• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Deploying to Play the Best PC Games!

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game every week! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!

31 posts in this topic

Referring mostly to games with an obvious end like RPG's or anything story based. MMO's and multiplayer games can provide unending value for money.


The length of a games playthrough has been a topic of discussion lately so I thought I would pose the question to the community.

For the amount of money you dish out on a new game how much entertainment time do you think it should provide?

For me this poses other questions also. For example entertainment time doesn't always equate to entertainment value. A game could take 100 hours to complete but be mundane or even boring, another could be 15 hours but keep you gripped to your seat for every minute.

A movie only lasts 2-3 hours and we're happy to pay £10 - £15. So should a game take at least 10 - 12 hours by comparison for the extra money we pay and anything more is a bonus?

 

Shagger and rairoken16 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your math makes sense to me, assuming the game is enjoyable, 10-12 hours seems like a minimum if there's no multiplayer. For an RPG I would expect more because of the nature of the game, but for a story driven adventur/action game it would agree.

nickyzhere likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Referring mostly to games with an obvious end like RPG's or anything story based. MMO's and multiplayer games can provide unending value for money.

no they dont. most mmo's are subscription based or microtransaction based and offer next to no value unless you pay per month to keep playing.

For the amount of money you dish out on a new game how much entertainment time do you think it should provide?

Including all collectibles, achievements, replay's with harder difficulty unlocks... 50-60 hours. £1 per hour. if a game costs £40, it should take 40 hours before everything is done. if it's less than that, then the game is too expensive for what it provides imo.

For me this poses other questions also. For example entertainment time doesn't always equate to entertainment value. A game could take 100 hours to complete but be mundane or even boring, another could be 15 hours but keep you gripped to your seat for every minute.

Doesnt matter to me how good a game is or not. If i decided to buy it, i already programmed my brain to like the game, before even trying it, because i researched reviews and gameplay footage and trailers and so on. so if i were to buy a game that only takes 15 hours to fully complete, then i expect the game to be £15. if it costs more than that, and i figure this out in reviews, then i wont buy it no matter how good it is. game price should equal game time.

A movie only lasts 2-3 hours and we're happy to pay £10 - £15. So should a game take at least 10 - 12 hours by comparison for the extra money we pay and anything more is a bonus?

are we? im not. i would never pay 10-15 quid for any movie, unless it was a timeless cult classic that i would rewatch over and over again for the rest of my life. some of these are the terminator, die hard, titanic, predator. no, a game should not aim for a time to provide the player. a game should aim to be the best it possibly can be, and the time is irrelevant - but the cost should match the time it takes to play it.

 

if a game takes only 15 hours to complete in FULL with all achievements, and unlocks and whatever, then  there's no way the development of that game took longer and was more intense than blockbuster games like GTA5 that take longer to fully complete and also provide huge multiplayer. therefore the price asked should not be the same as the price asked for a game that is longer, bigger, and asks for more input.

 

this already is practised in many cases. indie games tend to be small short games, and don't cost anywhere close to £40 or £50 like other games do. mobile games are often pure horseshit, and rightly so, a lot of them cost less than £1. you get what you pay for. £0.69 isn't going to get you any kind of decent game no matter what it's being played on. mobile games on the other hand that are great, often cost between £5 and £10. and guess what... those games are longer, bigger, and took more development time and effort to make.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care aslong as i enjoy the game.

Yello Mit likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a lot of variables on what type of game it is and what not.

For a single player experience I'd say 8 hours is good, but again it has to be a good game.

As for content such as achievements I really never looked at those as much of big thing in games. Again anyone who played games before Achievements were a thing it was never something we'd go for, for instance beating Resident Evil in under 4 hours, or killing 10 enemies with 1 knife, what ever.

I feel like that's why so many devs try to implement some sort of online feature since there needs to be justification now a days at least to shell out $60 for a game with the chances that you beat it once and that's it, especially if it's short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with your length of game should equeal value of said game idea because like you said it could be a short game but fun and exciting and one that's long and dull and vice versa. The value of the game should be equal to the quality of the game if it's an excellent game likeable characters, good story, excellent gameplay. These things should be what determines the price of a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the price of videogames is something that has a rather complicated nonsensical set of rules many people have an understanding of, but virtually nobody can really define.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with your length of game should equeal value of said game idea because like you said it could be a short game but fun and exciting and one that's long and dull and vice versa. The value of the game should be equal to the quality of the game if it's an excellent game likeable characters, good story, excellent gameplay. Theses things should be what determines the price of a game.

