $15 per person plus food and such. I'm not sure how you can expect a game to be worth $1 per hour with all the work that goes into creating it. Most games don't have the funding of a Marvel movie as example.

[oplawlz]

Easy equation, $1 per hour minimum. If it has a 20 hour campaign I can wait till it goes on sale for under 20 bucks. That's certainly not the only factor, but it is a baseline.

[starstationprofm]

I think games should be shorter and cheaper. Who wants to stick with the same thing for 100 hours?

Skyrim, Witcher 3, ESO, WoW are all well over 100 hours and they're solid.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Most games don't have the funding of a Marvel movie as example.

Stop making games with Marvel movie budgets.

[starstationprofm]

Witcher 3 might be "100+ hours long", but was that 100+ hours of good gameplay? Hell no. I'd rather that they had been cut down to 30 hours of great gameplay. Those games do not respect my time.

Imagine complaining about optional content in an RPG.

[oplawlz]

So many people are saying they'd pay $1 per hour and thats great value. I live in Canada and going to see a movie costs about $15 per person plus food and such. I'm not sure how you can expect a game to be worth $1 per hour with all the work that goes into creating it. Most games don't have the funding of a Marvel movie as example.

Most of us don't go to movies, either - terrible value for the money. To your odd point the video game industry isn't struggling to pay the bills, they don't need you to white night them.

[Arewn]

20+ hours for sure, and that's assuming the quality of the experience is very high.

I typically don't buy games at full price for that reason. Either wait for a big sale, or don't play them at all. Not going to dump $60 on a game I twiddle around in for two or three evenings.

[Tojara]

I literally don't care as long as the game is good.

I've played plenty of 60 dollar campaigns that are 6-12 hours that I thought was worth my money, and I've played games like Skyrim which is "longer" but is not nearly as enjoyable of an experience to me. A lot of games like Skyrim or "open world" are very "samesy" and don't feel all that different, while essentially padding game time IMO.

[bbr]

im not paying 60$ for a game.
at most id pay 15$.

anything else, and i can look at the backlog, or get a ton of bundle games definitely worth the coin.

[Paperfox]

I used to think that $1 per hour was the sweet spot. Sometimes a certain activity of game is just a lot of fun, in which case it is worth more than $1/hour.

The thing I like about using the $1/hr as a metric is that it means that I don't have to expect as much from a $30 game as I do from a $60 game.

[Kumorii]

Quality > quantity. I'm rather irritated by the amount of padding in games. Persona 5 and Witcher 3 might be "100+ hours long", but was that 100+ hours of good gameplay? Hell no. I'd rather that they had been cut down to 30 hours of great gameplay. Those games do not respect my time.

On the other hand, for a $60 game with nothing going for it but a campaign, a campaign less than 10 hours long better be the most amazing campaign I've ever played.

This thread is a good showcase of why there's lots of padding in "big games". It's a shame tbh...

[oplawlz]

This thread is a good showcase of why there's lots of padding in "big games". It's a shame tbh...

There's more to it than just game length though. For most people if they get immersed in a game the length just means they get to enjoy it longer. It's why many of those games have additional content we can keep playing even after the long campaign. I contend that if you think the witcher 3 or persona 5 are "padded" then you didn't enjoy them as games - which is fine, but hardly an argument against their length. It just means you don't like rpgs.
Video games are by definition a waste of time, so what's the difference between wasting your time playing one game for 100 hours or 10 games for 10 hours?

[Mendzia]

A few things i follow in these stupid times:
- never buy cosmetics/pets/mounts/cards or whatever
- do not trust kickstarter bullshit promises
- wait until first players opinions (not reviewers that can be paid)
- never preorder anything
- i usually wait until some dicounts unless it is a game i really want to play asap (now it is probably only BG3)
- more trust to indie developers than AAA

[Val the Moofia Boss]

There's more to it than just game length though. For most people if they get immersed in a game the length just means they get to enjoy it longer. It's why many of those games have additional content we can keep playing even after the long campaign. I contend that if you think the witcher 3 or persona 5 are "padded" then you didn't enjoy them as games - which is fine, but hardly an argument against their length. It just means you don't like rpgs.

I love good RPGs. Trails of Cold Steel 1 & 2 were 100 hour long games and I loved them. Hardly any padding. Cold Steel 3 is a 130 hour long game that should have been 50 hours tops. The other 80 hours was blatant padding. And CS4 was even worse.

[Accendor]

I think games should be shorter and cheaper. Who wants to stick with the same thing for 100 hours?

1. I want to
2. There are games that are shorter and cheaper already