#1 Posted by saxmusician20 (163 posts) -

I personally put the "how long does this game get my attention" quotient first on my list when considering a game. Multiplayer games seem to have lasting appeal, and I personally feel more justified shelling out 60 dollars for a game that continues after a story arc is finished. Everyone is giving Journey great ratings, however it is a terribly short game. This is really preventing me from purchasing it, as I feel it will not give me "my monies worth."

Here's a good question: Should one dollar equal one hour of playing time? (60 dollars for 60 hours? If you were to put an amount on each hour spent in a game, would it be a dollar, two, or five?)

Here's the second good question: How do you put a price on a game? (What determines the market value of a game, and who gets to make that decision?)

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (36566 posts) -

That's not really the way to look at it, though. Length should definitely factor into a game's quality, but not necessarily in "more length=more better" kind of way. Instead, length should work like this: is the game long enough that the ideas it proposes come to full fruition? If yes, then, all things being equal, the game's gonna be good; if not, then the game's got at least one thing wrong with it.

#3 Posted by bighat_logan (191 posts) -
@saxmusician20 said:

I personally put the "how long does this game get my attention" quotient first on my list when considering a game.

doesn't everyone?
#4 Posted by crusader8463 (14755 posts) -

You can't apply any formula to whether or not a game is worth the money/play time because everyone puts a different value on each.

#5 Posted by sickVisionz (1299 posts) -

@saxmusician20 said:

Here's a good question: Should one dollar equal one hour of playing time? (60 dollars for 60 hours? If you were to put an amount on each hour spent in a game, would it be a dollar, two, or five?)

I'm all for lengthy games and getting your money worth but no. No, no, no, no, no. Having said that, I've spent well over 60 hours in every game that I like, but still. No.

Here's the second good question: How do you put a price on a game? (What determines the market value of a game, and who gets to make that decision?)

How much enjoyment I think I'll have is what it all boils down to. I don't have any compulsion to keep up with the jones or be in the zeitgeist so I ultimately make the decision on what I'll pay be just waiting until the price is lowered.

#6 Posted by iam3green (14368 posts) -

there isn't a way to do that. just continue to play a game, if you liked it then it was worth the \$60.

#7 Edited by EpicSteve (6908 posts) -

With games being so expensive, it's virtually impossible to justify buying the shorter experiences. Despite that, you can't create some archaic formula. Even with good games like Binary Domain, it's a hard pill to swallow shelling out \$60 for 7 hours. Then you have to have the conversation of what all entertainment costs. Renting a Jetski for an hour, going to the movies, concerts, bars and so on. Think about the experience and what it's worth to you. Renting is always an option. Is Journey short? Yes. Would I pay \$15 for a great experience? Word.

This conversation is always super annoying to think about. It boils down to expendable cash. Do you want to go out this weekend or buy Binary Domain? Do you need the extra cash for gas or do you not need to drive so much and play Journey? Not all games are created equal. Some games are super-short, but are a much higher caliber than 100 hour experiences.

#8 Posted by eugenesaxe (201 posts) -

If a game brings you back even after you've beaten it, you probably got your money's worth.

#9 Posted by AdzPearson (241 posts) -

Before I buy a new game, I always check around to see how long a game is. If it's short, I generally wait for it to go down in price. I can also wait if it's something I want to play, but I'm not overly excited about it. That way, I don't feel short changed by most games.

#10 Posted by WrinklyDinosaur (486 posts) -

To me, a \$60 dollar game in nearly every single instance will give me far more enjoyment/lasting appeal then 3x \$20 six packs or decent beer

#11 Posted by AlisterCat (6414 posts) -

I really want to be able to finish games. When I was a kid I wanted them to be long but now... not really. I want them to be good, but I feel better if I'm actually able to finish them.

Online
#12 Posted by TobbRobb (5398 posts) -

To quote myself.... "I buy good games, not long games".

#13 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8734 posts) -

Depends too much on the game to put it that simple, but overall I agree.

That's why I prefer a game like World of Warcraft or second hand gaming, usually gives me more than I can handle for a good price.
If I buy anything full price, its only the games I truly love (Zelda, Mario, Mass Effect, Blizzard games) and I know they will give me my money's worth.

#14 Posted by TeflonBilly (4742 posts) -

More length really doesn't automatically make a game better. I'm currently a bit over halfway in Alice: Madness Returns and I'm really feeling fatigue at the end of each chapter. It's not that I'm not enjoying the gameplay or anything like that, it's just that "I've had my fill of this part of the game and am ready to move on, oh Gawd there's still more!" has popped up a few times now.

