Game Value

[#686578]

I was curious to see if anyone valued their games on the same sort of scale as I do (or if at all on any conscious scale). This was inspired by my post over in L4D thread

I base value off of genre and hour/cost.

My default is 40hours/$50 for pretty much anything that isn't an RPG.

That's pretty much all there is to it as for my conscious sort of endeavor to make sure whether a game is really worth it or not.

An average game gives about 40 hours of entertainment and an average game costs about $50, or they did back when this first made sense to me, and that's just how it's kind of stuck as a standard in my head.

RPGs are very skewed and can vary on so many factors it may not even be feasible to list. But generally I feel RPGs should give me about 80 hours worth of game play, but that might just be because of my playstyle.

[Kiarax]

An average game gives about 40 hours

If only. So sick of games nowadays lasting 5-10 hours and having fuck all for multiplayer or replay value.

Back in the day I used to justify all the purchases because "Well hey, my (insert family member) is constantly buying DVD's, which give you an hour and a half of amusement for £5-10, I'm getting 20 to sometimes a 100 hours out of these £40 games". Unfortunately this comparison makes even the worst games ever seem "worth it", I haven't tried to make it justifiable since and still annoy myself when I buy (or hell, even pirate) a shitty game.

[#686578]

Well I guess you have to take in quality of hours as well.

'cause I know by definition one of my best games (and it is actually one of my favorite RPGs even if everyone else hates it) FFX gave me like 300 hours or so (and I still play a couple hours from time to time), and I loved every minute of it.

But some people hated all like 40 hours of just doing bare minimum getting it over with just to beat it because they beat all the other FFs and had to beat this one just so they could say they beat it too.

[TheShadyMan]

Basically just take my payscale and apply it to the price. If I had to work x hours to make y to buy the game, and I can get x hours of enjoyment out of it, then I transferred work time to fun time, and I'm justified.

[zoobernut]

I do something similar to numbers. I take the total number of hours of enjoyment I got out of a product and divide the cost by that number which gives me how much per hour I would be paying if I had rented it and if that number is low enough to be worth a rental to me then I feel ok with my purchase.

[Maguspk]

I've thought about this but never done it, I'll probably calculate a few later tonight but usually I don't put more than 20-40 hours into a game, most of the time I don't even finish games, it's a bad habit but I'd say I get about an hour of enjoyment for every dollar I spend. Games like Halo and Smash have their cost/playtime ratios well under 1 though.

[#686578]

I've done the whole "I worked this many hours for this amount of money so if I get this many hours out of entertainment I'm at least breaking even" sort of thing, but usually not towards video games.

[Kohan]

I don't exercise anything like this. If the game is quality and I know I'll enjoy the experience, I don't mind paying full price for it whether it's five hours or fifty. In fact, it upsets me that people don't consider short games worth their purchase. What if it's an experience you can't have anywhere else? What if it's just so well-designed that you love every moment of it? Why should that talented developer get less of your money when they tweaked every aspect of the game, in contrast to someone who made a longer but less impressive title? Now, obviously, toward titles with plenty of material which are also fun throughout, this doesn't apply.

It isn't as if I've a lot of money to throw around, either, but I know that titles are discontinued after a certain point, and -- when that happens -- the original company no longer tracks/receives any money from new sales. At that point, you might as well buy it used, if you can't get it by other means. They won't get a penny and won't know you tried to support them.

I may work in the industry, but because of that I understand when publishers, developers, and so on, actually get paid for their work. If that time has passed, why buy new? Really doesn't matter anymore. And on top of that, people who are anti-emulation always get on my nerves. Yeah, paying $300 for a discontinued game you can emulate is a great idea, why not collect more things that are worthless to everyone outside of dorks? Way to waste your cash, especially since you spending all that money means nothing to the original developer, and if you wanted to show support for something, you should have gone out and bought several new games instead.

Anyway, I'm through bitching, carry on.

[#686578]

Portal was fun.

Not worth full price fun considering I beat it in 4 hours.

[Kohan]

Was "Portal" ever a ridiculous amount of money? I honestly do not know.

[#686578]

For the amount/quality of fun? Yeah.

