Value for games

[Tom_green_day]

Hi everyone
Me and a friend were having a discussion about what makes a game worth the money it costs. This was derived from the discussion quality vs quantity, and I wanted to bring this up on an intelligent website, to see what other people thinks.
Personally, I think that if I spend more time on it than I paid for it- as in, for every £1 I spend on it (British) I expect to get about an hour out of it.
For example Mass Effect 3- I spend about £30 on it and have spent over 100 hours on it- definately worth it. I spent £40 on Skyrim and have nearly 200 hours. Hell, I bought Fallout 3 for £7 and have spent over 100 hours on that.
On the other hand I've heard that The Last of Us has a 12 hour campaign. I've seen pre-orders for it at £50, and I don't really see how this is worth it, regardless of how amazing the game looks.
Opinions?

 

[Harman]

I think that, realistically, in this age of high-budget AAA games you'd be foolish to expect a ratio of £1:1hr; I think a far more believable ratio would be £1:2hrs. The way I see it, as long as I've enjoyed the game I'm more than likely not going to come out of it feeling like I wasted my money. Although that said, I pretty much never buy games at full price so make of that what you will.

 

[bojackx]

I've always used the same system as you; every hour of gameplay is worth £1. Although all of my favourite games have flown way past that mark, my best examples being Killing Floor (120 hours, £3.75) and Minecraft (About £9, a few hundred hours). However, more often than not, there are exceptions (Portal 2 was £30 on release, and I've only played it for 24 hours, but it was still totally worth it).

In regards to your concern about the campaign length of games not being worth the price, I often find that if the game is worth it, you'll want to play it more than once through. I got Mass Effect 3 for £25, my first playthrough came in at 15 hours, but since then I've started very recently to play it through a second time.

 

[Scrustle]

Whether a game is "worth it" is a tricky topic. It's very subjective and it varies from case to case. I don't think it's possible to really nail it down to any kind of completely foolproof empirical method for judging if a game is worth the price paid.

But I think the system of £1 per hour, or maybe per 2 hours seems pretty reasonable. Obviously the flaw people would point out in a system like that is that it only accounts for length and not necessarily quality, but I think what you could say to that is you simply spend more time with better quality games, so it evens out. Even if the game takes forever to "finish", if it's no good then you won't put the time in to actually get there.

But then the real problem with a system like that is that it can fail as a predictive tool. It's based on experience and hindsight. It only measures whether the game was worth it after you have put the money down for it. The magnitude of the flaw can be lessened when used in conjunction with things like reviews, general public feedback, and perhaps your own experience of similar games, but still whether it's actually worth it you yourself ultimately comes down to personal experience. That said, I think it's one of the better methods to choose if you really want some kind of litmus test for a game's worth.

 

[Andy Shandy]

I must say I don't really have a time:cost ratio for these sorts of things.

Mine's is basically

"Did I enjoy it?

Y/N?"

Chances are then that I consider it value for money.

 

[Sassafrass]

I don't buy into that "£1 equals an hour or two" thing.
Think about it, if that was the case, CoD would have a 40 hour campaign. Now, although it would make people happier, could you imagine shooting AI for 40 hours? That would get so fucking boring unless we get one of the greatest FPS stories ever made or they shoved a fuck ton of collectables in it.

To me, if I enjoy a game no matter how long it is, I got my value for money, no matter if I paid £5 or £45 for it. I don't agree with this "£1 equals 1 hour" of gameplay thing as if that was the case, I'd never get through any games I own.

 

[Fractral]

I wouldn't want a game which stretched itself out at the expense of being enjoyable.
I paid more for Portal 2 than for Persona 3, and Portal 2 had in the area of 5 times less playtime than Persona 3, but I wouldn't say that portal 2 was a waster of money, because it was fun.

 

[xefaros]

For me i think a game as an investment.Paying out or not doenst really matter.The thing that matters is where my money is given.Does produces more of the same(rehashing old games)?Does encourage more of the same(new IPs)?Does it support minor developers?Does it provide what it promised?Is it worth it?

