this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
63 points (98.5% liked)

Gaming

30579 readers
537 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Say a simple (hours enjoyed playing)/(price of game) equation. How many hours (you enjoyed) per $ do you think is reasonable/expected? Or is there other criteria for you?

I feel like I'm on the upper end here. But to be fair I also tend to play things that has a lot of replayability. So I usually reach 100+ hours on my favorites eventually.

Eager to hear how others reason about it.

Edit: Added the enjoyed part. I agree with the comments that frustrating hours shouldn't be included in the measure :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't consider my gaming in terms of price/time because that just encourages buying games that suck away my time.

My value for gaming is less of a simple equation, but my examples of games that are "undoubtedly worth the price" are going to consist a lot more of shorter games that are absolutely spectacular for their shorter playtime with a £30ish price tag.

Think:

  • Outer Wilds
  • Tunic
  • Hollow Knight
  • Journey
  • The Witness
  • Portal (1&2)
  • Celeste
  • Undertale
  • To The Moon
  • Ori and the Blind Forest/Will o the Wisps
  • The Witcher 3

I have no strict criteria for this, but I can say I've had far, far more than my money's worth from those games in terms of the value they brought to my life.

If you do want to look purely at the number of hours you'll get out of a game vs its price, look no further than Guild Wars 2. You can get all the content for under £100 I beoieve, and I've spent 6000+ wonderful hours playing it. It's not the same kind of enjoyment though.

[–] donuts@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t consider my gaming in terms of price/time because that just encourages buying games that suck away my time.

So true and well said.

I love playing a 70 hour From Software game or a 50 hour JRPG as much as the next guy. But some of my favorite games of all time are old classics like Super Mario World or Zelda: OoT, which can probably be completed in a single session or two if you know what you're doing. And there have been some truly great, but short, indie games over the years.

Then there are also sim games and arcade/fighting games that had great reliability and you can get many hours out of if you like them.

In the end, as long as the game is fun and satisfying, I don't care how long it lasts.

[–] CleoTheWizard@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago

I think people don’t often factor in that time in a game is just as much or more a cost than money is.

If I make it super nerdy, my equation for games would be more like fun / (money cost + time cost). But really I don’t actively quantify these things, I just have a sense of it.

The other thing id say is that games recently are being judged more on how they respect the players time. The max game money cost is locked in at $70, likely for a long time. So the thing being optimized right now is the fun/time part. Not respecting the players time is one of the worst crimes a game can commit in my opinion.

That’s what I’m hearing about games like Starfield and it’s always been a criticism for games like assassins creed. Like they’re fun games, but the time investment is far too large for what they offer.

The reason it doesn’t apply to sim games or city builders is because you are largely in control of how best your time is spent. That’s why open world games used to rule Steam for a long time and still somewhat do.

Anyways that’s my rant.