How do you judge value to a game?

S

Sunnington

Banned
How do you judge the value of price to quality?

For me, first off, do I like the game? Yes/No. Quick and simple. I like, I keep. I don't like, I return quickly.

Second, gameplay per hour. If I play it, I'm liking it. If I get one dollar per hour, I feel like I've gotten my money's worth.

If I get significantly less than one dollar per hour out of a game I feel ripped off. The first time I felt this was with Beyond Good and Evil. The game was fun! But I beat it in 9 hours. I couldn't believe the abrupt ending for the time period it was released it. TBH, it's probably why the game was a commercial failure at the time. I'll never forget getting to
the fucking path towards the space ship
and the ending credits rolling at about 9 hours in. It was so unsatisfying, I was so angry the game was over. It was shocking. At the time I traded some games in, the only time I'd ever done that. And because of the length of the game, despite it being a good game, I traded it in. It just wasn't worth the money I'd paid.
 
My flowchart is like 60% gameplay, 20% music, 10% graphics, 10% story/cutscenes. If i'm not enjoying the gameplay, the game usually isn't staying long.

That said if I have to deal with vn cutout 'cutscenes' it had better fucking have good gameplay or it's going right in the trash
 
If I enjoyed it enough to play it all the way through once, it was worth my money and I keep it.

I don't care if it's $60 for a game that's not even good. If I enjoyed it, it's worth the money for having it in my collection.
 
I suppose the value would be somewhere between the quality of the experience and the amount of time I got out of it. The quality of the experience is obviously very subjective, but it's the more important of the two factors to me. And as for how much time I played the game that includes replays, any game that is good enough for me to want to replay it is definitely a keeper.
 
Firstly, if it's not an RPG, it has no value for me.
Secondly, more narrative, more value.
Thirdly, the longer (main story), the better.
 
I generally don't care. If I liked the game then I like it. If I don't then oh well. Maybe next time. I don't spend any time feeling ripped off or anything like that. I just move on.
 
Solidsoul said:
If I enjoyed it enough to play it all the way through once, it was worth my money and I keep it.

I don't care if it's $60 for a game that's not even good. If I enjoyed it, it's worth the money for having it in my collection.
Click to expand...
This. I can't tell you the number of 40+ hour games I feel like I wasted money on because they weren't compelling enough to finish.
 
How much enjoyment I get out of the game from moment to moment is what determines a game's value for me. Length is irrelevant (although in practice longer games tend to be padded out with filler and therefore less fun, and super-short games without replay value are rarely fully fleshed out).
 
Certainly there has to be a cutoff. If you play a good game that costs 60 dollars and is only 1 hour long it would be a ripoff. Am I right or wrong?
 
Is the game enjoyable?
{x} yes
{ } no

The game can be 3 hours long, but if I enjoyed every minute from those 3 hours and want to play again, that has a lot of value to me
 
Crazy that you feel you have to get $1 per hour to have gotten good value for your games. There are tons and tons and tons of $60 games that I've played for 20 hours, had a great time with, and felt like I've gotten a great value from.

For me, if I enjoyed a game, it was a good value.
 
Sunnington said:
Certainly there has to be a cutoff. If you play a good game that costs 60 dollars and is only 1 hour long it would be a ripoff. Am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...
Value is subjective. If you think a one hour $60 game is a ripoff, then you're right (for you). It's different for everyone. I would tend to agree with you; it'd have to be one helluva amazing one hour game at a $60 price point to not feel ripped off, but not everyone would feel the same.
 
I generally prioritize hours played as a metric because, if I'm enjoying the game to still be playing it after 30+ hours, it must have been pretty good since I generally don't continue playing games that I'm not enjoying. As a minimum standard, I consider 1 hour per dollar spent quite good value especially when compared to other forms of entertainment.

The only exception to this that I've encluntered is Portal which I played for ~6 hours but would have definitely paid more than $6 for due to its very novel and excellently presented experience.
 
I can't judge the value of a game based on hours spent in it, I'd have gladly paid full price (£40/$60) for a game like Portal where even on first play through it only lasted about 3-4 hours maybe.

It'd have to be something extra special to have a lower play time than that at the same price, but what I'm saying is that I can't define such criteria for myself. I actually rarely even think about value in games.
 
I don't... I don't have numbers I can apply to the games characteristics. A lot of it is so subjective that I really can't say, most of the time I can only say how much I like a game after I have played it and when I absolutely adore a game then I say "I would have payed way more for that game than what they were giving it away for" but even then I can't break it down and say music 15 dollars, graphics 10 dollars, gameplay 40 dollars etc.