Saying money/hour isnt an entire wrong guideline but would you pay for 1000 hours of turret sections or press "X" to continue?It all ends up in the quality or originality of the game

 

[BrotherRool]

A film costs 5-7 pounds and it's normally a 2 hour experience, so 2.50-3.50 per hour is a much more reasonable rate. If The Last of Us is a good game, you should be able to play it twice and enjoy it (I've played all the Uncharted's multiple times). So it probably works out as value for money.

And value for money is important. Off the top of my head the three best games for value for money are FIFA, CoD and Minecraft. Funnily enough all of them are phenomenally successful. They're all games that can and will be played daily and they bring important social aspects to the table.



Saying that, pounds per hour is a terrible system. I've reached the point where I no longer have the time to put 60 hours into a game. The recent Final Fantasies have been less enjoyable for me because they're too long, their narrative isn't adequately compressed and I had to spend way too much time to complete them. I would pay to have a 15-20 hour experience over a 40 hour one because that 20 hour experience is going to be a lot more enjoyable without being a drain on my time. And as we get older, time becomes more and more valuable and we stop looking at things as pounds per hour, but enjoyment per hour.


Finally, that replay value can't be understated. I'm about to embark on my umpteenth KotoR2 playthrough, because that game is sweet. If I own a nice thing, then I can keep on revisiting it in perpetuity

 

[Smooth Operator]

You really can't break it down into simple math, at best what you can do is compare it to other products on the market and make sure they offer comparative content at their price range.

And while replayability does add something it really is not much as that is completely dependent on the users persistence, I for example probably have hundreds of hours in Minecraft but I will never claim it is worth more then 10-15$ because that is about the limit of their content no matter how many times I go over it.

 

[Doom972]

I think $20 should be the maximum price for a video game. I only pre-order and pay full price if it's a game I'm extremely hyped for (there are very few of these).

My pricing:

$20 for a AAA-quality (Doesn't actually have to be AAA) game that lasts more than 50 hours and has good reviews.
$15 for a AAA-quality game that has average/mixed reviews.
$10 for an indie-quality game that has good reviews.
$5 for an indie-quality game that has average/mixed reviews.

There are many exceptions, and if a game has a demo and I really like it I might spend more money on it.

 

[StriderShinryu]

In a perfect world where we all had infinite money, it would be easy to say that there is no reason anyone should make the comparison between quality and quantity in terms of value in videogames. Sadly, most of us don't live in that world and do have to ask ourselves that question.

I agree completely that if I'm going to be spending $60 on a game, I want it to provide as much quality time out of that as possible. Let's say I'm going to buy a game and have two to choose from. Assuming both games are great games that I want to play, else I wouldn't be considering buying them for $60 in the first place, I will always choose the one that's going to be longer. That's not saying the longer game is better, it's just saying that if I'm going to be buying one new game over the next few months I want it to last.

There's also the important consideration that, these days, games often go down in price fairly predictably (unless you're talking first party Nintendo titles anyway). We all know that if we wait a few months we'll probably be able to get shorter Game X for half the price from launch. Wait even longer and it'll be even cheaper.

 

[Kilo24]

Time per dollar is a pretty poor measurement of quality. If that's the main one, there is little reason to play anything but the staggering amount of free-to-play games out there. (Or roguelikes, or other free games of substantial quality.)

There are games that I've spent a lot of time on that are far from being the best I've played. Disgaea, Infinity Blade, World of Warcraft, Dungeon Defenders and any of the Elder Scrolls games after Daggerfall are all excellent as time sinks but just aren't that good while actually playing them. To the Moon, Magicka, Portal and especially Dishonored are on the opposite end of the spectrum - short, but a hell of a lot more memorable than the previous games.

Heck, I'd be willing to call a game that delivers a great experience in a short time as flat-out better than a game which takes a long time to do basically the same thing; padding is a waste of the player's time. That inverts your system of measurement.

In these days of Steam sales, of Elder Scrolls mods, free-to-play with in-app purchases, and wholly free games, time per dollar isn't really a good measure of value. Finding a general system isn't that easy.

 

[clippen05]

I think $20 should be the maximum price for a video game. I only pre-order and pay full price if it's a game I'm extremely hyped for (there are very few of these).

My pricing:

$20 for a AAA-quality (Doesn't actually have to be AAA) game that lasts more than 50 hours and has good reviews.
$15 for a AAA-quality game that has average/mixed reviews.
$10 for an indie-quality game that has good reviews.
$5 for an indie-quality game that has average/mixed reviews.

