How much is an hour of gaming worth?
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Dec 1st 2006 at 2:15PM }
Gamasutra's Question of the Week now tackles a subject that, at this point, has been thoroughly abused by debating strangers constantly ramming into it as it strolls to the shop. How important is a video game's length? It's a very good question, but a clear answer has yet to emerge or even prove that it exists. The industry's responses to the issue make for an interesting read, certainly if you're a gamer juggling a demanding hobby with personal life and midnight crime fighting. Several commenters point out that a shorter game length better accomodates a busy lifestyle, with the completion of a short adventure proving more satisfying than the abandonment of a longer one halfway through. Predictably, several pundits argue that a $60 game should give you plenty of hours of gameplay and that it's simply a matter of getting what you've paid for. Such an argument has merit in extreme circumstances, but it also points towards some mysterious equation that could be used to calculate your game's value. Just how much should you pay per hour?
With largely subjective things like gameplay and enjoyment proving difficult to measure in meaningful ways, it's clear that a game's value -- which stretches beyond cost and length --is very difficult to adhere to a handful of dollars. Is an hour of Psychonauts worth the same as an hour of Devil May Cry? How many anti-meh's (see: The Algebra of Wows) per hour for each game? The best answer seems to be: length doesn't matter at all, it simply comes down to how you feel about the game. You'll know when you've gotten your money's worth, perhaps after spending just 15 minutes with the game.
Fun fact: This blogger gladly paid full price for Space Channel 5, a game that can easily be completed in under 45 minutes.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
eight @ Dec 1st 2006 2:29PM
I agree, that its not the length its the... um... depth? well, the depth of the experience. Ive been plaing the BK games and they are 4bucks. but i would have paid 10 for them becasue theyre pretty fun and have great replay value.
on the other hand, while i liked Dead Rising i will only play it once, and with my SDTV found it FAR from worth the 60 dollars even thought it is a fairly long game.
RiskyChris @ Dec 1st 2006 4:56PM
At this stage in my life, I have vastly more disposable income than I have time to play games. High, high quality games like HL2, Z:TP, and NSMB will take the majority of my playtime.
This is due not to being rich or anything -- I just can only spare at best 2 hours a day to play games anymore.
hegemonyhog @ Dec 1st 2006 2:29PM
The entire article boils down to: you value the experiences which return the most value to you, however you define that.
Question answered. Back to more picture of Wiitalities.
Cbisnow @ Dec 1st 2006 2:31PM
Gears of War was very short, but worth every damn penny! I'd gladly pay another $60 right now for 5 more levels!
Daniel @ Dec 1st 2006 4:01PM
I'll pay for quality over quantity any day of the week and twice on Sundays, plain and simple.
I don't care how short the game is. If it's fun as all hell, I'll pay whatever.
PodMonkeys @ Dec 1st 2006 2:38PM
I had a nicely written up post done, but it appears the site ate my post.
Basically, I like two types of games:
1. Long sit down sessions.
2. Games capable of playing in 1-2 minute bursts on a portable (good for train+subway commuting)
I tend to like longer overall running games to make it feel worth my money, but some games are good enough to buy even if short.
32_Footsteps @ Dec 1st 2006 2:41PM
It's not a question of length, it's a question of fun.
Space Channel 5 is a great example. If you liked it enough to replay it a dozen times, you've dumped 9 hours into it, and it doesn't look so ridiculous. But if you buy an RPG that promises 50 hours of play, and get fed up after 2, then it's not worth it.
The worth is in how many *fun* hours you get with the game, not in the total hours you get.
Andi Smith @ Dec 1st 2006 8:27PM
Banjo-Kazooie was the best money I've ever spent... it may not have been the longest game, but it surely was the most fun I've had with a game... possibly ever.
SickNic @ Dec 1st 2006 4:51PM
Plus you have to figure in online multiplayer. I still play COD2 online more than any other game, even though I finished the game long ago.
bm @ Dec 1st 2006 2:50PM
I really, REALLY hate it when a game ends too soon just when I'm having so much fun. Feels like I paid for half a game.
