How many hours of gameplay should a $60 game give you?

[Digital-Kill3r-7]

Some of you have zero respect for your own time lmao. You'd rather slog through a dull 60-hour open world collectathon over an incredibly designed and well-paced 6-hour campaign all in the name of "value."

Here's a lesson: life is short. Value your time, not your money (by all accounts, your time is much more valuable). If a game can manage to deliver 60 hours of consistent amazingness, then great, but thinking that every game must hit some benchmark to justify its $60 price tag is a quick way to waste your time and get burnt out.

 

[Renna Hazel]

More than 10 hours is a good number to me. I didn't vote since you have ranges in the poll. 10 hours is the minimum but if I get 100 hours out of it that's way better.

 

[Shinku_King]

I mainly play fighters so I get a good 50-1000 hours worth for $60+ dlc so that's some good value, but if it's single player I want at least 30hours.

 

[Musubi]

Where is the option for I dont care? I'm interested mostly in quality not time.

 

[Bunkles]

Needs a poll option for don't care.

 

[sora87]

I only buy games i know are going to take me a long time to beat, like DQ11 or Persona 5.
Everything else i just rent, not spending nearly £50 on a 7-8 hour game.

 

[MagnusGman]

I mean if a game was 60 dollars and only one hour - depending on how amazing that hour is, that would be something I could live with.

 

[IvorB]

Some of you have zero respect for your own time lmao. You'd rather slog through a dull 60-hour open world collectathon over an incredibly designed and well-paced 6-hour campaign all in the name of "value."

Here's a lesson: life is short. Value your time, not your money (by all accounts, your time is much more valuable). If a game can manage to deliver 60 hours of consistent amazingness, then great, but thinking that every game must hit some benchmark to justify its $60 price tag is a quick way to waste your time and get burnt out.

Click to shrink...

I would have thought it would go without saying that people who want more time also want quality time not filler. Do you really think anyone in this thread is calling for more crappy filler to justify a price point?

 

[Astronut325]

Under 10. Just make them excellent.

As I get older, I can't find the time to play 30-100 hour games.

 

[Bosch]

At least 60 hours.

 

[Digital-Kill3r-7]

I would have thought it would go without saying that people who want more time also want quality time not filler. Do you really think anyone in this thread is calling for more crappy filler to justify a price point?

Click to shrink...

Considering I can count on one hand the amount of 20+ hour games that maintain a consistent level of quality throughout, implicitly yes. I can absolutely imagine people in this thread choosing a 20 hour game over a 6 hour game based on length alone.

 

[Mr.Deadshot]

Each to their own but as I said to me anything below 10 hours to complete will be seen as a negative when they are asking $60. Especially if it;s the type of game you wouldn't really play more than once.

Click to shrink...

To each it's own but I really can't get behind the concept to measure experiences/fun on the time spent with it.

 

[khamakazee]

To each it's own but I really can't get behind the concept to measure experiences/fun on the time it took me to get there.

Click to shrink...

I think that is why we have pricing scales that are far more relevant today then they have ever been. No longer should all games be $60.

 

[IvorB]

Considering I can count on one hand the amount of 20+ hour games that maintain a consistent level of quality throughout, implicitly yes. I can absolutely imagine people in this thread choosing a 20 hour game over a 6 hour game based on length alone.

Click to shrink...

I don't think so. There's so many games that can provide over 20+ quality content easily. Pretty much any good RPG, looter shooters like Division and Destiny, fighting games etc. Maybe you need to be exposed to better games. The last three games I've bought at launch: Monster Hunter: World., The Division 2, Divinity: Original Sin 2 were each over 100 hours of great quality gaming easy.

 

[Starlatine]

Considering I can count on one hand the amount of 20+ hour games that maintain a consistent level of quality throughout, implicitly yes. I can absolutely imagine people in this thread choosing a 20 hour game over a 6 hour game based on length alone.

Click to shrink...

I will choose an okay long game like odyssey for sixty bucks over an okay short game like Virginia for the same sixty bucks, yes. This is the question of the thread - not saying i wouldnt play virginia because its short, i wouldnt buy virginia for less than 60$ or even that i find AC Odyssey better than Virginia.

