Full priced game has less than 25 hours of content

>full priced game has less than 25 hours of content

>retards defend it by arguing it's designed to be replayable

>Full priced.
>what are sales
>what are bundles
Have a (You) free of charge

>>what are sales
>>what are bundles
well they're certainly not arguments if thats what youre driving at

I have never played a game over 15 hours that was good.

>2 dollars per hour of content

what's the problem?

>full priced game has 100 hours of content

play more games faggot. a single game of civ is ~ 25 hours.

>dollars per hour
Are you retarded senpai

Quality >>> Length
Fucking lengthfags

>full priced game is multiplayer only

If it really was quality, you would want more.

>this game was so high quality that I can only play it for 7 hours!

Retards who measure value by the length or content of games are the reason why we get ridicously padded shit like Alien Isolation.

5 hour good game > 25 hour mediocre game.

I have zero patience for video games dragging their feet.

Short great experiences trump padded shit
I bet you fags love your shitty gigantic open worlds with tons of collectibles to waste your time

well, that certainly is sad.

Yeah, but I want a 25 hour good game. Mediocre games shouldn't even be in the equation.

>game with less than 1 hour of playtime per dollar spent

If you think ME1 , IWD, BG1 are padded you are stupid (most likely underage)

Besides business simulators are most fun

BotW is the greatest game of all time and has 100~ hours worth of content. I bet you play indieshit LMFAO

>Full priced game has over 100 hours of filler

>5 hour good game
buddy say what you want
but if you can finish it in lesss than a day its a demo
might be a good one but still a demo

you must not play many games then

>10 dollar game provides you nearly a thousand hours of enjoyment

Yeah what kind of retard measures value by the content of the thing they're buying?

Sup Forums is fucking dead

>Game is MGSV where, if it hadn't tried to be the big 100 hour game it would have been better

short great experiences are fine but if it's a 5 hour game it should cost $15 or less

>buying a full-priced game

Don't.

If the game is actually mediocre, it'll be in the $1 tier of a Humble Bundle or given away for free eventually. See: Mirror's Edge ($1 bundle), Assassin's Creed III (free), etc.

Even if the game is good, you can get it for $5 if you wait a couple of years.

>full priced game has less than 600 hours of content

>waiting years to play a game you're interested in just so you could save some money
are you fucking serious? why do you even play video games then you poor piece of shit?

>Even if the game is good, you can get it for $5 if you wait a couple of years.
holy shit pc fags are cucked beyond belief

I would like super-long games when I was a filthy NEET.

As an employed adult, I prefer short games for $5 over long games for $60. I don't have time to play a game for 100 hours just to get to the end.

Too much filler? Into the trash it goes.
Any grinding at all? Into the trash it goes.

>hours of play = hours of enjoyment
I don't think so Tim

Good thing that's not what this thread is about you fucking moron. It's about price vs value. A short $5 game is in line 100% with what OP is saying.

>buying games you dont enjoy regardless of the price
?
why do people not understand what this thread is about

I fucking knew it. You faggots are the reason why gaming is dead.

>Contentfags.

>Full-priced
Do you mean 60 dollars?

what does this even fucking mean

>$60 game that takes 10 hours to beat but you'll never forget it and is fun to replay every few years. Game is so good that you beg for a sequel at every opportunity

OR

>$60 game that has hundreds of hours to beat everything, and collect everything. But there are really only 5 or 6 different challenges wrapped in different flavors but mechanically almost identical.

Make a choice Sup Forums

>1 hour worth 10 dollars

>game is enjoyable for the first few hours, but after that nothing unique happens and you end up just doing the same repetitive bullshit

All games are about 15 hours long. The difference is that some games know when to stop and not beat the enjoyment out of you like some abused house wife.

>But there are really only 5 or 6 different challenges wrapped in different flavors but mechanically almost identical.
that's basically every game though

>people who play their games after buying them

>single player has micro transactions

>Implying that an AAA game is not supposed to be judged by the time it takes to finish the main story via rushing it and ignoring every other activity
An AAA game is fine to be finished in about 12 hours of story rushing.

>$25 game that takes 10 hours to beat but you'll never forget it and is fun to replay every few years. Game is so good that you beg for a sequel at every opportunity


OR

>$60 for the same thing

>protagonist is white cis-male

But that's wrong you fucking idiot. You've played like 5 games, kid. Get the fuck out of here.

ban phoneposters

Wrong

>game has 10 mechanics
>you get a new one every hour
>game ends up only being 12 hours long though

>game has 20 mechanics
>gives them all to you in the first hour
>takes 80 hours to beat

Which one would you rather play?

why are you moving the goal posts

>game has 12 hours and costs $60

>game has 12 hours and costs $15

which would you rather pay

I'm old enough to be your parent. Most games front load all the interesting shit, so after 15 hours that's where most people stop playing.