But then, there are great games which are really short, like Ikaruga, and don't feel any less awesome for it.
So in short, length DOES matter, but only in some cases.
Nate @ Dec 1st 2006 2:49PM
32_footsteps: "The worth is in how many *fun* hours you get with the game, not in the total hours you get."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
ackmondual @ Dec 1st 2006 2:55PM
No way to accurately measure since every1 is using fun factor as the primary factor which is subjective. It's like how much should a 750mL bottle of wine be priced at. Some people enjoy, WoW and Diablo 2 where u excessively (and I mean REALLY so) click on the screen and getting excited at finding rare/set items.
As for me, I like all types of lengths of games. Final Fantasy 6 is a long term 20 - 50+ hour game that sucked me in. On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoy Monkey Ball and Mario Party short games as well. Long games can be too time consuming, but short games can be too simple that they get boring kinda quickly (despite those games containing dozens of mini-games), so it's nice to strike a balance between the 2 by having both types of games avaiable.
In the end, games should be "reasonbly priced". There will always be ppl who were willing to pay more for it (fanatics), and those who think it's always too expensive (short selling it for an unreasonble price to the sellers/devs like $10 per console game... people who emulate for free namely)
Brandon @ Dec 1st 2006 3:56PM
I'd easily pay 60 for the new super smash brothers. I love the first two and with the new levels and characters I want that game.
Raquor @ Dec 1st 2006 4:53PM
I'd agree that length is less important than fun. As I get older and more things pull on my time I find I enjoy the shorter games quite a bit more. Simple control schemes, short storylines (I'm talking 10-30 hours max), and plenty of cool collectibles (items, weapons, etc..) to add 10-20 more replay hours.
Ratchet and Clank is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about. That game is just FUN and I replayed the first one just to get the RYNO and it was completely worth it. That gun just plain RULES!
My favorite type of replay is being able to tackle the same situation but use a completely different strategy.
MthdDirector @ Dec 1st 2006 3:01PM
I agree - Gears was over pretty soon. I know that I'll probably play it at all the skill levels, though.
I do feel that Gears was a game that gave me my money's worth - and I was able to sit down for 15 minutes and get through a couple checkpoints.
I was somewhat disappointed that the storyline of Gears didn't take more advantage of this amazing backdrop that the designers created.
The whole premise- that some horrible accident happened that cause these creatures to come out of the earth - that's pretty damn cool, but also not given more than 30 seconds of explanation during the whole game.
I'm glad that Cliffy and team focused on making a kick-ass game. I just hope in future iterations they see the bigger potential of the universe beyond just "shoot, reload, move forward."
Que @ Dec 1st 2006 3:08PM
I might be alone in thinking this, but since I've been buying my own games for the past 9 years, I've come to a conclusion that games shouldn't be priced at over aprox. $10 for every hour it takes you to play the game.
If you buy a DVD when it comes out, you're probably going to get about 2 hours of enjoyment out of it, assuming most people don't care about most of the "extras." Also, most DVD's are $20 give or take when they're first released. So in that same sense is how I view my gaming purchases.
If I buy a $40 game, I want it to last me 4 hours at least, anything more and I feel ripped off, but anything more is always a plus.
Que @ Dec 1st 2006 3:49PM
"anything less and I feel ripped off" is how that last post should've read.
White Rose Duelist @ Dec 1st 2006 3:16PM
Que - Wow, your criteria is pretty loose. I would be majorly peeved if I only got 5-6 hours of gameplay out of a new game, no matter what the price. I would consider something more like $2-3 an hour to be worthwhile.
Of course, I managed to get Pokémon Sapphire down to 9¢ an hour before Greyound lost my copy. Various other games in that series and Disgaea are the only games I recall getting twice as many hours as dollars spent out of.
Lagphree @ Dec 1st 2006 3:18PM
Let's compare the value of a game with the value of going to a movie, two very popular forms of entertainment. A movie lasts around 2 hours...and will cost you around $10, and by the time you get some food/drink you are closer to $20...so that's $10/hour to enjoy your movie.