"You can always make more money!! You cant make more time!!!" are the people saying this stupidity serious? How the hell do you think people make money, everybody is an heir to some rich folk? You make money by working and you use your time working. This is the dumbest counterpoint to tell anyone who values their hard gained money more than ten minutes of "bliss" in games when the dreaded long games can easily be entertaining as well but not are not finished in the time you warm a meal and then sit on the back of your HD forever. By the way you people keep saying this, can i have an example of this absolute bliss which totally cant be measured by hours per dollar? cause i sure dont know one

 

[ShadowFox08]

I think for me, 20hrs minimum is good. There can be less for games like cod, as long as they have multiplayer.

 

[Digital-Kill3r-7]

I don't think so. There's so many games that can provide over 20+ quality content easily. Pretty much any good RPG, looter shooters like Division and Destiny, fighting games etc. Maybe you need to be exposed to better games. The last three games I've bought at launch: Monster Hunter: World., The Division 2, Divinity: Original Sin 2 were each over 100 hours of great quality gaming easy.

Click to shrink...

I think we just have different definitions of great.

 

[Digital-Kill3r-7]

I will choose an okay long game like odyssey for sixty bucks over an okay short game like Virginia for the same sixty bucks, yes. This is the question of the thread - not saying i wouldnt play virginia because its short, i wouldnt buy virginia for less than 60$ or even that i find AC Odyssey better than Virginia.

"You can always make more money!! You cant make more time!!!" are the people saying this stupidity serious? How the hell do you think people make money, everybody is an heir to some rich folk? You make money by working and you use your time working. This is the dumbest counterpoint to tell anyone who values their hard gained money more than ten minutes of "bliss" in games when the dreaded long games can easily be entertaining as well but not are not finished in the time you warm a meal and then sit on the back of your HD forever. By the way you people keep saying this, can i have an example of this absolute bliss which totally cant be measured by hours per dollar? cause i sure dont know one

Click to shrink...

No other medium has this childish standpoint of seriously weighing quantity. Nobody is debating whether to see Avengers Endgame or Toy Story 4 on the pretense of one being 3 hours and the other being less than 2. Same goes for books, movies, etc. Shit, imagine someone caring about the total runtime on an album (not that anyone buys albums anymore)?

It's just a super simple-minded thing due to the youth of this medium. The implied hours/dollar ratio "gamers" attach to games is such an archaic way of viewing art/entertainment/media.

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

I'm blown away at the amount of under 10 responses.

 

[IvorB]

Waiting for someone famous to put out a full price, three song album and everyone's okay with that because 'those three songs are great!'. Or the next Avengers movie is only 30 mins but it's the best 30 mins of your life ha ha.

 

[Starlatine]

No other medium has this childish standpoint of seriously weighing quantity. Nobody is debating whether to see Avengers Endgame or Toy Story 4 on the pretense of one being 3 hours and the other being less than 2. Same goes for books, movies, etc. Shit, imagine someone caring about the total runtime on an album (not that anyone buys albums anymore)?

It's just a super simple-minded thing due to the youth of this medium. The implied hours/dollar ratio "gamers" attach to games is such an archaic way of viewing art/entertainment/media.

Click to shrink...

Again using the phallacy of comparing totally different entertainment options to videogames. But sure i'll play ball with you; nobody pays full price on an album that they plan to listen once, anyone buying an album know or at least assume they will like the content and will relisten to it several times. Nobody buys a fully priced bluray of a ten minute short video. Even if they never rewatch a movie (most never do) they pick it based on personal preference and extra content. Even with this distorted comparison its still pretty clear to see how people correlate their enjoyment of said material with how much they want to spend on it.

There's nothing childish about wanting more from your money, the only thing childish and entitled here is a bunch of americans thinking the entire world operates on the same value as theirs and anyone who doesnt (or even can) drop 60$ into any artsy 2 hour experiment about being a fungus would rather play a 200 hour bloated game instead out of sheer dumbness.