#15 Edited by MideonNViscera (2269 posts) -

Most single-player only games are just rentals for me. RPGs are generally excluded from that though. Some games that feature multiplayer are still just rentals, like Saints Row 3 for example.

#16 Edited by Rebel_Scum (979 posts) -

@saxmusician20: No offence but you sound like a miser. :)

#17 Posted by ProfessorEss (7793 posts) -

It's a mix of quality and quantity for me. The only "sure" purchase for me is when a game, like Skyrim or Saints Row, is topping out on both.

#18 Posted by Winternet (8284 posts) -

1 dollar = 1 hour of time spent. How could you possibly decide how much time one would spent playing a game (also doesn't that make Skyrim more expensive than a 360?)

#19 Posted by saxmusician20 (163 posts) -

@Rebel_Scum: No, just a person with a mortgage. lol

@Winternet: That's why I feel Skyrim and multiplayer games that are decent have the best value for your money.

#20 Posted by MikeGosot (3236 posts) -

Binary Domain and Asura's Wrath are my favorite games this year. They're not long. Totally worth 60\$ for me. So, i'm not saying that's a bad way to choose what you buy, but it's not for everyone.

#21 Edited by jking47 (1269 posts) -

Play Journey damnit, worth \$15 easily.

#22 Posted by saxmusician20 (163 posts) -

@MikeGosot: Would you replay either one again?

#23 Posted by MikeGosot (3236 posts) -
@saxmusician20 said:

@MikeGosot: Would you replay either one again?

I'm not the type that replays games very much. But i'll replay Asura's Wrath because it's just so much fun, and Binary Domain i'll replay later. But they're very, VERY short games, so this doesn't mean much, i guess...
#24 Posted by Winternet (8284 posts) -

@saxmusician20: It all depends on how much time you put in the game, no matter if it has multiplayer or if it has tons of content that will last you for many many hours. I, for instance, never played Modern Warfare multiplayer and I still dumped 25/30 hours into that game, which has, what, a 5 hour campaign?

#25 Edited by Sooty (8195 posts) -

I solve this problem by not buying games on release. If a game has bad or no multiplayer the price will drop almost half within a month. This makes paying for a short game much easier.

You're welcome.

Edit: Also great lengthy games like Yakuza 3 and 4 go dirt cheap due to unpopularity. Some people are missing out on fantastic story and voice acting.

#26 Posted by Galiant (2224 posts) -

@saxmusician20: So I should've spent \$200 on Skyrim, since I played it for 200 hours?

I wish the price of games would go down, \$60 is already less than what I have to pay for a new game over here. I'm happy to pick up a PC game for cheap on a Steam sale, but why are console editions of games always more expensive than PC games, even if they're both physical editions? It makes no sense to me.

All new games are \$60 because that's what they can charge and get away with, I guess. It is a business after all.

#27 Posted by SkyTown_Drifts (49 posts) -

@Galiant: PC games are cheaper because they don't have to pay to the console manufacturers (Sony etc).

#28 Posted by Galiant (2224 posts) -

@SkyTown_Drifts said:

@Galiant: PC games are cheaper because they don't have to pay to the console manufacturers (Sony etc).

Oh, right. That kinda sucks.

#29 Posted by saxmusician20 (163 posts) -

@SkyTown_Drifts: Did not think of that.

I also didn't think of games that were 60-80 dollars on launch like Super Mario Bros. 3. That did not have hundreds of hours of gameplay, but we still payed ALOT of money for those 8 and 16 bit cartridges. Maybe this question has been in existence for a LONNNGGGG time.

#30 Posted by Ubersmake (771 posts) -

I used to do the money/time thing for games, but after graduating from college and finding a decent-paying programming job, I've found myself with a lot of the former and very little of the latter. So now the question I ask myself is, "Is this worth my time?" Because there are plenty of other things I could be doing besides playing games, and I'm no longer in that convenient situation where I can play every game I want, time-wise. At some point, the money/time equation comes into effect, because I do have to decide what's worth my money, and what isn't. But that's secondary to me actually enjoying a game to its end, or thoroughly enough to justify my purchase.

I mean, I still haven't played Skyrim, and I *own* Skyrim on Steam. But between my Skyrim purchase and now, I've played through Saints Row 3, Journey, many rounds of Battlefield 3, and I'm about halfway through Wing Commander Saga. If you put all those games together, you still probably wouldn't dent the number of hours it would take to S-Rank Skyrim, but I've played through these games and enjoyed them, because I was actually able to make time for them to have complete experiences.