But then that pretty subjective as not everyone has the same opinion on each game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then that pretty subjective as not everyone has the same opinion on each game.

Quite true quite true however may I remind you of the Devil May Cry series which consists of short games but is considered to be one of the best hack n slashes wouldn't you think games as short as them sold as cheap would allow us to have a series or just one game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure it's a good idea to equate the monetary value of a game to its length. Uncharcted 3 is (so far) the shortest of the series, but so much happens in that brief time I definitely felt I got my money's worth! Plus, I tend to savor the games I play and not try to complete them as quickly as possible.

Since I only have about 4-6 hours free time a day (between work, eating, life, etc.) I have a library FULL of unfinished great games because I don't normally spend 4-6 hours a day playing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying a game should equal a certain length for your money but asking the question what people think is acceptable.

I think many arguments are based on the length of other games which provides a valid base to compare against. On the other hand media like movies can cost just as much and more to make but provide a consistent length of entertainment for your money.

For example Dragon Age Inquisition lasts more than 100 hours if side questing and still 50+ if you don't. And is an amazing game. Most Final Fantasy games pre 13.
Ground Zeroes only took a couple hours but was reduced in price. The most recent rumour is obviously Order 1886. While the devs have refuted that the game only takes 5 hours have said it's more like 10. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-order-1886-dev-denies-five-hour-claim/1100-6425343/


I don't consider achievements and trophies worth bringing into the equation because they don't appeal to everyone and don't cost anything for the developers to include so shouldn't increase the value of a game.


So length doesn't equal quality. But other developers have proven that quality can provide many hours/days/weeks so should you pay the same for games that don't meet the average?

Looking at movies you pay the same price(ish) per movie, more for a trilogy or boxset. So the more entertainment you get the more you have to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a simple matter of looking back at past gaming generations and seeing what used to be the standard length for a game.

Now obviously games a more expensive to make these days but the average retail price has also gone up. Back in the ye oldel days of the PS1most games (in my experiance) could average at least 15-20hrs easy, with the Final Fantasy games being among a few to rack up at minimum 40+ hours.

Today huge triple A titles try to get away with ridiculously short single player modes and campaigns, were 6-8hrs has become sadly the excepted norm. Instead developers now pad games with multiplayer or promised DLC content.

I feel that online gaming has caused a dramatic shift in focus, and that a game doesnt need to be long or packed with great content, just a multiplayer to.appeal to todays gamers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a game can bring you entertainment, the dollar amount has no real value. I got Journey for $15 which at first I was weary off because I could beat the game in under an hour. However the entire experience gave me something that was worth the price of admission.

 

Same can be said for Ground Zero the "demo" that was released on the consoles before making its way to PC. People saw the price tag ($30 for last gen and $40 for next gen), heard the game could be beaten in 20 minutes, and based their opinions on it. I was one of them. I felt a game could not be worth the price until I played it. Ended up getting six hours of game play because I kept trying different things. 

 

When we were kids time felt infinite. We could play whatever we wanted and typically it was our parents that paid for the games. Now we have little time to play and it comes out of our pocket, meaning we have to feel the investment was worth it. It is why console wars are so fierce. People want to feel they made the right choice. 

 

With games finally going back to their roots, example if a game should only be single player then the developer makes a single player without forcing multiplayer, I feel it will only increase quality on the kinds of experiences we want. 

thedukeofzill likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all totally relative to how much fun you had with the game. Some of us loved MG:GZ just as an example, and it could be beat in under 20 minutes. I felt my 30 dollars was well spent because of the hours of enjoyment I had with the game, others may not find it as such a good value. Some people have different views on what makes a game "worth" the 60 dollar price tag, so It's really difficult to tell.

 

The industry judges the value of a video game based off of the principles of building it. I'm certain they have algorithms to figure out each cost during the development cycle, and make sure to keep those costs where they need to be for profit to form around that 60 dollars. Most games comes out at the 60 dollar price tag; this is pretty standard. So i'm pretty sure they build their games based around profit generated around that, or else we would see a wider range of launch prices for each AAA game. 

