For every dollar paid, you should get one hour of play

>for every dollar paid, you should get one hour of play.
Do you agree with this philosophy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sn57Q8uGvic
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It works for some games (like RPGs and RTS games), but absolutely not for others (like adventure games or shooters)

Would you really want to play a 40-hour shooter? It'd be so loaded with padding that any good parts would be drowned out by the rest of it. And even if you insist that the maximum price of a game should be $20, there's still a lot of games that do better if they're only about ten to sixteen hours long.

No, because it encourages people to play less of the game or rush through it as quickly as possible. People will look up walkthroughs to make the most optimal build and finish as quickly as they can. They won't explore or discover, they'll look up what to do and beeline to it. People won't replay games or try new builds.

Besides, what about multiplayer games that don't have an end point? What, are you going to spend $120 on Dota or CSGO or whatever because you spend 120 hours on it? Plus it makes games like JRPGs extremely expensive. Look at Persona 4, that had 17 hours of cutscenes, you're paying $17 for not even playing the game right off the bat.

No because it encourages devs to make games unnecessarily large and full of meaningless checklist activities like feathers in AC2. Either that or it's an RPG with mindless grinding making up most of the content.

no.
Enjoyment is the only thing that matters.
I enjoyed my 4 hours with Jorney, so I don't care that I payed more than 4 dollars.

I don't want to spend 300 dollars for Bethesda games so no.

Some of the greatest games ever are really short but offer a lot of replayability.

Just depends on the game you're gonna play. If you play a story-based game and pay 60 bucks, but you enjoy the 20 hour story, then sure.

No. Price doesnt matter as long as the game is enjoyable.

I used to but then I got an actual job.

>you will never spend more dollars than there are stars in the sky to buy a copy of Dwarf Fortress

Pretty sure the general idea is "at most" $1/h, nobody would bitch about getting more value for their money.

No, thanks.

You've got some fucked up logic if you don't understand that OP is talking about getting hours equal to what you paid up front, rather than paying for a game per-hour.

i.e. Games cost $60, you should get at least 60 hours of gameplay from it. Not playing a game for 120 hours and then having to pay $120.

Ruh-oh

When I was a teenager I used to put my time at somewhere around half my hourly wage, so about 4$ per hour. Now due to making actual money I can't really use that as a comparison.

What I generally put it at is not the length of entertainment but the quality. Even a 5 hour experience, if good enough, is worth 50$. It's about quality, not quantity.

You had this same thread multiple times, what more are you looking for? How many answers do you need? Can't you just make a poll once and fuck off?

The replies are exactly why vidya is dead
>LOL I DON'T CARE IF I ONLY GET 2 HOURS OUT OF $60 BECAUSE MY BUYERS REMORSE DOES THE REST LOLZ

You can speed run Skyrim in 2 hours if you use a bunch of glitches to break the game and skip huge sections of it. Would you say you're getting more value for your money doing this?

Post your best value game, f2p doesn't count

Back in my day when the SNES was expensive as all get out they used to have SNES stations at my video library. It was $4 an hour to play the SNES.

No, cuz I don't to pay 500+$ even for good games

How exactly does that work out in your mind? If you spend $60 on Skyrim and play it for 2h you're paying $30/h, which is abysmally terrible. How the fuck would it provide more valuable?

Is it really buyer's remorse if you genuinely enjoyed those two hours? Not saying that a two-hour game should be $60, but I don't get your logic.

>if you like the game you MUST buy lootboxes

please tell me you guys agree and support devs just like me?

my friend buys lootboxes every OW event and it makes me want to kill him, its bad enough he's playing that garbage

I've had this philosophy for years. Except if it's a AAA quality title, in which case I see it as two dollars per hour.

Every $60 game should provide 30 hours of gameplay, including multiplayer, or it's overpriced and best to wait for a sale.

So you want every game to be 60+ hour slogfests filled with padding, collectibles and that most people won't complete because they don't have time?

...

THE GAME SHOULD BE GOOD AND CHEAP

>tfw 900 hours in RL
>tfw I can't play anymore because of "can't connect to RL servers error"

I would say an average of 5 to 10 hours as minimum
And make those good
Duidn't you fags saw how this movie esque scheme has been forced because people already buys 30-60 usd tickets so now they have to buy a console, $60+40 dlc only for a few good hours of gameplay? because apparently the huge movie and vidya corporation overloards are too generous if they give you more than a few good hours of gameplay for your money.

No, I make $20/h, so 3 hours would be sufficient in reality. I'm kinda cheap though, so I like to see at least 30 hours out of any game I buy regardless of price.

I think £2 per hour is reasonable. 20 hours for a £40 game is normal anyway.

but videogames are free

youtube.com/watch?v=sn57Q8uGvic

Minecraft. Paid $5 for it in alpha. I've put probably 2000 hours in with all of the modpacks over the years.