Do you follow the 1 hour / dollar rule?

[Lant_War]

Games are quite expensive. Sure, buying a single game might not be, but when you consider everything that comes out in the year, even picking up a couple of games can cost you like $300.

So, to help save money, some internet genious decided to make the rule of only buying a game for how many hours it takes to beat, if it's a 20 hour game like Horizon Zero Dawn the price would be $20, a 40 hour game like Dark Souls 3 would be worth $40, and so on.

Personally, while I don't strictly follow the rule, I do tend to avoid buying games at full price if I know I'll get a max of like, 20 hours (The only exception I can think of is God of War, but I beat the game three times so it kind of evens out). Then there are games like Hollow Knight which offers like 30 hours at the very least for $15, and I'm much more inclined to buy games like that.

 

[LegalEagleMike]

So assassins creed odyssey is worth a ton then using this silly logic.

 

[Shelbyville Milhouse]

No, of course not

 

[Regiruler]

Nope. I bought Star Soldier R, an $8 game that only lasts 5 minutes. It's the most complete inversion of the rule I've ever witnessed.

Enjoyed it too.

 

[SteveWinwood]

ive never heard of it and it sounds dumb as all hell

is this "internet genious" you?

 

[Dreamboum]

I value the experience I have in that hour. I don't value padding at all.

 

[Lego Killer Moth]

Uh, no lol. There's hundred hour games I'd find no value in and short games I'd pay a lot for. Quality, not quantity.

 

[Tregard]

Ooh, I didn't know this was a thing! I try not to do stuff like this, I find applying values to the time spent makes some genres impossible to judge (Games like Tetris suffer from this, and inversely, something like Edith Finch)

 

[Ombala]

What? That's a ridiculous way to look at value, games with a lot of padding are the worse.

 

[Dunlop]

I don't have an assigned amount of hours needed, only that I enjoyed the experience.

Taking my family to a 2 hour movie costs like $100 after concessions so it is all relative : )

 

[shinobi602]

Not at all. I'd take 5 incredible hours of play versus 50 hours of an average time.

Inside was around 2 hours long and it's one of the best 20 bucks I spent this gen.

 

[Mbolibombo]

No, I find that silly. My sweetspot for games is somewhere around 8-12 hours, and if it's a great game, I find that well spent 60$ if the game costed as much.

if that was the case I would only play multiplayer games where I do get tons of hours for about 60$

 

[MTR]

My time is far more valuable than money

 

[Zonal Hertz]

Value is entirely relative and I'm fortunate to be in a situation these days where my time is much more valuable than the price of a videogame. I'd rather pay twice the amount for half the time but twice the enjoyment. Quality always over quantity.

 

[J_ToSaveTheDay]

I just play for as long as the game is mentally engaging beyond whatever nagging obligation to get my money's worth. If all I have left is that nagging obligation, I've just trained myself to quit playing because it's no longer actually worth my time to continue playing when the game is no longer engaging.

 

[Deleted member 1273]

Capitalism vore'd u, Op.

 

[bbq of doom]

For multiplayer centric games, yes. For everything else, no.

 

[FTF]

Don't give Nintendo any ideas, they'll start charging $120 for BoTW!

 

[Sabretooth]

even picking up a couple of games can cost you like $300.

Click to shrink...

Where do you live that games cost like $150 each

 

[NekoNeko]

what a load of nonsense.

 

[Kneefoil]

Quality over quantity, my dude.

 

[Deleted member 54469]

actually, shit like that is generally why i don't listen to very much on the internet at all these days.

for real? a game is worth as many hours as it lasts? i'm not paying a fucking mortgage for a world of warcraft expansion.

 

[Kyrios]

No, not at all. Value is subjective. A $30 5 hour game could be more fun than a $30 30 hour game.

 

[Trieu]

I would be willing to pay $60 for a game that is basically like Resident Evil 1,2,3 (the old PS1 games) that I can beat in 1-2 hours

 

[ParksCo2]

Having a narrow view of what decides value is absurd. Now using your logic what if I only pay you $1.00 per hour for your wage. Would you like that?

 

[Kazaam]

This is one of the dumbest "rules" I've heard, but I guess everyone should use their money in the best way they see fit. Also ... What couple of games are you buying for $300?