 

[Digital-Kill3r-7]

Again using the phallacy of comparing totally different entertainment options to videogames. But sure i'll play ball with you; nobody pays full price on an album that they plan to listen once, anyone buying an album know they like they content and will relisten to it several times. Nobody buys a fully priced bluray of a ten minute short video. Even if they never rewatch a movie (most never do) they pick it based on personal preference and extra content. Even with this distorted comparison its still pretty clear to see how people correlate their enjoyment of said material with how much they want to spend on it.

There's nothing childish about wanting more from your money, the only thing childish and entitled here is a bunch of americans thinking the entire world operates on the same value as theirs and anyone who doesnt (or even can) drop 60$ into any artsy 2 hour experiment about being a fungus would rather play a 200 hour bloated game instead out of sheer dumbness.

Click to shrink...

You seem to be waging some sort of weird cultural war against Americans (no idea how you got there, but whatever), so I'll leave you with one last response before quitting this conversation:

Gaming isn't unique. All media is interactive and expressive -- if it wasn't, it would all just be wallpaper. You even said it yourself: "its still pretty clear to see how people correlate their enjoyment of said material with how much they want to spend on it." And no one normal is thinking "hmm, I really love the MCU, but the latest Black Panther is ONLY 30 minutes? That's gonna be a tough call!" Also, newsflash: you can replay games. I've gotten way more out of Revengeance, a 5-hour game, through replays than I ever will out of a by-the-numbers slog like Days Gone or Horizon.

 

[Quinton]

However long it should be as per the developers' vision and with regard to genre.

 

[Starlatine]

And no one normal is thinking "hmm, I really love the MCU, but the latest Black Panther is ONLY 30 minutes? That's gonna be a tough call!"

Click to shrink...

Hard to complain about something that never happened.
Please do drop off the conversation as you said, since you don't see to be intentioned to discuss in good faith.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I don't really care about dollars per hour, like unless the game is like 2 hours long and how no merit to being replayed I'm not gonna get upset.
As long as the expectation is set before hand that the game is short I don't mind.

 

[Foxnull]

Roughly 25 hours at the very least, otherwise I won't purchase the game at full price.

 

[Wandu]

I voted for the last option because I tend to replay games that I have already beaten many times. The length of a game never determines how good it is for me. What matters is if that game is worthy of my time spent, and if I am constantly playing it, then it has done its job of giving me enjoyment.

 

[DXLelouch24]

Depends on genre really
Like 6 hrs for an RPG is unacceptable
But for like a Platinum game unless your name is W101 is fine

 

[defaltoption]

Whatever it takes of get their story across if that's what they're going for, or whatever it takes to learn the mechanics and get better at them to a point of satisfaction, I don't care if a game is 5, 15, or 150 hours as long as its fun and or meaningful in some way. I hate when games drag or waste my time.

 

[mxbison]

Don't care, I'll gladly buy an amazing 8 hour game for $60

 

[IvorB]

I voted for the last option because I tend to replay games that I have already beaten many times. The length of a game never determines how good it is for me. What matters is if that game is worthy of my time spent, and if I am constantly playing it, then it has done its job of giving me enjoyment.

Click to shrink...

We're talking gameplay hours not game length. If you replayed a ten hour game five times that's 50 hours of gameplay.

 

[Dogenzaka]

16-25, but with enough replayability or side content to bring it to ~50 is the sweet spot for me.

 

[Wandu]

We're talking gameplay hours not game length. If you replayed a ten hour game five times that's 50 hours of gameplay.

Click to shrink...

Well I know I have certainly paid $60 for games that were less than 10 hours. So I guess I have no problems with paying $60 for game I only put 8 hours into as long as I had fun.

 

[Imitation Of Life]

I don't set standards like that. 12 to 15 hours is probably what I feel comfortable especial if for has replayability. Most AAA games do that easily. Even the linear games.

 

[Jonneh]

Whatever feels satisfying in the context of the game

Puyo Puyo Champions is $10 and can provide you with hundreds of hours of fun - does that diminish a $60 game that clocks out at 10 though? 6 hours can be too long for a game and so can 20 hours. There isn't really a definitive answer to this.