 

I'd say, the value of a game is in the eye of the beholder. The industry judges the value based on the work and cost put into development. The consumer judges this based on what they enjoyed from the title. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all totally relative to how much fun you had with the game. Some of us loved MG:GZ just as an example, and it could be beat in under 20 minutes. I felt my 30 dollars was well spent because of the hours of enjoyment I had with the game, others may not find it as such a good value. Some people have different views on what makes a game "worth" the 60 dollar price tag, so It's really difficult to tell.

 

The industry judges the value of a video game based off of the principles of building it. I'm certain they have algorithms to figure out each cost during the development cycle, and make sure to keep those costs where they need to be for profit to form around that 60 dollars. Most games comes out at the 60 dollar price tag; this is pretty standard. So i'm pretty sure they build their games based around profit generated around that, or else we would see a wider range of launch prices for each AAA game. 

 

I'd say, the value of a game is in the eye of the beholder. The industry judges the value based on the work and cost put into development. The consumer judges this based on what they enjoyed from the title. 

I remember a time when buying a game cost near to $100 and in some areas of the world, that is still true. /shudders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a time when buying a game cost near to $100 and in some areas of the world, that is still true. /shudders

For sure, that would be totally brutal. That is a good point as well, the developer also decides the worth of their title based on what the economy is like too. IF they can squeeze more money out of it than, i'm sure they would do so. That would be terrible to pay that kind of money, especially for a really crappy title like Watchdogs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care aslong as i enjoy the game.

Pretty much this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting some kind of arbitrary price or needed length on a form of art seems like it would hurt the medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, i'd be happy to pay for a game around 30-45R$ If i think i'll enjoy it. AAA Games on Steam over here cost around 90-120R$. Which is kinda ridiculous looking at the average pay around here which is around 780-850R$.

You'd suspect those AAA games are lengthy, most nowadays are not. Not buying any till the Real goes up. :/

Though, Length is FUTILE , when the replay-ability is Good. Or atleast that is what i think. Take Halo 3:odst for example, i played that game over and over again on the campaign, to experience the story once more. To know the characters, to feel the gameplay better. I found it truely worth 110R$ That i payed for it. especially with the firefight mode which was back then new. Still play it once in awhile. And that games story was around 5h only?

But i usually just buy 30-40R$ (15$) games independent of the length or lack of content to feed my gaming addiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting some kind of arbitrary price or needed length on a form of art seems like it would hurt the medium.

 

It totally could hurt the Medium, I agree. But, I do believe people have wants and needs for their 60 dollars. Consumers are difficult to please sometimes, but rightfully so because It's their hard earned money. Some people feel justified paying the price for minimum content, they just love the game or the developer. Others are very vocal and expressive about what they feel they "Deserve" for their money. There is no possible way you can please everybody with your release. But, I also agree there isn't any set rule that a game set at 60 dollars needs to have a minimum of 30-40 hours of game content, and there shouldn't be. Games are expensive to develop. People want series graphics, serious narratives, serious game mechanics. Pretty much Hollywood blockbusters in every title. We do have to be a little realistic on what we expect. The main point is, If It's worth it to you It's worth it. Buy the game, support the developer and the franchise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, its if I can get at least 1 hour of fun/enjoyment for every $4 i will consider it a purchase worth my money. Example. Stick of truth cost me $60 and i got about 15 hours of fun out of my first and only playthrough (definately considering a second playthrough at some point), so that fits in my ratio and feel like it was money well spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Boogie! And yes, he is a lot more lenient about his dollar/gameplay ratio. I kind of agree with Rich over at reviewtechusa a little bit more though. 

 

 

He kind of says it right, It really doesn't matter too much how long the game is, as long as you really really enjoyed it. Understandably, If the game was one hour long, that's really pushing it. But, If you paid 60 dollars and only received 5 hours of game play, but it was the most fulfilling gameplay you have played In a very long time, I would consider that worth my 60 dollars. Also, Rich is kind of right on the filler side missions. SO many games cram this crap into their titles just to say "hey guys look, we have 150,000 hours of game play!" Crappy thing is you're running around collecting plants for lord so and so for no real reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say many "Early Access" game prices are just outrageous. They are not even in beta or even alpha stage....

thedukeofzill likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now