Green Man Gaming now shows cost per hour value on a game, but is it really worth it?
The experience is ultimately what determines a game's value imo.
fun you get out of it is also priceless.. just stop gaming if you get nothing out of it.
Not exactly. The experience is just part of it. Unless your parents buy your games or you live at home and have no bill it's not okay to pay $60 for a very short experience. Employers judge our time based on money why can't we do the same for experiences? Gaming isn't cheap so we need to get the most out of every experience.
By your logic, Fighting games is a rip off Racing games is a rip off Online only is a rip off Salaried jobs don't exist It's based on what the player (you) determines what is considered a good investment. I can buy a $20 game and have just as much fun over a $60+ game. It's the online only models I'd be concerned about because once the servers go down that't it. At least with disc-based (or digital download) you can play for as long as the equipment is still available with minimal headache. I do see your point, however it should be re-worded. Instead of saying dollar per time, the experience should be based off time per enjoyment. Meaning if you paid $60 for a short game, but you enjoyed it, that means high replay value, which in turn means time spent to play again for various reasons (speed runs, multiple endings, etc).
The experience is the main reason and the great thing about most these games is that they aren't going anywhere and if you can't afford them new then wait and they'll be on sale or you can also trade in older games too.
Seriously, does nobody replay games anymore?
@Tetsujin I get what you're saying, because I could buy a game at 60USD that has 100 hours of content, play it for 5 and not enjoy it and stop playing it. for some they got less than 60cent/hour for me I got more than 10USD/hour. This is very subjective and comes down to taste and preference. But say I bought a game at 60USD and there was only 5 hours of content in the game all together. I would feel ripped off. @Lord_Sith It would seem like that. with so many games, why would someone want to replay a game they finished when there are new experiences to be had. Sometimes I don't even finish a game that I do like because something new comes along. I like the cost per hour for myself, If I get 1euro/hour, I am very happy, but that is hard to get when games cost 65/70 euros these days. So normally I don't buy games at full price unless I know I'll play it a lot, for example AC:Origins, I bought the gold edition and played it for more than 80 hours. or Battlefield, I'll play that for 100's of hours. Basically, my point is, as an metric, based on other people's playtime, for whether or not to buy a came I think cost per hour is pretty much useless but as an way of judging if I got my money's worth, I think it is OK on a personal level
How is information anti-consumer... Anti-consumer would be EA or some other publisher using some sort legal battle to stop consumers from getting information. If you don't like the information feel free not to use it. But don't ask for basic statics to be stopped. You have to wo9nder if this article is some kind of paid propaganda.
It legitimises the narrative that the value of a game is based on it's length rather than other factors such as quality. That narrative benefits businesses rather than consumers since they can pad their games with low effort and low quality content that ultimately ends up reducing its cost per hour which makes it seem like better value.
one value is the length of the game... it's a legitimate value
@cueil, true but there is more than one metric involved.
@Dragonscale no doubt, but to just ignore game length is to ignore some of the most important aspects of many genres... you probably don't want a 40-100 hour 3rd person shooter, but an RPG of that length is probably in the ballpark of what you want. However, a 5 hour RPG would require more research on your part.
Cueil, How do you determine the length of a MP only game then?
Because it can be easily taken advantage of, greedy publishers start making their games longer just to satisfy some value but they don't fill that time with anything meaningful or to respect the player's time. Also it may screw over gamers and smaller devs who may not have the resources to make some 100+ hour game so they make a quality short or mid length title but people overlook it due to the game not being 100+ hours long with new game + and two expansions.
You guys are crazy, it's just information, no one complains about HLTB.com which collects users data about how long it takes them to beat games and has existed for years. It's just data, if it helps people it's not a bad thing, and you can ignore it if you don't like it. And I highly doubt publishers are going to make games longer because one site gives a small amount of data that has been available for years to anyone who can do elementary school math. But I guess this is like so many issues where people got riled up now there is a strange anger over it.
Read a review from someone you trust, see if it's your kind of game by watching a lets play, weigh it vs other games available both now and historically in the industry. Boom. You're an intelligent consumer.
honestly, an intelligent consumer doesn't need to do any research. They know what they enjoy and what their money is worth so can select any given game based on a simple video/trailer. Besides, reviews haven't been unbiased articles about a games strengths, weaknesses, technical flaws for probably 2 decades+. Nowadays reviews are opinion pieces that do very little to nothing to truly help any gamer in need of guidance.