Some of the games I have bought, I played literally hundreds of hours (UT, Quake, Diablo, WOW). Probably even over a thousand hours for a few (Quake). So assuming $60 for a game, divided by lets just guess 500 hours (I probably played more), for a grand total of $0.12 / hour. You could say "but what about electric cost to use your computer"...well at $0.04 per killowatt hour...not much. Entertainment couldn't be any cheaper. Not many games hold my attention that long, so sometimes I get a bad deal...like when I bought NWN2 and played for 10 minutes before giving it to a friend saying "I never want to see this game again" (that's $360 / hour). Not a good deal. Some games are worth it, some are not, and will vary from person to person. If you aren't happy with a game...just put it on ebay and hope for the best.
Game on!
Hezekiah Kidron @ Dec 4th 2006 4:35PM
Admitedly, I am probably an exception to the rule, but I expect dozens and dozens of hours (preferably hundreds) out of a game if I am going to pay full price (around $50) for it. In the last 9 years, I have paid full price for only 10 games. Of those, 5 or 6 have given me a good value for my money. Generally, this is because the multiplayer had something that held my attention for a very long time.
Given the disparity of comments on this thread (from $10 an hour, to my pennies an hour) I think it's clear that value is in the eye of the beholder. I don't envy game designers tasked with making mega-block-busting-best-selling-games (MBBBSGs). Tastes of individuals aro so varied I can't imagine how they can please everyone.
juv3nal @ Dec 1st 2006 3:22PM
The main crux of the matter from my point of view is that if the game is too short, then it makes more sense to rent rather than buy it.
Sean D. @ Dec 1st 2006 3:23PM
Yes, you can finish games like Space Channel 5 and Rez in a short ammount of time, but the goal of those games (at least for me) is how accurately can you finish the game? You wouldn't play Guitar Hero just to finish it, would you? Of course not, you keep playing it to see how good you can get... and in multiplayer mode, Guitar Hero can provide a lifetime of enjoyment.
Fighting and puzzle games also offer good limitless fun with friends and I find them to be of high hour per dollar value too.
I wait for all games to hit the Greatest Hits bins these days, since I rarely have time to play something when it first comes out anyway (I've still got original release games in wrappers on my shelf that now have Greatest Hits versions.)
ezkialrage @ Dec 1st 2006 4:31PM
i paid 20 bux for the new space channel 5 collecters when it came out. and besides the 5 bux i spent for need for speed high stakes on the pc (back in the day) i would say it is one of the best purchases ive ever made. i wish more games like SC5, parappa, rez existed. musical simon. i love it. and the space micheal dance sequence was the best in the game.
Anticrawl @ Dec 1st 2006 3:46PM
I can relate to this article. With all my late night crime fighting *slips on black pants* I have been looking for an efficient way to find the best value in a game. *stretches tight black top and cape on* I'm always looking for the best bang for my buck *clips shiney yellow belt on, followed by boots and gloves*, and some people call me cheap because of it. *Dawns the Batman mask* But as the Dark Knight I can't waste time fooling around with games that don't satisfy my purchase. That's why I created an equation to just figure it all out for me, and for only 4 easy payments of $19.99 it can be yours. That's pennies on the dollar, and if you act now I'll batarang one of those payments for you. That's just 3 easy payments of $19.99. Call now *shoots grappling hook out window LOST PLANET style and vanishes*.
-Game Value Equation is a regestered trademark of Batman Inc. $19.99 does not include shipping and handling, which is an additional $473.42 for standard ground delivery. This product is not intended for residents of Texas, Massachusetts, and sometimes y is also a vowel.-
Anticrawl
Judd @ Dec 1st 2006 4:39PM
Obviously, a games length means nothing if the gameplay sucks. But no matter how much fun the game is, if I'm putting $50 to $60 into a game, and I haven't put at least 20 hours into it, it's just not worth it. I know most people have too busy of a schedule to beat every game they play. So maybe episodic gaming is a good option. Releasing a 5 hour game for $15 makes it easier for everyone to jump into. I feel satisfied with the BK games, they are fun and worth the $12. But a full priced game should carry a full lenghted experience. But by 20 hours that doesn't actually mean the reviewers list it as a 20 hour game, just the total length of time I spend devoted to this title.
