Dollars Per Hour -- Does the length of a game matter and how much are you willing to pay?

[avatar! | 1,948]

I recently was looking at this cute game --

Reviews are very good! However, even the developers said it's a short experimental game. Well, by short they mean from start to finish under an hour! Now, I would think most of us would rather play a "great" game over a much longer but "dull" game... but where is the line? Roombo First Blood is $30 (retail price). But, $30 for a game that's under an hour? Let's say the game itself is fabulously fun, is that worth $30? What about $20? $15? $10? I mean, we all have limited funds! Where does one draw the line?

Do you have a dollars per hour value in the back of your mind for games you intend to play?

Myself, I think my "minimum" is about $10 per hour, in some instances maybe $15 per hour if there's something truly special about it.

[Astro Bot | 99]

Does it have any replay value?

If a certain game looked amazing to me and I heard great things from trusted sources...yeah, I might drop 30 dollars on it. I'm paying for the experience. 30 dollars for one of the most memorable hours of my life? Sure.

I don't know how great that particular game is though.

[DefaultGen | 5,727]

0%. I have bought 1000s of games I will never play and some of my favorite games ever are a couple hours long. If it's a game I want and I'm actually about to play it (not Steam sale BS that will sit in a digital backlog forever), I'll pay whatever.

Also games are generally way too long. The obsession with gameplay hours means games never get aggressively honed and edited like movies and we have all these boring ass escort missions and fetch quests because they add valuable "content". It's like if every single scene shot for a movie made it into the end product because "Well, we spent a bunch of money shooting this unnecessary, mediocre scene that ruins the flow of the movie! We can't waste it!"

[Reed Rothchild | 9,971]

Gaming as a whole is an incredible deal.  Especially with how stagnant pricing has been for decades, regardless of inflation.

A $60 remaster is endlessly complained about, but that's like the price to a single sporting event, best case scenario.  Or going out to eat twice.  And it's probably going to be 10+ hours.  Maybe 50+.  So my threshold is very high.  I'd complain about a 4 hour game being $60.  And I definitely check the hltb for any title from LRG that I've never heard of.  I don't need a $40 physical for some 90 minute game.

[a3quit4s | 4,398]

1 hour ago, DefaultGen said:

0%. I have bought 1000s of games I will never play and some of my favorite games ever are a couple hours long. If it's a game I want and I'm actually about to play it (not Steam sale BS that will sit in a digital backlog forever), I'll pay whatever.

Also games are generally way too long. The obsession with gameplay hours means games never get aggressively honed and edited like movies and we have all these boring ass escort missions and fetch quests because they add valuable "content". It's like if every single scene shot for a movie made it into the end product because "Well, we spent a bunch of money shooting this unnecessary, mediocre scene that ruins the flow of the movie! We can't waste it!"

I’d agree with this except I’ll try to avoid buying digital games at all costs. I know most modern games are just basically CD keys at this point anyways but I’m an addict for physical media, plus even if I buy it and never play it at least I got shelf candy out of it lmao

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,043]

1 hour ago, a3quit4s said:

I’d agree with this except I’ll try to avoid buying digital games at all costs. I know most modern games are just basically CD keys at this point anyways but I’m an addict for physical media, plus even if I buy it and never play it at least I got shelf candy out of it lmao

 

If it's an hour long game like in the OP, I have no problem getting it digital. Especially when digital is 90% the cost of physical - idk if the game in the OP is or not tbf but it is often the case.

1 hour ago, Reed Rothchild said:

A $60 remaster is endlessly complained about, but that's like the price to a single sporting event, best case scenario.  Or going out to eat twice.  And it's probably going to be 10+ hours.  Maybe 50+.  So my threshold is very high.  I'd complain about a 4 hour game being $60.  And I definitely check the hltb for any title from LRG that I've never heard of.  I don't need a $40 physical for some 90 minute game.

 

I can't get out of pizza hut without spending over $30 these days. Gaming is a hell of a deal for entertainment. And it's super easy to pirate so that's always a bonus.

[fox | 1,778]

Totally $hitty metric to measure games by.  The fact that people take this seriously has lead so many games to be padded out with endless filler and bloat.

We can’t have a great compact campaign anymore.  Now everything has to be some 50 or 100 hour open world slog with the same activities copy pasted over and over and hundreds of collectibles.