Yeah I don't care about hours played! I love all kinds of games from first person titles like Doom, Wolfenstien, Prey, Dishonored to action rpg's like Fallout and Skyrim. I also love third person action adventure/rpg like The Evil Within, GOW, TLOU, Uncharted to more open world games like HZD, Witcher 3, Breadth of the Wild, Infamous, The Phantom Pain and AC Origins. Also love JRPG's like Nier, Tales of Berseria, Persona 5 and Ni No Kuni II. Also love titles like Shadow of the Colossus, The Last Guardian, Heavy Rain, Beyond Two Souls and Detroit! That's not to mention indie titles and really to me it's about the experience the game offers to me. Some of these games I put weeks or months into and others hours but I enjoyed them all immensely!
Agree with 100%
This is stupid! Maybe I'll play Destiny 2 for 700 hours and Witcher 3 for two hours. And someone else can get 200 hours on Witcher and 20 minutes in Destiny 2. And what about single player? God of War 3 is bad value and State of Decay 2 is good value?
I don't think you understood. It's not about how many hours you feel like playing it's about how many hours you're allowed to play before the game is over. God of War 3 does not have much of a replay value State of Decay 2 has a ton of replay value with online co-op
Umm no because if you loved the game you can play it over and over again...
Ok. Take this: You can go to see Niagara falls once or spend 10 weekends on a little river. What to choose? Well...both. There are great multiplayer games and great single player games. State of Decay 2 is not one of them!
My understanding was it is based on steam users playtime of the game. Meaning one person may play 2 and another 2000 meaning the average would be 1001 hours. It may be good value for money in terms of playtime but it that is only one metric. If I don't like a game, I'm not going to play it for a long time no matter how much I paid for it. @roronoa0411 I don't know how anyone can replay a story driven game when you know what is going to happen. Especially when there are so many other good games to play. But games like battlefield, or other multiplayer games have tons of replay value because they are not story focused. I loved Yakuza Kiwami, 0 and 6 but I would not replay it after finishing everything (well not everything but 90%) because the focus of that game is the story. I mean I really loved those games, like best games of the generation by far, for me. But I still wouldn't play them again, at least not for a few years, but still probably not
"An artist strives to frame his ideals in an image; to challenge his audience and to make his vision immortal. But the parasites say 'no, your art must serve the cause... your ideals endanger the people!'" -Andrew Ryan
Such a good distributor. However, such a simplistic and shallow way to judge a game's worth.
Are you familiar with the concept of renting, sir?
If everyone thinks this is such a bad metric than why do we keep seeing articles about game length? Last one I remember was the Spiderman Dev doesn't know how long it takes to beat the game... Which came out right after someone posted a 30hour length article. All they did was the math. It's one more piece of information for you to make a decision. If you don't care about length good for you but again I can pull countless articles talking about game length so obviously someone cares. You can ignore it and others can benefit from the added information.
What I don't get is the opposition to this simple information. Like you said, it's just one more metric to help you know what you're buying into. Obviously, time spent crashing and working around bugs is not part of the game experience we want, and that other info can be found in competent reviews and dedicated reddits. The more we know, the better we can choose what to buy. I sure don't want to pay $60 for 3 hours of gameplay, or a buggy mess.
I also don't care about the hours, but I prefer shorter games, which is a selling point for me, even if it is the same price as a 60hr game. Remember, the more time spent playing one game is less time spent on other games.
Quite oversimplified. It's a bad metric if it's the ONLY metric. Of course people care about their games' length, but that in conjunction with many other things they care about, like quality, replayability, multiplayer, post-launch support, etc. etc. People need to stop putting a metric on everything, a game's value is nuanced and there's individual value AND generally agreed upon consumer value. Individual value is entirely subjective. Consumer value on the other hand is made up of many components and can't just be simplified into cost per hour. There are people who have spent hundreds of hours in pokemon go, but the game is free so how is that determined? There are RPGs that rely on side quests and filler content to increase the play length. There are linear games that condense the experience but increase quality. There are multiplayer games that have potential unlimited play time. All of those have different metrics and standards to be compared against.
