"£1 for every 1 hour of content/enjoyment". Is this

No.

That's retarded and this thread is retarded.

Does that take into account replayability?

So you're saying I should have payed $700 for Binding of Isaac?

>>381880171
Best of games easily offer you 10 times that much

Dota is free and has infinite hours of fun

In that case every movie ticket should be £1.50

Yes.

>>381880171
No because then games would have to be longer or shorter depending on where you live.

>$60 game can last you 60 hours
>£50 game can last you 50 hours

Or

>£50 game can last you 76 hours because you're paying more for a game than America and thus deserve more time

>>381880750
the average kino would cost £9

No, it's fucking stupid.

My that metric, Skyrim should have cost me over $300 and we all know it's not even worth $60.

Dollar/hour completely devalues all the things that make games good in the search for the biggest bargain.
Like if a game can't get stretched out as thinly as possible it's somehow not worth the money to experience it.

This also implies you'll ever only play the game once. But I have several games I've played over and over and over again, to the point where even buying multiple versions and rereleases don't match up to the hours I've put into it.

I get that everyone wants the biggest bang for their buck, but people really need to learn that quality is always, always better than quantity.

>>381881835
You're missing the point, I think its more like $60 should get you at the very least 60 hours of enjoyment. Not like these art games that are 3 hours total and sell for like $20

this is an american website dumbass nobody knows what a squiggle is worth.

>>381882696
>I think its more like $60 should get you at the very least 60 hours of enjoyment
No, fuck that. Do you know how long 60 hours is?

Can you imagine Metal Gear Rising for 60 hours? There are so many games that should NOT be that long. Most games, really.

Like Christ, some of the greatest games of all time can be beaten in an afternoon, and had cost $60 (or MORE) on release.

Price for playtime is a fundamentally broken structure that only harms the public perception of a game's worth.

>>381880898
>kino
kys kino faggot

>implying fun is always the same
The best metric is fun per second, anything less than 60 fps isn't worth your time.

yes
anyone saying otherwise is either a dev that doesnt want to put in the work or just a random retard

>>381884041
Lrl

I hardly ever buy a full-price game I can't hope to put at least 100 hours into.

>>381883157
>one run through of single player campaign mode is the only measure of hours in a game
You literally said to consider game replayability in your last post.

And I've only been alive for like 200,000 hours so no, I don't know how long 60 hours is.

>>381886736
If you're counting playing the game over again, or a multiplayer mode, then every single game theoretically has infinite hours.

Nobody's considering those things when it comes to price over time.
Which really just highlights how arbitrary the whole thing is anyway.

>>381880898
they are £4 at vue in my city, very reasonable desu

>>381880171
Well most of the best games ive ever played offer 100+ hours and were 20 dollars USD so i'd say at LEAST a spectrum of 3-5 hours per dollar

>>381880171
>Implying long ass games are fun the entire time
50 hours games are fun for about 10 hours, the rest is just padding

There are too many factors involved for there to be all a catch all standard.
What genre it is, what you're looking for from that genre, how much content does it have, what do you the consumer qualify as meaningful content, how much was put into its production, how long it is and all that jazz.

>>381880171
Spoole is a dumbass stoner, everyone knows that concept is a joke

>>381880171
That's a good minimum.

I think £1 every 2 hours is good shit. I never buy triple A games anymore

>>381880171
No. Outside of edge cases like the Order 1954 valuing games based on time to play them is retarded.
Most of the time you're paying for production values. AAA devs use AAA budgets to produce AAA games that generally all have similar quality of graphics, acting, music to the other AAA games released during a specific time period or generation. AA devs use smaller budgets to make games that aren't quite so good but still not bad.
Indie devs sort of fuck this up because they use limited budgets and produce clearly technically inferior experiences so that's like you'd expect but then those niggers ask for AA prices.
You pay for production quality. If Final Fantasy VII had never been released years ago and came out today you'd pay 10 bucks for it new because it's not worth today's AAA prices.