What it all comes down to is replay value. Now a game can be short in length like Brain Age, but the fun is in it's replay value. I made sure to train for those 20 minutes every day for a month. Halo 2's first player can be beaten in a day, but it's multiplayer is what has kept that game on people's shelves.
A game should have a reason for me to come back to it. The doesn't mean it has to be multiplayer, as shown by my case with Brain Age. Elder Scrolls IV is an open-world RPG, and although it's only single player, the options allow me to come back to the game in years and go through the story in a whole new way.
My favorite types of games are action-adventure, but you bet I'd trade many of those games in once I beat them. The last game I beat was Shenmue 2 which left me with a great experience, but there was no point in me keeping it around after I beat it. Psychonauts was fun, but what point do I have keeping it around? I could try to collect all the cobwebs to level up my character, but to get some of them would be too much a pain in the ass to bother. I haven't played Twilight Princess yet, but I know that in Ocarina of Time I was captivated enough by the game, that even after I beat it I went around collecting Gold Skulltulas and heart pieces. For me that makes or break a game, after all is said in done, do you ever want to go back? Even after I beat OoT, I played the whole game over again years later.
This leaves me with a question: Assuming that the amount of hours played does matter, how do we know how accurate the games length is? I personally like to goof around a lot when I play, when reviewers test a games length do they stay on course? Do they take into account if someone dies? What about how someone can get stuck on a puzzle? Do they go around and collect all the secrets too? I'd like to assume that when I am given a games length, I am given its least common denominator. This game will take you this many hours, if you follow the main quest, don't die, and know what to do in every situation.
webrunner @ Dec 1st 2006 4:41PM
Just because a game is 10 hours long, doesn't mean you won't get 20-30-40 hours of gameplay out of it.
But ultimately, it does have to do with how much fun you're getting out of it.
price divided by (
Average Fun per hour
times the number amount of hours
)
So a game that's, let's use an arbitrary number here, fun 9 per hour, for 10 hours, that's 90 fun points. If it's a 60 dollar game, that means you're paying 67 cents a fun point.
Meanwhile, a 60 hour game, that's fun 1 per hour, is 60 fun points. At 60 dollars, that game, despite being longer, is $1 a fun point.
There were a few game review sites that measured "how much I would have paid for this game", I think that's a better indicator of quality than some generic score.
Actually that's an idea: Every game is rated by the difference in price compared to what it should be and what it is. Wii Sports would be like +$40, Red Steel might be like -$25, etc. etc.
rockintom99 @ Dec 2nd 2006 10:18PM
Length *is* pretty important, but not when it really isn't fun and feels tacked on *coughOkamicough*
justin @ Dec 1st 2006 4:57PM
Multiplayer makes it a moot point. Goldeneye and Mario Kart 64 are worth their weights in gold, then.
Pat @ Dec 2nd 2006 3:57PM
$7.50 an hour. I was just playing mariokart on DS against a coworker for 2 hours at work.
Brendan @ Dec 1st 2006 4:14PM
I usually go with the $7/hour rule. I work around minimum wage ($7/hour), so as long as a $50 game is roughly 7 hours or more (7*7=49, kids), then it's worth it.
Moogle @ Dec 1st 2006 4:19PM
yeah, it's a really complicated equation. My addition to it is that even if the game is free, my time spent on it is worth something. Otherwise everyone would play free crappy flash games all day.
I felt *really* ripped off by Prey, and I thought it was just the really short length and utter lack of replayability. Thinking on it more, the gameplay was fine, but what realllllly got me PO'ed was the story that ammounted to any progress or success you had was solely at the whim of an all-powerful boss, who has a really lame finishing battle. As fun as some parts were, they killed it with that crap story. HL2 and FEAR were great games IMHO partially because they make the player feel powerful and potent in their universes.