Celeste for instance was my GOTY of last year but it wasn't my most played game by a long shot. I also probably wouldn't have paid $60 for it as I think we generally hold that price for games with high production values with few other attributes really being in consideration.

TLDR - Any

 

[names2hard4you]

I don't really buy games for their play time. To be quite honest these days the shorter the game, the better. I find I stop playing most games around the 8-10hr mark.

 

[Gaiaknight]

depends on the genre i like my RPG to be atleast 40hrs long by i like my action adventure games to be 10-15hrs long but if a $60 game came out and it was less than 10hrs but still a fantastic game then i honestly wouldnt care cause the experience is worth more than money.

 

[MZZ]

See, I think the dollar per hour is not really a factor nowadays.

If a game is really good, I'd buy it at 60.

I can feel like spending that much money for a short experience would be on the back of my mind. I can see how a 2 hour game can be priced at $60 is offputting. If its 2 hour and infinitely replayable then why not. But a $60 game for 2 hours is a hard sell. I'd feel like I am not getting my money's worth. It would have to be fucking out of this world amazing for it to be $60.

I like how games are priced now. For $60, It should be at least 6 to 8 for the main campaign with side content stretching it to 12-15. Sweet Spot is 12 to 25 for a campaign. Games that take more than 20 hours, no feeling of regret whatsoever, I love long ass RPGs.

I still say its not a factor. I think games are priced fairly most of the time nowadays and all games (except on the Switch) goes on sale soon after release.

 

[Pyro]

I say Quality > Quantity. I've never felt a game needs to meet that threshold.

 

[SweetBellic]

Unfortunately, meaningful questions about budgeting as it pertains to this hobby devolve into inane invocations of false dilemmas like "quality vs quantity." The amount of time one expects to enjoy playing a game is a perfectly valid metric for assessing its value proposition and I've yet to hear a compelling argument to the contrary in any of these threads.

I'm blown away at the amount of under 10 responses.

Click to shrink...

A fool as his money are soon parted. And as this is a forum for gaming enthusiasts who are likely to be very passionate about the medium, value being part of the conversation/zeitgeist, and likely to have disposable income, we were bound to skew away from the conventional wisdom of price-sensitive consumer behavior.

 

[TheRedLag00n]

Depends on the genre, the story, the gameplay, the general gameplay loop. I don't get people who put so much value on the length of games, that's why we get so many mediocre open world titles nowadays, filled with nothing but busywork... Time doesn't automatically equal enjoyment and wasting my time is far worse than an experience that's a bit too short.

 

[Rats]

As many as it needs to.

I've never considered a game purchase in terms of dollars per hour.

 

[Reformed Individual]

$1 an hour for Single player games, so 60 hours.

For multiplayer games though, they should be games that can potentially keep me interested and playing for years. I played Halo 3 from the start of 2008, all the way to early-mid 2013 almost every day from when I got in from school till I went to bed.

 

[StraySheep]

I want to say length doesn't matter, but I feel like 10 is a good baseline.

 

[Deleted member 47076]

I love a short and sweet game just as much as anyone else, but for $60 I usually expect 10 hours minimum for the first playthrough. Though there are exceptions like RE2make (because it has so much replay value).

 

[Wulfram]

A game I'd pay full price for is one I'm expecting to get 50+ hours of play from. But potentially over multiple playthroughs. Hours of gameplay for me is only very loosely correlated with the length of a game.

(I don't pay full price for many games)

 

[Billfisto]

Playtime is a shitty metric. I want the game to be long enough that it's a good experience.

 

[Deleted member 8468]

I'll always take quality over quantity. It's easy to check the length /potential value per hour before buying if that's really important to you.

 

[frankabus]

I usually only really apply this metric to multiplayer/party games because I buy a lot of them so I'm at risk of being overzealous with my purchase; I usually divide by 4, so I guess 15 hours for a $60 game.

 

[Ænima]

More than 25h. Shorter games need good replay value to get my money day 1.