Just because a game is 200 hours long, doesn't make it good if you never see past hour 15. I'd rather a game that knows when to fuck off and end.

>hurr look at my knee-jerk reaction I'm totally owning you lol

Get a grip. It's not like waiting is painful or something.

Look, if there were one awesome game coming out in 2017 that I really wanted to play, I'd consider paying full price for it. Honestly, I would. But it would have to be really good. The thing is, most games aren't so good that I need to play them immediately, especially when I don't really like multiplayer games. I mostly play single-player games and they're not going to degrade in quality over time. So it's rare that I feel compelled to pay full price for anything, especially when I already own more games than I have time to play.

Meanwhile, if I'm looking to buy new games, there are a lot of games from 2015 and earlier which I haven't played yet. If you can't find good PC games for $5 or less, you're not trying. I'm not so starved for good games that I need to buy the newest game right away in order to avoid months of boredom.

I'll give you a hypothetical scenario. There are two games I want to play. One of them came out in 2013 for $60 but I never got around to playing it and now it's $5. The other one came out in 2017 for $60 and is still $60. I'm going to play both of them. If I play the newer game first, I pay $60 now and, at worst, $5 later. If I play the older game first, I pay $5 now and possibly much less than $60 later.

It's not about being poor. (I have a job, unlike you.) It's about not deliberately doing the least optimal thing.

Both depending on how much content is in each. Who gives a fuck about the length of playing it once?

you don't play video games

I guess all those video games I've played the past 30 years meant nothing because some user on a Chinese message board didn't like my opinion on video games with filler being boring.

I'll take "what is Nier Automata" for $200, Alex.

This. Fucking kids.

Good thing I wasn't actually disagreeing with OP but rather just sharing an opinion on the overall topic of balancing price with content, you fucking moron.

Thanks terraria

>wasting 200 hours on a single mildly entertaining video game, when you could play 20 highly entertaining video games instead
>timesinkfags also happen to be loser basement dwelling virgins who can't keep a job, so they can only buy one vidya because they are poor

I feel bad for you if you think a games length is any indication of its value

or i could waste 200 hours on a single highly entertaining game rather than 20 mildly entertaining ones

like, this argument works both ways you fucking knuckle draggers

>consolefag needs to buy each new exclusive on release day or he'll run out of worthwhile things to do on his console
>the PC user is the one who's cucked
ok

>What is Civilization V, XCom...

You'd still have played 20 games though. Variety is still better.

>what is d44m

>paid 30 bucks for Rainbow Six Siege
>currently 300 hours of gameplay
Best purchase of my life

Quality>Quantity, you're now worse than the lengthfags.

not if it's 20 mediocre games vs 1 good one you fucking retard

Not worth $60..?

or you can be intelligent and do research and buy good, cheap games.
They exist, in decent quantity.
Every game I buy is less than 30 bucks and I enjoy them immensely because I know what I like and know what to look for.

I actually can't believe there are people who are saying content shouldn't be taken into account when buying a game. Every time I think Sup Forums is at its worse it just sinks lower.

>playing marathon

Show me who's actually saying that. (You can't.)

>fully priced game has limited amount of content

Worst post in this thread

here and here

>Retards who measure value by the length OR CONTENT of games...

The first one is a shitpost. The second one is clearly arguing for quality over quantity, so "content" probably meant "amount of content".

>game has 20 hours worth of content

How is this not acceptable? I'd much rather have 20 hours of quality content over 30 hours of padded and inconsistent quality.

You're moving goalposts faggot. He clearly said "OR CONTENT". That's not Length + length of content. It's Length OR CONTENT.

it is acceptable you bumbling fuckhead, just not for a full priced game.

i'd rather have 30 hours of quality for $60 than 20 hours of quality for $60.

80 hour 7/10 game > 5 hour 10/10 game if I'm paying $60 for both

I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm using context to infer the intended meaning. It's called reading comprehension.

In the very same post in which he ridicules people measuring games by their "content", he then complains about padding and argues a 5-hour good game is better than a 25-hour mediocre game. Considering the main point of the post is that quality matters more than quantity, thus implying that measuring a game by the quality of its content is acceptable, I think it's fair to assume that "content", as he used it, meant "amount of content" and not "quality of content". Otherwise he would be contradicting himself.

>game at half price has less than 6 years worth of content

>just not for a full priced game
Why?

I'd pay 60 bucks for 10 hours of great content over 60 bucks for 50 hours of ok padded content

You're moving the goalposts. Fuck off retard.

Why are you bringing padded "ok content" into this?

>Download Elona+ for free
>Have like 400 hours clocked in
>Not even close to the end game