 

[Khromak | 837]

30 minutes ago, fox said:

Totally $hitty metric to measure games by.  The fact that people take this seriously has lead so many games to be padded out with endless filler and bloat.

We can’t have a great compact campaign anymore.  Now everything has to be some 50 or 100 hour open world slog with the same activities copy pasted over and over and hundreds of collectibles.

 

This ^^

But also...I think there is a minimum. I wouldn't want to pay $30 or $60 for a 1-2 hour long game (without replay value).

I also think that "this is a 100 hour game" is marketing nonsense and a lot of modern games are SUPER padded with repetitive nonsense. People liked FF6, Chrono Trigger, etc. because they're 40 hour games of straight content. There's a big difference between doing 40 hours of catered, designed, paced content and modern games which are 60 hours of collecting grass, crafting generic weapons/armor, wandering around looking for hidden gems, repeating the same shitty "puzzles" etc.

People say "this game's so good, I spent 200 hours on it" but a lot of times it feels like 80% of that is repetitive nonsense that's boring AF (in my opinion)

Edited July 12 by Khromak

[fcgamer | 5,020]

4 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

it's an hour long game like in the OP, I have no problem getting it digital. Especially when digital is 90% the cost of physical - idk if the game in the OP is or not tbf but it is often the case

I've always felt digital (games, books, etc) should be much cheaper than they are.

[Astro Bot | 99]

Things were so simple in the 80s and 90s. No game ever felt too long or too bloated, and the price of games didn't matter much since you had rental stores and you could borrow games from a friend. 

[avatar! | 1,948]

1 hour ago, fox said:

Totally $hitty metric to measure games by.  The fact that people take this seriously has lead so many games to be padded out with endless filler and bloat.

We can’t have a great compact campaign anymore.  Now everything has to be some 50 or 100 hour open world slog with the same activities copy pasted over and over and hundreds of collectibles.

 

I feel this is fairly true for many if not most AAA games, but not for most indie games. Indie games have much much smaller budgets, hence necessitate keeping everything streamlined.

[scaryice | 621]

9 hours ago, Khromak said:

I also think that "this is a 100 hour game" is marketing nonsense and a lot of modern games are SUPER padded with repetitive nonsense. People liked FF6, Chrono Trigger, etc. because they're 40 hour games of straight content. There's a big difference between doing 40 hours of catered, designed, paced content and modern games which are 60 hours of collecting grass, crafting generic weapons/armor, wandering around looking for hidden gems, repeating the same shitty "puzzles" etc.

That's funny, because FF6 & Chrono Trigger were actually marketed as being 80+ and 70+ hours long.

[Khromak | 837]

58 minutes ago, scaryice said:

That's funny, because FF6 & Chrono Trigger were actually marketed as being 80+ and 70+ hours long.

I mean...if you don't know where you're going or what you're doing or grind some levels I could maybe see it...but I pretty routinely beat the whole game and most of the side quests in like...30 something?

Either way though, the experience of those games is not padded at all (other than random encounters I guess?) and is extremely streamlined. Compare that to, say, Hogwarts Legacy and it's not even remotely comparable. It's a 40 hour game (or whatever) but the vast majority of play-time is repeating the same 10 activities until your eyes bleed.

[SNESNESCUBE64 | 625]

The view of "dollars per hour" is inherently flawed. Any crappy game can add grinding to artificially expand the length of the game. So many RPGs do that. There's a lot to be said about the quality of the time spent. It's just a matter of if the game is "complete".

[fcgamer | 5,020]

30 minutes ago, Khromak said:

I mean...if you don't know where you're going or what you're doing or grind some levels I could maybe see it...but I pretty routinely beat the whole game and most of the side quests in like...30 something?

Either way though, the experience of those games is not padded at all (other than random encounters I guess?) and is extremely streamlined. Compare that to, say, Hogwarts Legacy and it's not even remotely comparable. It's a 40 hour game (or whatever) but the vast majority of play-time is repeating the same 10 activities until your eyes bleed.

That's how I feel when folks complain about Mario 3 being too long. To clear every stage is like 2.5 hours max.

[twiztor | 923]

the example in the OP is an extreme example. i would really have to love the company/characters/IP for me to buy a 1 hr game at a $30 price point. but the opposite swing of the pendulum is true, too. I know i'm never going to play a 100+ hour game, so anything marketed as such is one that i'm not going to buy. 

happy medium? price games by length. $10 for a game that's <10 hours of enjoyment. $60 for a 60 hour game. 100+ hours sets you back $100.
(i'm not seriously advocating for this)

 

[Tyree_Cooper | 878]

1:57

 

[RH | 5,246]

I think some of you guys are missing the point.  Yes, I think dollars-per-hour as a sole metric is pointless, but it is important.

