How much is game time worth to you?

[Monsterfurby]

I recently came across a pretty interesting discussion. In this day and age, with everything seemingly getting more expensive and piracy running rampant in the gaming industry, the argument is often made that a game does not offer enough "play time for its money", that it is not worth the price paid for it. People criticize 20-hour games like, say, L.A. Noire for being short and not very replayable, while enjoying movies in the theater for prices in excess of 12 Euros / $15. And that's just for two or three hours of entertainment.

Therefore the question to you, dear community: Do you believe that the "entertainment time per money" argument even holds up at all? Or do you prefer to think in terms of quality? Is there any way to come to a conclusion for an optimal, universal "how much should a game cost" measurement or will it always be up to individual choice? And ultimately: How much would you pay for an hour of good entertainment?

Looking forward to your answers!

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I think a game should only be as long as the story permits. Adding unnecessary length can make a good experience tedious - like watering down a drink.
I can easily beat my favourite game in 2-3 hours (though I know it really well - it took me 8 hours the first time round). The story is great though, and isn't stretched out. What I'm left with is a good impression of a shorter game, rather than a mediocre impression of a longer game.

 

[radioactive lemur]

I recently came across a pretty interesting discussion. In this day and age, with everything seemingly getting more expensive and piracy running rampant in the gaming industry, the argument is often made that a game does not offer enough "play time for its money", that it is not worth the price paid for it. People criticize 20-hour games like, say, L.A. Noire for being short and not very replayable, while enjoying movies in the theater for prices in excess of 12 Euros / $15. And that's just for two or three hours of entertainment.

Therefore the question to you, dear community: Do you believe that the "entertainment time per money" argument even holds up at all? Or do you prefer to think in terms of quality? Is there any way to come to a conclusion for an optimal, universal "how much should a game cost" measurement or will it always be up to individual choice? And ultimately: How much would you pay for an hour of good entertainment?

Looking forward to your answers!

To a certain extent. Quality is obviously important, as no one wants to play a game that sucks for 100+ hours. However, for my money, even some games of very good quality like vanquish or Ratchet and Clank are WAAAAY to short to be worth $60. A game with a campaign under 20 hours is worth full price if, and only if, it contains a good online multiplayer (ex. COD). For me to shell out $60 for single player, a game needs to be both of excellent quality and last 20+ hours (ex. ME2). A truly perfect game will be of excellent quality, have a lasting campaign, AND have an awesome multiplayer. These are RARE though. Uncharted 2 and MGS4 are the only ones I can think of offhand. Assassin's Creed bro-hood comes close too, although I'd consider the campaign of that one to be "good but not great."

 

[LobsterFeng]

I'm one of the weird people that like to play games over and over again even if it's just a single player experience. Why?, because if it's a good movie then logically people are going to watch it more then once, same with a good game. If you bought a bad game, well then...

 

[DeltaWolfson]

I really don't care how much game time is, as long I'm having fun playing the game matters more.

 

[GuiltyDark]

I recently came across a pretty interesting discussion. In this day and age, with everything seemingly getting more expensive and piracy running rampant in the gaming industry, the argument is often made that a game does not offer enough "play time for its money", that it is not worth the price paid for it. People criticize 20-hour games like, say, L.A. Noire for being short and not very replayable, while enjoying movies in the theater for prices in excess of 12 Euros / $15. And that's just for two or three hours of entertainment.

Therefore the question to you, dear community: Do you believe that the "entertainment time per money" argument even holds up at all? Or do you prefer to think in terms of quality? Is there any way to come to a conclusion for an optimal, universal "how much should a game cost" measurement or will it always be up to individual choice? And ultimately: How much would you pay for an hour of good entertainment?

Looking forward to your answers!

Oh, this should be good. Where to begin? I've long believed that games with replay value that had a decent play time (40 hours plus, at least, doing the bare minimum) were worth the money I've had to fork over for them. But for a reduced price, shorter games are actually good too, and hey, a game's a game. I dislike piracy, and out of respect for the industry, pay for games when I can afford it. And save my money when I can't, so I can afford it next week. Also, movies, in my opinion, are overpriced. Halo 3 sucked HUNDEREDS of hours of my play, and I still play with the old crowd every once in a while. So, in short, I'll pay for long games (Tales of Symphonia ftw)but I think it's good to pay less when you get less.

 

[Camaranth]

Seeing as I rarely play multi-player and never online I was really pissed that Halo3 and CoDMW2 campaigns were so short. Despite the fact I am one of those people who will play a game over and over again, (for all my complaints about Halo 3 I played it on every difficulty) if single player is under 8 hours then it's absolutely not worth $60.

$60 is more than worth it if I get 20-60hrs of gameplay and a compelling narrative/story.