There are many exceptions, and if a game has a demo and I really like it I might spend more money on it.

Right, and how are companies supposed to make money with that system? Development costs for AAA games have only been rising, and they will probably rise even further with the release of the next generation of consoles. Sure, Indie games can be $5, but that's only because they don't have the same time and money put into them. Your pricing model is insane.

 

[Flames66]

I don't require a specific amount of time before I consider it value for money, but I won't spend more than £10 on a game in the first place.

Right, and how are companies supposed to make money with that system? Development costs for AAA games have only been rising, and they will probably rise even further with the release of the next generation of consoles. Sure, Indie games can be $5, but that's only because they don't have the same time and money put into them. Your pricing model is insane.

An item is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. My maximum might extend to £15 for something that hits all my buttons, but games are not worth more than that as far as I am concerned.

 

[kailus13]

I don't buy into that "£1 equals an hour or two" thing.
Think about it, if that was the case, CoD would have a 40 hour campaign. Now, although it would make people happier, could you imagine shooting AI for 40 hours? That would get so fucking boring unless we get one of the greatest FPS stories ever made or they shoved a fuck ton of collectables in it.

To me, if I enjoy a game no matter how long it is, I got my value for money, no matter if I paid £5 or £45 for it. I don't agree with this "£1 equals 1 hour" of gameplay thing as if that was the case, I'd never get through any games I own.

Did you spend any time on the Multiplayer though? Time spent playing online still counts towards this.

This metric seems to make sense, as if a game is really bad you'll just stop playing it, meaning that campaign lenght doesn't factor in as much as you'd expect.

 

[Snotnarok]

The value of a game according to the game industry is "60 dollars, and don't you dare buy it used" because even if a game was released unfinished, broken, or just not very good, it's 60 bucks and you deal with it.

OT: Hard to place value on games like that, God of War games are around 8 hours long but the games don't exactly do things small and the events in the games feel unique given the attention to detail. But Skyrim is massive, has hundreds of hours of gameplay and is quite the awesome adventure. Is one worth more than the other? Can't say.

 

[DrOswald]

Hi everyone
Me and a friend were having a discussion about what makes a game worth the money it costs. This was derived from the discussion quality vs quantity, and I wanted to bring this up on an intelligent website, to see what other people thinks.
Personally, I think that if I spend more time on it than I paid for it- as in, for every £1 I spend on it (British) I expect to get about an hour out of it.
For example Mass Effect 3- I spend about £30 on it and have spent over 100 hours on it- definately worth it. I spent £40 on Skyrim and have nearly 200 hours. Hell, I bought Fallout 3 for £7 and have spent over 100 hours on that.
On the other hand I've heard that The Last of Us has a 12 hour campaign. I've seen pre-orders for it at £50, and I don't really see how this is worth it, regardless of how amazing the game looks.
Opinions?

I don't look at it in as hours of entertainment per dollar, but in actually how much entertainment I get out of it. A game can be extremely short, perhaps just a few hours, but it can still be worth $60. On the other hand, I tend to dislike the games you can throw 100 hours at. They tend to be shallow, their entertainment value spread thin. There are the outstanding few that are still worth playing, Skyrim jumps to mind, but generally speaking I don't want long games.

But that is likely a function of my current place in life. I have very little free time so my free time is far more valuable. I would gladly pay $60 for an amazing 10 hour game. I would not pay $60 for a pretty good 60 hour game.

But the true way is indie games (or really just lower cost games), the intersection of amazing quality and low price. $5 for a unique and interesting 3 hour experience. Wait for the steam sale or a humble bundle and you will probably get away with several hours of high quality entertainment for pocket change.

 

[Bagged Milk]

I once bought a few bags of candy from the dollar store. I had a lot of candy but it was kind of crap and it made me feel bad. Another time, I went to the store and spent the same amount of money on a box of Ferrero Rocher. I had a considerably more enjoyable experience with that.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Replay is a huge factor in how long a game lasts, I think. If a game has a 6 hour campaign with no reason to replay other than a few trophies, it should not cost the same as a game like Skyrim. No matter how nice it looks or how big the budget was, because that's just not good value. Also, it's not good business sense.