Just as @avatar! pointed out, there is a lower-bound.  I can't believe someone would release a one-hour game on physical for $30.  I mean, to each their own, and my guess is that it was a mini-cult classic and if people asked for it then, by all means, give them what they want.  But as a play experiment, that's not for me.  I can't recall what the minimal costs are to get a game licensed and printed from Sony, but I think if I recall from some metrics, it was something like $15-20 once you pay for printing and licensing for a minimal quantity.

For me, I can consider a 10ish hours of play game worth $30, so that's a minimum of about $3/hour.  And that's the key--where does it become not worth the purchase?  I'd agree, a one-hour game at that price wouldn't be worth it, but, if you already played it and loved the experience and wanted to "collect" a copy, then I guess that makes sense.  I've never had that experience with a super-short game, but I've definitely played games to completion and wanted to find a physical version after completing the game.  So, it makes sense.

[Code Monkey | 2,159]

Not important at all.

If you're going to argue short games should be cheaper, then you need to also agree that really long games should be more expensive. Would you pay $200 for Breath Of The Wild? 

[Tulpa | 3,735]

6 minutes ago, Code Monkey said:

Not important at all.

If you're going to argue short games should be cheaper, then you need to also agree that really long games should be more expensive. Would you pay $200 for Breath Of The Wild? 

Only if it came with a Steel Battalion style controller. 

Seriously, that would be badass. GET ON IT, NINTENDO! 

[Rhuno | 163]

It's not something I take into consideration at all. I'd almost say it's the inverse for me, I don't want games that are super long. Many of my favorite games can be finished in less than an hour.

[fox | 1,778]

13 hours ago, Khromak said:

But also...I think there is a minimum. I wouldn't want to pay $30 or $60 for a 1-2 hour long game (without replay value).

Homebrew section must be fuming right now

[Khromak | 837]

1 hour ago, Rhuno said:

It's not something I take into consideration at all. I'd almost say it's the inverse for me, I don't want games that are super long. Many of my favorite games can be finished in less than an hour.

I think this is a different statement though. Are your favorite games ones that you finished in less than an hour and then never touched again?

I think what the OP is getting at (or at least what I think is the more interesting question) is:

What is the appropriate amount of total entertainment you expect to get out of a game based on the dollars you spent on it?

If you spent $90 on a game and it contained 45 minutes of entertainment, I think most people would be disappointed, regardless of their preferred game length.

Most games that have a short length have replayability and the enjoyment comes from going back to them. A lot of people can beat Megaman 2 in less than an hour but they play it dozens of times, so it's worth more to them. It may only take an hour or two to get through Castlevania 3, but then you want to do it again and take a different path, play a different character, use different sub-weapons (or none), try for a deathless run, high score, etc.

These are fundamentally different from a game like the OP said which is 1 hour and then you have no desire to ever play it again.

Ultimately whether you have long play sessions / playthroughs of a game or short ones, you have an expectation of price per hour of entertainment. I'd be surprised if there were a lot of people who are thrilled to pay $70 for a game and then be finished with all it has to offer in 30 minutes. If it were a $5 game, possibly a different story.

This doesn't mean that you need to enjoy (or be looking for) long games. All it means is there is a correlation between the price and the amount of total entertainment throughout your entire experience with that game.

[Gentlegamer | 230]

Many great NES games are 15-30min long if you play straight through, and totally worth their 30-50 dollar price when released, which is something like 70-120 dollars now. Of course, the replay value is often high as well.

Games (and other media) shouldn't measured in duration as a unit a value; that's like buying it at the supermarket and its labeled to contain '6oz of game' or something. A mere qualitative expression usually isn't very informative of its real value (this includes # of levels or megs from old EGM).

The value of the experience is paramount, and length can be a huge detriment to that, but it varies from person to person.

Edited July 12 by Gentlegamer

[Splain | 2,725]

It is a little funny when I start thinking "this game has gone on long enough," shouldn't I be glad that the game is long?

Though I guess it's actually "this game isn't fun anymore" more than "this game is taking too much time." It took me a verrry long time to get bored of BotW.