Oblivion had some slow parts, but was WELL worth the money, I put at *least* a hundred hours into that game. Some time next year when I've played everything significant on gametap and Wii, I'll probably go back into oblivion for the mods.
On the whole, I do feel that a $50+ game should give me over 15 hours of gameplay. If I can finish it in a weekend it's too short. The story can also break the deal, but if it's not terrible I'm still happy.
Alan @ Dec 1st 2006 4:28PM
I feel that length is a very important factor when I comes to buying games. Not just the length of the single player, but also how long the multiplayer will keep you interested. Sure, Gears of War is short game but the multiplayer keeps drawing me back to the game. I want to get the most out of my money (Final Fantasy Tatics: Advance has cost me 34 cents an hour). Why would I pay $60 for game that only lasts me a few hours?
ts8lemonade @ Dec 1st 2006 4:33PM
Length is certainly not a HUGE factor for me, but it is nice to have a grand long adventure to embark upon every now and again. Don't get me wrong Gears of War was great, but it was so short. I was really expecting a long campaign out of that game, and when the credits started rolling after 8 hours of playing it in a single day I was heartbroken.
And now they are talking about having a sequal or many sequals for Gears. That part particularly makes me mad, because honostly I feel like they should have spent more time making this game and incorporated the whole story. Why not just make a lengthy game that includes the whole story for once instead of splitting the game into multiple parts? Oh right, because Microsoft had to have Gears out for this holiday season and this way we'll end up paying for 2, 3, or even 4 games when it should have been one game that I had to pay for.
Adran @ Dec 1st 2006 6:13PM
This is an important subject to me, as my gaming budget is really limited. I have to limit my spending on games to one every few months, usually, so if I'm not going to be spending more than a few hours on it, seldom is it worth my precious gaming dollars.
I would say that the longer a game is, all other things equal, the better. In other words, provided that the game doesn't get tiresome after n hours, then n should be as large as possible. On the other hand, a long game doesn't mean a good game at all: I just beat FFXII, and by the 70 hour mark, I was sick of playing... I was close enough to the end of the game that I kept going to beat it, but it left a bitter taste in my mouth to, at the end, think to myself "I'm glad THAT'S over!" Even if that wasn't the feeling I had the whole game, it still leaves me feeling like the game wasn't so great (this coming from a fan of FF since the NES).
On the other hand, I put in well over 150 hours on Disgaea, and loved it all the way through doing all of the sidequests, and remember it as one of my favorite games. Between myself and my wife's save files, we paid something like 20 cents per hour for that game. Pokemon and Lufia 2, likewise, have had enough quality play time that I remember them fondly at fractions of a dollar per hour of play. And with multiplayer, I almost feel like I -made- money on SSBM and Tetris Attack (Mathematics be damned!).
There are a few shorter games that really end up being worth the money (Rez, Katamari, Shadow of the Colossus, Etc), but such a game must be exceptional in some way for me to feel that it's been worth full retail price. I also find that, for longer single-player games, interesting plot and characters are essential... it keeps the motivation going, gives you something to get more involved in, and provides much-needed breaks in the action. I also think that many smaller stages/dungeons are almost always preferable to a few huge ones, but that may just be me.
eM @ Dec 5th 2006 8:03PM
It's important to consider the amount of "anti-fun" in games as well. Ikaruga with the addition of five hours of tedious filler would not only not be better than Ikaruga proper, it would actually be much, much worse.
So we end up with something like:
(AverageFun - 2 * AverageRequiredAntifun) * GameLength * ReplayValue * dphf = Worth
where dpf (dollars per hour of fun) is a constant. So a boring-as-watching-paint-dry RPG gets a negative worth, even if it has a few neat FMV sequences and a nice final boss whereas a short but sweet play-this-every-week-for-the-rest-of-my-life platformer gets a high positive worth.
Flash Gamer @ Dec 6th 2006 11:09AM
Just like balancing your diet you also need to balance your time to achieve optimal health. Obviously I don’t think it is very healthy to spend 16+ hours per day gaming. On the flip side, I wouldn’t suggest spending that time doing working your day job either.