 

[Ojli]

No. I try to follow the Monkey Island rule of not pay more than $20. Nowadays, I almost never feel like I have to play on launch day, so I'm happy to wait for price to eventually drop. Also, with game pass, the feeling of value is insane and the $1/1h-rule is crushed.

 

[Yerffej]

lol what

 

[Zedark]

I do. Unfortunately it means I never get to watch any movies :(

Actually, I don't. 60 hours of mediocre content does not stand a chance against 10 hours of great gameplay and story. 60 for 5 hours might make it a bit difficult to justify for me, though, unless it's absolutely stellar.

 

[Fireblend]

This is an incredibly reductive metric, games are meant to be fun, and their monetary value has zero relation with that. I'd much rather play a brilliant 10 hour game that I'll enjoy and remember forever than a 90+ hour game that's repetitive, full of padding and I'll have to force myself to get through.

 

[Psychotron]

Apparently I owe Team Cherry a lot of money.

 

[Keikaku]

No, it's more like ¢10 / hour.

 

[Strings]

I value the experience I have in that hour. I don't value padding at all.

Click to shrink...

Exactly.

 

[Solid SOAP]

This logic indicates that a $13 movie has not proven its asking price until I have watched 13 hours of it, so no.

 

[Snormy]

The amount of time it takes to beat a game certainly has some weight when it comes to deciding if I want to buy it now or later but it never works out like the rule here. I have a back log and there really isn't a need to buy close to release for me. I don't mind waiting until a sale for games I want if I already know I do not have the time to play them or have other games to play. If anything, a long game is less likely to be bought by me because it seems like a heavier commitment time wise. This is especially true if there are announced DLC for the game. I'm not really interested in playing most long games more than once.

Ultimately time to beat isn't a huge consideration when I'm thinking about buying a game or what it is worth.

 

[BasilZero]

No.

I follow the $12 to $15 max for digital games and $20 to $30 max for physical games rule.

Anything less than the above mention better rule too ;P

 

[Com_Raven]

No, never. I am looking for a great experience, and don't try to forcibly assign a dollar/ hours value to that.

Also, living by that rule would be really expensive, seeing how I frequently spend hundreds of hours in a game :p

 

[Servbot24]

No, that's crazy. Some of the best games ever are under 10 hours, and there are plenty of garbage games that would take 100+ hours to fully complete.

I'm not spending money on games for the purpose of simply eliminating hours from my life.

 

[Deleted member 9971]

Yes including replay value hours.

 

[Lant_War]

Where do you live that games cost like $150 each

Click to shrink...

Uruguay. Physical games can go from like $110 to $140 depending on the game, digital games are ~$84 on the PS Store

 

[LewieP]

Seems like insanity to me. There is no correlation between length of game and level of enjoyment.

 

[WestEgg]

The quality of that hour is more important than the quantity of the hours. I've probably only put 40 hours or so into Mario Odyssey, but I hardly regret that purchase. I will say though, using this metric, some indie games are a crazy good value proposition.

 

[NekoNeko]

Apparently I owe Team Cherry a lot of money.

Click to shrink...

i would have paid $60 if they cut out 10 hours.

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

I'm not going to say that time played never enters the equation, but $1 per hour is a metric that exceptionally few games would meet unless I was waiting for massive sales on all my games years after they came out. Some of my favourite games have crossed this line (Grand Strategy titles) but for story driven games I'm usually looking for something 8-15 hours in length that is of very high quality, and I'm fine paying full price for that.

 

[Kalor]

Of course not. That would be insane to try to stick to it. I paid around £13 for Katana Zero recently for 4-5 hours and am completely happy with my purchase. This would basically mean you never buy any indie games, or require them to stick to an unsustainable price. Same on the opposite end for higher priced stuff.

 

[Soap]

Absolutely not. Even good games can be hard to finish (the Witcher 3). Sometimes I just want a short, linear game and don't kindness paying for it.

 

[WestEgg]

Impressive no one has voted yes after 124 votes. Expected at least one contrarian by now.

 

[plié]

I only subscribe to services, I don't buy games any longer so I dont view this issue like this.

 

[Duffking]

OPs been watching too many Funhaus videos

 

[Kanann]

1 lewd one dollar for me.