[Isiolia]

I think something like Portal would trigger a sense of having paid too much for it...had it not been bundled in with several other games. The $19.99 stand-alone release? Sure. I'd feel a bit ripped off, as good as the game is. The Orange Box as a whole? Eh, not so much.

Most of the time I look at it in terms of quality as well. I don't mind a 10-12 hour game that's fun and polished from start to end. In fact, for some genres, I'd prefer that. In part it's due to spending a ton of what would be "game time" on FFXI though, so longer games tend to lose me at some point =P

Generally I don't tend to try and justify the cost of games with the hours of entertainment they hold. On a broader level, sure, I do recognize it, but it doesn't tend to change my purchasing decisions.

More often, I just won't like the idea of spending $60+ on a new game regardless of how long it takes to beat. I tend to watch for A+ titles that drop to budget price, or look for older titles to add to my collection.
The thing I tend to rationalize is why I should pay $60 for a new game when there are lots of great $20 games I've yet to play.

[Akucaen]

Basically just take my payscale and apply it to the price. If I had to work x hours to make y to buy the game, and I can get x hours of enjoyment out of it, then I transferred work time to fun time, and I'm justified.

This.

Also, it always depends on the game. Even past the hours of enjoyment for the time invested for the money, it has to appeal somehow to me. Story, gameplay, replayability, etc. I still play Hegemonia and I bought that game in 2001.

[Arnwulf]

I honestly don't really give it much thought, although shorter than 10 hours usually makes me cry. What some game companies think is worth $60 these days, almost seems like a crime. Especially with the new wave of "Downloadable content" which is short for, "Stuff we had intended to be in the original game, but we wanted to squeeze some extra money from you."

[TheDirtyHobo]

Especially with the new wave of "Downloadable content" which is short for, "Stuff we had intended to be in the original game, but we wanted to squeeze some extra money from you."

DLC has been getting better as Devs start to realize it's supposed to be extra content and not stuff that should be in the game by default. There's tons of games that have legitimate DLC that's worth paying for: Oblivion, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Fable 2, and most likely GTA4 and L4D when they get released. The big note is that, despite what trolls may want you to believe, these are all at least above average games. You pay money for DLC to make a good game better, not to make a shitty game mediocre.

That doesn't mean good games are safe from rediculous DLC, though. Just look at Lost Odyssey (although the dungeon that was eventually released is ok), paying for some basic accessories, or Mega Man 9 where you had to pay for basic game modes that were included in the game itself.

[Kohan]

Or "Beautiful Katamari," which gained quite a bit of infamy in its days. Players only paid for a key which unlocked stages that were already present on the disc. I honestly didn't mind the "Mega Man 9" approach as much, since the game was already rather inexpensive and the modes were really only luxurious additions, but "Beautiful Katamari's" DLC was disgraceful. Entire stages which should have been unlocked during the course of gamplay needed to be paid for, and that was a full price retail release.

[BRP]

5 hours or under is too short.
10 passably short.
20 is optimal.
30 is passably long.
40 is too long, assuming it's not multiplayer. I still play a game this long if I get the urge to complete every quest / explore entire map. (ie: Fallout 3)

In the end, it doesn't matter to me too much when it comes to money. If a game can impress me, I don't mind if it is short. Sometimes a game is good enough that I'll want to replay it immediately. (ie: Metal Gear Solid 4)

Portal came with the orange box which had so much material vs money that you can't complain about it.

[Charismatic]

40 is too long

Hope you never play Xenogears if you already haven't.

[BRP]

I skipped Xenogears, it's one of the games I want to play but missed completely. I will play it at some point, I just might not complete it.

[Pharaun]

5 hours or under is too short.
10 passably short.
20 is optimal.
30 is passably long.
40 is too long, assuming it's not multiplayer. I still play a game this long if I get the urge to complete every quest / explore entire map. (ie: Fallout 3)

In the end, it doesn't matter to me too much when it comes to money. If a game can impress me, I don't mind if it is short. Sometimes a game is good enough that I'll want to replay it immediately. (ie: Metal Gear Solid 4)

Portal came with the orange box which had so much material vs money that you can't complain about it.

Never, ever play Dragon Quest 7 then. It took me 95 hours to finish, and I'm the only person I've talked to that beat it in under 100. Most were in the 110-120 range. Also the game was a big let down for how long it was in development, but that's a whole 'nother bitch fest.