It's a solid metric to use. We use time for everything. If you go out you start calculating how many hours of work are these beers going to cost me how many hours of work is this or that going to cost me. Same thing for games we can't allow to be charged $60 for a 6 hour game. Unless the game is going to have online co-op or a ton of DLC for free that constantly expands the story games need to be a minimum of 30 to 40 hours. Online games obviously don't require a story
You are right about time but the metric just doesn't work. If a game is $60 and 6 hours, i already know I'm not willing to pay $60 for it, I don't need a cost per hour breakdown. Plus how would you factor in online co-op and ton of DLC into the cost per hour metric? How do you factor in Multiplayer hours? Is it fluctuating or static? How do you factor in the quality? How do you factor in useless filler content to increase campaign hours? A linear campaign is easily measurable but multiplayer isn't. If they're taking the industry average hours of MP player and dividing it by the cost, it's all convoluted and doesn't make any sense. I don't know how much time I'll spend on MP or if I'll even like it, why do I need a cost per hour breakdown, it's redundant and can be misleading. The important information is price, campaign hours, list of game modes, MP player count, co-op or no co-op. The gamer uses this information to decide if they want the game or not. If someone is looking at an inaccurate pre-calculated number to make their decision they need serious guidance in life. At the end of the day it doesn't matter, they can use whatever metric they like. I don't think most people will take it seriously.
You argument doesn't work here. Your hours of work are at a fixed cost. Those beers you drink are at a fixed cost. You're trying to equate those to something immeasurable as experience and it doesn't work. When you buy a game you can play it for as long as you want. Whether it's 6 hours or 60 hours. What is determined ultimately is whether you enjoyed the experience or not. I can take a multiplayer game, play it for 40 hours, hate it and say it's not worth $60. Someone can love a 6 hour single player game and say it's worth $60. See where I'm going with this?
Artificial length to meet some currency standard is bad for everyone. The information gets less honest over time. It’s a waste of time for developers and a bore for gamers.
Totally agree. That's why we need to know both how good the gameplay is, and how long it lasts (while remaining good). Quality and quantity--both are required.
“Drag this scene out, we need another 2 hours to reach the 60 dollar mark”.
Also in today's world it's not hard to know if you are going to like a game or not! The last game I bought and regretted was Alpha Protocol and that was almost a decade ago! I did have some buyers remorse with Watch Dogs but the warning signs were there, I just didn't want to listen! The main metric I use in buying a game is if it's fun and engaging first and foremost. Then there are devs and publishers who create the kinds of games I enjoy so I try to go out of my way to support them. Also while TLOU and the Uncharted series may not have the hours of play Fortnite does I'll buy them every time because there is a level of quality and they impact me emotionally. I've played through TLOU at least a dozen times and each time felt the weight of the story! Hellblade was another game that didn't have lots of length(it also had a great price) but I wouldn't trade that experience for anything and Ninja Theory is a dev I've supported since Heavenly Sword. It just seems this hours played" thing comes from those who want more GAAS or MP titles and less SP. The reason SP fans are so eager to push back is because for a few gens it's been being said SP experiences are dying and can't be profitable. And while GOW may not make as much as Fortnite it doesn't have to because of a few factors such as reasonable budget and it is selling extremely well and is in the green many times over! I think it's great that there are games like Fortnite, Overwatch and H1Z1 along with Witcher 3, HZD, TLOU and GOW! I think there's room for all and while some seek their fortunes with F2P or MP others are filling in the market with great SP games!
Cost per hour is a great supplemental statistic. No one in their right mind would buy a game based solely on that metric. The only people freaking out are the "suit and tie" types that are trying to manipulate the industry into a endless cash fountain. What with no upfront content and countless dlc and gamble boxes. Getting a better overall picture of a purchase is, if anything, proconsumer.
Wow imagine if gaming companies ran parks or playgrounds, what would it cost to go down a slide or shoot some hoops. Or imagine if we paid for books by how many hours we invest in them :-( Or......a bicycle :-D
I mean, would you pay 60 dollars for a 5 page "book"? There is some validity to the metric when it comes to the extremes, in the middle range, it's a little more complicated and many other things have to be considered. I'm sure there are people who play short, full priced games and felt it was worth it or others who played long, full priced games and hated it, thus only playing a short time and vice versa. Different people like different things, it's a good thing there is a lot of options for all tastes,
The quality of a game is too subjective to be measured accurately in comparison to what people value in games, which ultimately determines whether or not they buy it. A game could have a lot of small or insignificant flaws to its whole for one gamer, but do three really important things right and it would be worth it for that gamer. Even more so than say a game that does most things rights, but not the three most important things for him/her. Let’s not forget there are plenty of short games that are also lacking in what gamers value.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.