A lot of vague answers. I'm rather curious what features or aspects create a fun/enjoyable experience for each of you and how that might factor into how much money you assess a game to be worth. For me, I generally prioritize:
1. an engaging story. If a game doesn't have an engaging story it doesn't really matter what else it offers, I'm probably going to lose interest and stop playing. That's why I love the Mass Effect series but think The Elder Scrolls is mediocre at best. The lack of engagement and urgency of TES leaves me wondering if the game doesn't even take its own story very seriously then why should I?
2. graphics. This is why I simply can't get into the indie scene. I feel like I am somehow getting ripped off by a company attempting to take a shortcut by releasing a game that looks like it was developed 10+ years ago. Visuals don't have to be state of the art, but should at least be state of the industry. I think the indie developer should either take a huge gamble and license another game engine or pay their dues by postponing being indie until they have the skill or community recognition/trust so that they can develop or license a game engine without it being a huge risk.
Anything else can't really be universally applied. Replayability is only important to me for games that emphasize gameplay mechanics and/or competition. Portal 1 and 2 speed runs come to mind. Multiplayer focused FPS and racing games also come to mind. Some games just don't need it though. I played through Bioshock Infinite one time but it had both an engaging story and great graphics (although the gameplay was lacking) and I thought the game was totally worth my time and money.
Single player game length is a double edged sword. less than 15 hours and the game will usually feel incomplete and, if it was a great game, I'll just be left wanting more. Over 30 hours and games seem to lack focus and I usually end up not finishing them.
All told, if a game has: a great story, looks good, and is generally between 20-30 hours, then I'll be willing to spend up to $50 on it although I am certainly willing to wait for a deal in most cases since I have a bit of a game backlog. I don't really understand the idea that a game is worth no more, to use the OP's example, than $10. If a game isn't what I want it to be, then I would say it's worth $0 and would just look elsewhere. If I literally cannot find a single game anywhere that I am willing to spend top dollar on, and my choices are between spending less on something I am reasonably certain I won't like or doing something non-game related then I'll probably just do something non-game related.
1. an engaging story. If a game doesn't have an engaging story it doesn't really matter what else it offers, I'm probably going to lose interest and stop playing. That's why I love the Mass Effect series but think The Elder Scrolls is mediocre at best. The lack of engagement and urgency of TES leaves me wondering if the game doesn't even take its own story very seriously then why should I?
2. graphics. This is why I simply can't get into the indie scene. I feel like I am somehow getting ripped off by a company attempting to take a shortcut by releasing a game that looks like it was developed 10+ years ago. Visuals don't have to be state of the art, but should at least be state of the industry. I think the indie developer should either take a huge gamble and license another game engine or pay their dues by postponing being indie until they have the skill or community recognition/trust so that they can develop or license a game engine without it being a huge risk.
Anything else can't really be universally applied. Replayability is only important to me for games that emphasize gameplay mechanics and/or competition. Portal 1 and 2 speed runs come to mind. Multiplayer focused FPS and racing games also come to mind. Some games just don't need it though. I played through Bioshock Infinite one time but it had both an engaging story and great graphics (although the gameplay was lacking) and I thought the game was totally worth my time and money.
Single player game length is a double edged sword. less than 15 hours and the game will usually feel incomplete and, if it was a great game, I'll just be left wanting more. Over 30 hours and games seem to lack focus and I usually end up not finishing them.
All told, if a game has: a great story, looks good, and is generally between 20-30 hours, then I'll be willing to spend up to $50 on it although I am certainly willing to wait for a deal in most cases since I have a bit of a game backlog. I don't really understand the idea that a game is worth no more, to use the OP's example, than $10. If a game isn't what I want it to be, then I would say it's worth $0 and would just look elsewhere. If I literally cannot find a single game anywhere that I am willing to spend top dollar on, and my choices are between spending less on something I am reasonably certain I won't like or doing something non-game related then I'll probably just do something non-game related.