So I don't judge value like that.
 
thefatness16 said:
As long as I enjoyed myself, it was worth it.
Click to expand...

What a good response. I really learned something about how other people see the world. I'm so glad I spent the time reading this response and that you decided to post it. It's so indepth. It really makes me see the world in a different way. This comment I'll take to heart.
 
I don't have a set rule. I take it on a case by case basis. The foundation is obviously enjoyment though.

But, for example, I do tend to see a AAA "blockbuster" as having more value than a smaller title. But also keep in mind that smaller titles don't generally have the same amount of content.

Examples. I adore Mark of the Ninja. One of my all time favourite games. But no way would I have paid more than $20-$25AU for it.

On the flip side I perceive a game like MCC or CoD BLOPS to be great value for money because of the sheer amount of content in them. As well as being great games of course.
 
Parfait said:
My flowchart is like 60% gameplay, 20% music, 10% graphics, 10% story/cutscenes. If i'm not enjoying the gameplay, the game usually isn't staying long.

That said if I have to deal with vn cutout 'cutscenes' it had better fucking have good gameplay or it's going right in the trash
Click to expand...

Mine's around 50% Gameplay 20% Story/Characters 10% Music 10 %Level design 10% visuals.
 
Sunnington said:
What a good response. I really learned something about how other people see the world. I'm so glad I spent the time reading this response and that you decided to post it. It's so indepth. It really makes me see the world in a different way. This comment I'll take to heart.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the issue is with that, for some people it really is that simple.
 
Basically

1. Is it fun (y/n)
2. Is it < ~5€/hr

2. is the cutoff value, represents the cost of a movie ticket. If it would be cheaper per hour to watch a movie instead I'll wait with the purchase. So at full price I expect about 10-12 hours of gameplay, I think that's fair.
 
FriedConsole said:
hours + frames per sec + resolution + how much I like the publisher = value
Click to expand...

LOL

for me I'd gauge it by "enjoyable hours" at about 3 bucks an hour. so if I get 20 enjoyable hours out of a 60 dollar game, I'd say its a good value. good value does not necessarily mean its a great game tho
 
£1 = 1 hour of play.

If I play it for more hours than pounds, it's worth it.

Obviously there are exceptions for things like Journey.
 
I'd say looking at enjoyment and length of time it kept me entertained. The two combined need to meet a threshold for value but I consider short but supremely enjoyable games to have value as well as longer games that might not have the same highs.
 
"Dollars per hour" seems like such an archaic way of viewing games. If I walk away after completing a game feeling satisfied and that it was a fantastic experience, I got my money's worth, that's all there is to it for me. I don't break it down into an arbitrary numbers game. No one has a monopoly on what constitutes "value" to a person.
 
I'll very rarely pay full price, day one for a game that isn't part of an established series that I love, or from one of my favourite developers. I'll buy every game Platinum ever makes, for example, no questions asked. Every now and then I'll see a great deal on a game I'm not entirely sold on that'll push me over the edge, though (Steam key pre-orders, mostly).

A lot of games have to reach $5-10ish for me to be bite. Like, I'd enjoy playing through some Call of Duty campaigns, or The Order 1886, but I could just as easily go my whole life without touching another one-and-done shooter campaign, so I'm not really bothered either way. Never in my life would I pay $60 for a 5 hour thing I'll never touch again, but at $5 in a sale? Sure, I'll give it a go.
 
thefatness16 said:
As long as I enjoyed myself, it was worth it.
Click to expand...

You're getting stick for this response, but I'd agree. Something is only worth as much as you're willing to pay, and there are many game that'll check all the "value" boxes, and boast x amount of side quests, but it's really just as simple as actually enjoying it, and leaving a lasting impression.

A few examples for me personally. First would be Journey. It's a game that got a strong emotional response from me. I appreciate how it didn't waste my time, and it didn't treat me like a stupid person, but taught mechanics through allowing me to experiment and by showing, not telling. It lasted exactly as long as it should have, and it's a game I still think about regularly.