>>381881835
by your logic shitrim should be given away for free, because i would get more enjoyment from cutting off my own dick than playing that piece of shit

>>381888274
I would get some enjoyment from you streaming that~

I'm happy with 5 dollars an hour worth of entertainment.

>>381880171
You want to know how you know if a game was worth it? After you finish it, if you feel that it was worth the price you paid then it was worth it, if you don't then it wasn't worth it. Trying to make it a fixed thing like $1 per hour is stupid since you'd just be encouraging yourself to stick to a few specific genres that are known for having lengthy campaigns and discouraging yourself from other genres that aren't about how much time you dick around in a sandbox.

>>381880171
I only play JRPGs and VNs these days and those usually offer at least 50 hours of play time.

Most folks don't finish games though.

>>381880171
I should have payed 2.5 grand for TF2?

File: 1479911459810.png (601KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 1280x720px

>>381880171
I agree, we should definitely make games into rentals that charge you $1 for every hour of enjoyment you get out of it.

>>381889056
>Most folks don't finish games though.
That's the most bizarre shit to me

What is it, like something like 60+% of gamers don't finish a given game?
How?

I mean sure, there are games I haven't finished for one reason or another, but the large majority of games I do finish, even if I don't particularly like the game.

>>381880171
I'd be mad broke if this was the case with my hours on CSGO alone

>>381889435
I have to say since I reached the point in my life where I could just buy games without caring about bills and such I've just bought and bought without finishing them because of the frequency they release at.

I should really go back to the way I did it when I was a kid, finish a game then buy a new one.

>>381880171
No. Which is a better game to buy, a $60 dollar game that's 2 hours of pure bliss and ecstacy, or a $60 game that's 60 hours while being enjoyable but not very satisfying?

>>381889909
60 for 60 dude.
If you can get 60 hours of enjoyment out of a game then why not?

With a 2/60 game you're ultimately going to feel very, very unsatisfied with your purchase due to the lack of content and the price you paid for it.

>>381880171
No.
Fuck off.

>>381889435
>Start shiny new modern game
>It's shit, go back to play better games

Not all enjoyment hours are equal. I wouldn't value the hours spent of WoW equal to some tight single player campaign, for example.

This only works if it's a multiplayer game. If it's story based it might last around 15 hours and that's okay if it's a good story.

Only for indie games.
For anything else, it'll be $1 per 2h of enjoyment.

>>381880171
It's not a fair statement.
With this you assume that every game/activity provides fun of equal quality.
If you pay $1 to fuck a nippon waifu for 5 minutes, does that give you as much fun as paying $1 and playing Nier for 5 minutes? Obviously not.

You would need to come up with new unit - FunValue [P/(F*T)], where P is the price of the activity, and F is the Fun Intensity of it, and T is time. The lower value, the better.
So, fucking a waifu gets an F factor of - let's say - 9/10, but playing Nier gives you 6/10.

Consider this:
Nier - Price = $50, F = 6, time = 50h
Waifu - Price = $50, F= 30, time = 1h
FunValue(Nier)=50/300=0.167
FunValue(Waifu)=50/30=1.66

So Nier is a better investment if the Fun Intensity, Time and Price are as above.

Quantification of """"fun"""" is stupid.

>>381892224
This

>>381880171
It's usually my first thought while shopping. The best games have decent reputability so I can get at least a 1:1 ratio easily.
But that's only from a consumer's point of view. Devs should consider it, but not make it a point to have a 100 hour plot just to charge an extra $50.

>>381892847
replayability*

>260 hours in One Way Heroics

>Bought it for 70p

>>381880171
Huh, that's how I've always quantified if I got my money's worth out of a game. This being a loose feeling of it though. If I beat a game and liked it in under 60 hours, that won't stop me from saying I got my money's worth.

I feel like it works only after the fact though. It's not a 'pay as you go' concept.

>>381890448
/thread