>Tfw a 40-100 rpg and a 5-10 hour shooter/platformer/etc are

Quantity vs Quality

>>376468583
number of hours does not equal enjoyment, or value

File: We just don't know.gif (999KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 250x251px

>>376469196
>10 hour shooters
>having any semblance of quality

>60 hour rpgs
>not relying significantly on quality to hold the consumer's attention

File: 1494306992404.jpg (104KB, 270x400px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 270x400px

>>376468583

>filler equals quality

The generally agreed upon price that people are willing to buy games at usually doesn't have much to do with the length of games.

Some companies price shorter games cheaper anyways, if they don't have a major multiplayer component.

>>376469471
>grinding
>quality

>>376470524
I wasn't referring to jRPGs.

>>376470524
Play better RPGs or stop mashing attack through every fight like a total mong
Seriously, I've replayed a lot of RPGs I played a long time ago and a lot are actually surprisingly well balanced if you just fight whatever you run into normally and try to play smart instead of brute forcing things. The rest are just really easy no matter what you do, like FF6.

do rpg stories even have anything to offer anymore? everything's already been done

I do this autistic thing where I only buy a game at a price where each dollar would equal an hour of quality fun. It keeps my library small, and keeps me from impulse buying.

Is that bad?

>>376471189
Nothing wrong with saving money
I usually wait for games to go on sale when I'm patient enough, or I just pirate.

File: 12d7733fe7facd74acca8a64d2fc37e9880383903e83f256b4019689f5904b03.png (326KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 600x600px

>>376471189
>is my PERSONAL way of buying games wrong

File: 1489272040652.gif (82KB, 175x173px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 175x173px

>>376469471
>10 hour shooters
>having any semblance of quality
What do you mean by this?

>>376469314
To be fair, a game's value isn't tied to anything meaningful or rational, which is the premise of the thread. Games seem to all have a similar price tag regardless of its quality, quantity, production value, enjoyment, audience demand, etc.. One that does worse in all categories will still have the same price as its every-better.

In fact, the only thing that seems to hold the greatest impact on a game's release price is the distinction of "indie" and "published." Even within the same budget, and entirely regardless of quality, the indie games usually release cheaper.

Despite this, the market does at least have its say, as - unlike most other markets - video games drastically devalue in time without ever losing quality. It's an odd market.

When you have a job that a) gives you lots of money and b) gives you enough free time to enjoy playing vidya but not too much so that you burn through a new game in only a few days, a $60 price tag means nothing. If a game looks fun I'm just gonna buy it. I'll do some due diligence watching gameplay videos on youtube, researching, etc, but if I pay $60 for a game I complete in 10 hours, if I enjoyed it I'm satisfied. I only buy maybe 3-6 full price games a year.

>>376471630
I'm asking if it's dumb, not wrong.

>>376471647
Got bored on the third or fourth level after I spent 30 minutes looking for the key.
Doom was both short and shit. If you want the player to stick to the game to the end, put in a hint system or make it linear.

>>376468583
Because roughly the same amount of work and time went into each one. Also the market.

>>376471189

This is just being smart with your money. Throwing away money blindly is what corporations want you to do anyway.

>>376473689
Hi Icycalm