It's why I never make it through crpgs. I get 50 hours in then have to quit because they don't charge more.
-
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
Loosely. 60hrs is way too much to all from most games. I don't really care that much about the length of a game if it has good replayability.
But I wouldn't be happy with a $60 game with low replayability that can't entertain me for more than like 20hrs or something.
But I wouldn't be happy with a $60 game with low replayability that can't entertain me for more than like 20hrs or something.
Last edited:
Mine is more like, how much time is it asking from me. Like I have a kid that needs more attn than whatever I play, so something like Tetris will get all my time.
I have never once heard of this rule before today, and it sounds stupid as fuck. I don't know about you all, but I play games because they're fun.
I guess I have to answer "loosely". I'm not so strict on needing to hit a particular $1 / hour criteria. But the truth is, I'm less inclined to buy really short games at really high prices. There are definitely some short games that are worth it. But I don't think all my games could be like that. I couldn't make it the norm to continually buy ~10 hour games at $60, for example... that would just get too expensive too quickly.
Practically speaking though, it's not usually a problem I run into. I usually play long RPGs that provide much better value than $1 / hour, just because I like the genre, not because I'm specifically trying to hit a certain value criteria.
Practically speaking though, it's not usually a problem I run into. I usually play long RPGs that provide much better value than $1 / hour, just because I like the genre, not because I'm specifically trying to hit a certain value criteria.
No that sounds asinine to me. I don't play games for busywork to occupy x amount of time, I play them for fun.
I follow this loosely. It's just a way to justify spending 6500 yen on a game when I really don't have to buy one. (I'll get 65 hours out of it, so it's a good investment of money). I just did this with Final Fantasy XII on Switch.
I also use the "how many matcha cream latte's worth" measure for justifying buying indie games. Blossom Tales is now on sale in Japan for two match cream latte's. So if I don't go to Starbucks today or tomorrow, it's like the game is free! (Never mind I rarely ever go to Starbucks).
It's just fun ways to justify spending money on a hobby.
I also use the "how many matcha cream latte's worth" measure for justifying buying indie games. Blossom Tales is now on sale in Japan for two match cream latte's. So if I don't go to Starbucks today or tomorrow, it's like the game is free! (Never mind I rarely ever go to Starbucks).
It's just fun ways to justify spending money on a hobby.
Absolutely not. If I did, I'd pretty much only be playing RPGs and indie roguelikes and that's just no way to live.
I just buy and play what I like. If I can't wait then release prices. If I can wait then discount games all the way. Game pass is blurring those lines now too.
Gamers: "Games are art"
Also gamers: "A game is a bad deal if I don't get at least an hour of entertainment per dollar spent"
Also gamers: "A game is a bad deal if I don't get at least an hour of entertainment per dollar spent"
I don't have a hard and fast rule. If I think a game is too short for full price, I'll wait.
I tend to compare it to other forms or entertainment like the cinema. In the UK a cinema ticket is around 10 quid, so about 5 an hour. Most games are comparatively cheap in terms of money per hours worth of entertainment.
I tend to compare it to other forms or entertainment like the cinema. In the UK a cinema ticket is around 10 quid, so about 5 an hour. Most games are comparatively cheap in terms of money per hours worth of entertainment.
I have a similar rule in that when I'm justifying a purchase I look at how many hours I will play it against the cost.
I do this for other things too like TVs etc. A tv is used for as many hours as I'm allowed due to work commitments etc so I allow myself to buy the best TV I could possibly afford.
I do this for other things too like TVs etc. A tv is used for as many hours as I'm allowed due to work commitments etc so I allow myself to buy the best TV I could possibly afford.
I try to avoid this mentality, but to be perfectly honest I much prefer spending $60 on a 60 hour game than an 8 hour one. Assuming both games are good that is.
I will always be willing to spend $60 if I know I will get lots of fun hours out of it.
I will always be willing to spend $60 if I know I will get lots of fun hours out of it.
Last edited:
It has to matter to some degree. I don't think it's the same in all cases, but I will absolutely never understand the argument that an 8-12 hour single-player game is inherently worth more than a game that only has multiplayer when you can generally get hundreds (or thousands) of hours out of those.
Like, I don't regret spending $60 on TLoU, but I feel like I've gotten more value out of R6 Siege at the same price at 1800 hours and counting.
Like, I don't regret spending $60 on TLoU, but I feel like I've gotten more value out of R6 Siege at the same price at 1800 hours and counting.
Not all hours of gameplay are equal. I've played 60 hour RPGs where I thought the last twenty could be cut with no great loss, and tightly designed 2D games only 6 hours in length. I don't think the former is worth ten times as much as the latter, especially when I'm likely never to touch the former again but replay shorter games on a regular basis.
Considering that many long games are full of bloat and an-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to systems like RPG elements and crafting, all in order to hit an arbitrary large round number of hours on the back of the box, I don't think it's a great metric.
Considering that many long games are full of bloat and an-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to systems like RPG elements and crafting, all in order to hit an arbitrary large round number of hours on the back of the box, I don't think it's a great metric.
Last edited:
I do this with multiplyaer games. I gotta play at least 60 hours before i stop plaing it. Otherwise I feel like I didn't get my monies worth lol I usually enjoy them but in today's age there is just so many fucking games I an tempted to move on before I put in the 60. Recently went back to WoW and so I get back to that after I finish a new game.
If its a campaign only game then I buy half price. If it has a MP mode, i justify the $60. The exceptions only are halo and last of us.
Detroit was good but not worth 60. was only like 7 hours of gameplay.
Detroit was good but not worth 60. was only like 7 hours of gameplay.
Man there sure is a lot of negativity towards anyone that doesn't agree here. I do loosely follow the $1/hr rule. Does no one factor in replay value into the equation? Why is everyone just talking about lengthy campaigns and padding? I have 43 hours in Resident Evil 2 remake so far, and I feel like I got a good value for my dollar. A game doesn't have to be 60 hours long to be justified, I just want to get my money's worth for what it is. How I define value isn't
Edit: I guess you need to define "beat" here if we are just talking about how long to beat a game. Just getting to the ending? 100%? /shrug I'm sticking to my guns here. The perceived value of a game shouldn't be determined by its length, but how much you can enjoy it. I guess everyone defines that differently.
and I'm entitled to feel that way. I don't want to spend $60 on a game that I'm going to play for a couple hours and never touch again. I could just rent it for that.
Edit: I guess you need to define "beat" here if we are just talking about how long to beat a game. Just getting to the ending? 100%? /shrug I'm sticking to my guns here. The perceived value of a game shouldn't be determined by its length, but how much you can enjoy it. I guess everyone defines that differently.
Terrible idea, monster hunter is great but I'm not paying a grand to play it. Multilayer millage will vary, Fighters will be worth nothing shorter indie games will make no money, assassin's credd will worth a fortune while re2 remake will be worth 6 pounds, there are so many wholes in this logic. You can't guage hobbies this way.
While I do want my game to have a fair amount of content and will hesitate to spend full price on a game if it's a bit short, assuming it doesn't go on sale, I don't really follow that rule in particular. I mean, most of the 3D Mario games are pretty short, at least compared to most games nowadays, and I'd much rather spend $60 on them over most other games out there
That's the thing. A different person could get an absolutely fulfilling and enjoyable experience, 6-8 hours long, out of a $60/£50 game and feel like that it was completely worth it. Value, worth, it is all completely nebulous and you can't really tie it to a time and monetary marker, there are so many more factors that contribute than just those two. And, this is the big one, it is completely bespoke to each person.
