-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Do you follow the 1 hour / dollar rule?
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
Never heard of that rule, but I have no problem waiting for a game to drop in price before I pick it up. Most recently, I got Horizon on the PS Store for $15 when Sony put it on sale. I'm not someone who has to play a game when it releases since I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to playing games.
OP
OP
With GoW I did some of the side missions after finishing the story. Horizon's world is so boring that unless you're taking screenshots every five steps (like I did) there's not much to do.
A movie ticket also includes the price of all the employees, the location, and obviously the actual movie. Plus, movies are super expensive to make / hour, compared to videogames.
That sounds utterly ridiculous and I don't actually buy that anyone follows it.
Sure, length has an impact on my decision to purchase a game, but it's not the only factor. Even the idea of "loosely" following the rule seems incredibly dumb, just buy or don't buy a game if you do or don't want it, why set arbitrary rules?
Sure, length has an impact on my decision to purchase a game, but it's not the only factor. Even the idea of "loosely" following the rule seems incredibly dumb, just buy or don't buy a game if you do or don't want it, why set arbitrary rules?
Nah. But I rent a lot of games and I worked out my rough value, which is about £1 an hour funnily enough.
The movie ticket analogy doesn't really work anymore as movie pass schemes are so common, at least in the UK. I almost never pay more than £2-3 for a film.
I do feel like the premium on VR games is a bit over the odds though. £20-25 for a 2-hour game is taking the piss, really.
The movie ticket analogy doesn't really work anymore as movie pass schemes are so common, at least in the UK. I almost never pay more than £2-3 for a film.
I do feel like the premium on VR games is a bit over the odds though. £20-25 for a 2-hour game is taking the piss, really.
Nope. Sometimes I'm a bit of a cheapass and I'm breaking myself of it. For example, Void Bastards is said to be a 15 hour or so game. I thought that was a bit much for 30 bucks...then I though "Hell, if you break it down that is like an hour of good times for 2 bucks a pop. Can't beat that with a stick."
Ive been trying to brake mysef from the cost per hour mentality and feel I have been doing pretty well lately. The people that made these games(mainly I have this view for indies) gotta eat too, so if I want to play your game ive no issue paying for it.
Ive been trying to brake mysef from the cost per hour mentality and feel I have been doing pretty well lately. The people that made these games(mainly I have this view for indies) gotta eat too, so if I want to play your game ive no issue paying for it.
I am cheap, never heard of this rule i rarely purchase games over $15, in the last decade only purchased 7 games at full or half price..
No I don't follow it. But I do evaluate my purchases based on time played/dollar rule. So if I spend $50 on a game but get 50 hours of play out of it I say it's a pretty good purchase.
I'll never understand the idea that time = value in gaming. Cuphead was only like 12-15 hours and yet I would have paid 60 dollars. Likewise Destiny as a series has given me over 1000 hours and I would say Ive only enjoyed like 30% of its content. Time just has nothing to do with my actual enjoyment with a game.
No, never. That encourages all "full priced games" to be 80 hour affairs. I'll take a tight 15 hour game vs a bloated 80 hour game.
A better rule would be it should provide more entertainment than it took to earn the money to buy the game... but even that... Not sure. There are no hard/fast rules to define value.
A better rule would be it should provide more entertainment than it took to earn the money to buy the game... but even that... Not sure. There are no hard/fast rules to define value.
The cost of development has no impact on demand. Demand affects what a producer will make, taking into consideration the cost of development.
What you described is why he $1 dollar an hour rule is so pointless and dumb. How much you want something affects whether $1 an hour is a great or terrible price, not how much the dev and publisher spent to create it.
Does this mean movies will go to $2?
Agreed. Feed the programmers, artists, cleaning staff, and voice actors ramen.
Agreed. Feed the programmers, artists, cleaning staff, and voice actors ramen.
I don't. If it's a really short game that's easily beatable in a sitting (which is like 1-2hrs for me), I probably wouldn't pay 60$ for it though. I understand money is tight for a lot of folks, but gaming is a relatively cheap hobby. It's a shame if some people purely view games like this.
Portal was what? 3-4 hours, maybe 5 with breaks and do-overs...
...and it was worth the entire $60 that Orange Box cost at release.
For me personally, it's the quality of the gameplay experience, not simply the hours it lasted.
...and it was worth the entire $60 that Orange Box cost at release.
For me personally, it's the quality of the gameplay experience, not simply the hours it lasted.
OP
OP
Enjoyment is what I count, give me a great experience even if it is a bit short and I am happy.
I don't want overly long games that wear out their welcome, so that would be a bad rule. Persona 5, for example, one of my favorite games last year, was far too long, and dragged out the ending too much. Give me a really good 20 hour game, and I'll pay $60 for it. $50 for a 10 hour game with replayability.
I have well over a thousand hours in Elite Dangerous and I picked it up on a Steam sale for like 15 dollars. I also bought the PIP Boy edition of Fallout 4 and dropped that game like the disappointment it was after like 6 hours. So uhh no I dont.
Ok wait wait wait..So much wrong here let me decompress this for a sec.
So first off, Horizon like it or not had plenty of side missions and optional exploration to do. If you didn't like the game or weren't into exploring then thats valid but to say it didn't have them is wrong.
Next is the big one, So by your logic here Game Devs dont have to pay employees or the vendors that sell the games (location) and then get money for the title itself? Games cost as much to make as movies in some cases and even if not they take a more time generally and arguably more repetitive tedious effort. Id argue theres more fun in making movies than games.
To say that games dont have a similar overhead to movies is just wild yo!
A lot of fallacious arguments in here. This thread is rife with apples vs oranges comparisons (e.g., the movie theater ticket analogy), many of which rely on a false dilemma between quality and quantity that assumes an inverse relationship between game length and quality (e.g., "I'd rather spend $60 on a good 10 hour game than on a mediocre 100 hour game!"). This is partly on the OP for framing the issue around game completion instead of game enjoyment, so many of the responses are framed around indignation toward being forced to complete some oppressively long game that is "generic" and/or "mediocre." The merits of the "rule" would be given a much fairer shake if we suspended our assumptions about any variables other than the amount of hours the buyer expects to enjoy playing the game, and consider a scenario in which the buyer must choose between paying their hard-earned $60 on a a game they expect to enjoy for 60 hours ($1 per hour) or a game they only expect to get 10 hours of enjoyment from ($6 per hour). I don't think it's controversial or "stupid" or "insane" to assign more value to the former game than to the latter and allow that value to influence one's purchasing decision.
I don't get why people always say that they attempted to redeem Akechi.
Yes, he sacrificed himself but I never thought about it as a means to redemption. It was a cheap escape for him and it fell in line with his character. He went out his own way as he didn't want to face his problems. To me, it's a character that lived and died by his own actions.
You are so full of nonsense I don't even know where to start.
By this logic Once Upon A Time In America is the greatest film of all time.....this was a bad example.