Same for the first few Silent Hill games. While lasting in only the single digit of hours, though there's some incentive to replay, I couldn't have been happier to pay full price. They're such expertly crafted games, with so much obvious passion behind them. Just looking at the behind the scenes videos, you really appreciate it too, through having the player run for ages to reach the town in order to instil a feeling of isolation, the philosophy of both beauty and repulsion throughout the game, the way in which the enemies are crafted not only just look spooky, but to really get under your skin, the truly amazing sound design, and so on. They're just amazing experiences, and ones that really stick with you, and games that I was engrossed every minute I played them.

The thing I guess is, people around here joke that we only talk about games. I think for me, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and I think I judge the value of games by how worth talking about they are, either on this site, or to my friends. There have been plenty of recent games that have been a fun distraction, and bursting with "value", that were simply time wasters for me, and they're OK I guess, but I prefer a game that'll stick with me, maybe because it was haunting, funny, or sometimes, just because it's different.
 
In many different ways, often contradicting each other.

It's a lot of work, following the logical course if your thoughts as they are allowed to roam free through an experience and respond to it. Most people do not do this.

There are people who have a preset determination of what makes a game good. There are factors and it is up to the game to hit those factors. Maybe it works for some people, but not for me. Any single given quality that I've held has been made irrelevant in the context of some game. Any single factor I disliked has been used to great effect in one case. Anything I love in 99.999% other games is the thing I hate most in one other game. Even something as seemingly obviously bad as plot inconsistancy or as obviously good as believable character development has been turned around and used to it's opposite effect. There is no golden standard that applies to every game.

But one thing I hate is the "I just see if I enjoy it" crowd. It's the stoner approach, where you just lie there and don't do anything, and you judge your experience not by the experience itself, but whether it stimulated some pleasure center of your brain. These are the sex partners that just lie there, the people who eat the food without tasting it. The thoughts of how experiences are formed are amazing and strange and wierd and a mess. You're missing out on a lot if the only gauge you consider is if you liked something or not.

I can understand the couch potato crowd in the sense that it is hard work trying to figure out that big mess that goes on inside your head, but it's far more rewarding to work at it than not. You just can't have too strict rules or else you end up in a similar but diametrically opposed situation.
 
Depending on how much fun I had, how much I enjoyed the time I spent with it, determines how valuable it is to me.
 
Sunnington said:
How do you judge the value of price to quality?
Click to expand...

I don't. Games don't get magically better or worse by lowering or raising their prices. It's the exact same game regardless of the price tag attached to it. You might be more inclined to buy a cheap game, but that says abaolutely nothing about its quality.

If a game is worth spending time on, I feel satisfied. It doesn't matter whether it's 10 minutes or 50 hours long. These days a lot of games should learn not to outstay their welcome..
 
First I'd judge by how much I enjoy a game (I'd throw things like how much I like the game play, story, music, etc. into this category) and then I judge by how much time I invest into a game. I might consider a game I will put a lot of hours into at a higher value than a short game or a game with little replay value, but not necessarily.
 
bede-x said:
I don't. Games don't get magically better or worse by lowering or raising their prices. It's the exact same game regardless of the price tag attached to it. You might be more inclined to buy a cheap game, but that says abaolutely nothing about its quality.

If a game is worth spending time on, I feel satisfied. It doesn't matter whether it's 10 minutes or 50 hours long. These days a lot of games should learn not to outstay their welcome..
Click to expand...

True. If it's a billion dollars a game, it's still a good or bad game. Great point to make. It helps quantify value.

I mean, hey, if I spent a ten thousand dollars on a 10 minute game, if it's the best ten minute videogame of my life. Worth!
 
After I got a job that kind of trivializes game prices in terms of not being able to do one thing because I bought another, these calculations went out the window for me. GCU has also done its part in that making games cheaper and the TIV higher. I also have so so so many Vita games I got on sale that I've completely forgotten what I've paid for them. A game is as valuable as the quality and quantity of entertainment I've wretched away from it. Trying to put a value on that is... foolish.

Besides, assigning absolute values to abstract concepts really rustles my jimmies.
 
If I get enjoyment out of it.

I would rather pay 60 dollars for a game like Journey than 60 dollars for a game that's 100 hours but not fun.
 
I use the industry and market to place monetary value in games, luckily for me the industry/market holds almost no value in the products it produces and so I rarely buy anything for more than $15.
 
how much fun I can have from it. period.

lately I find many games that I'd love to play, but simply don't have the time, so I have to decide upon what I feel I would play more.
 
Sunnington said:
FTFY
Click to expand...

Either you don't understand the word value or you're just refusing to accept other people may value things differently (which would be really weird given you created this topic). The stupid sarcastic, vague, smartarse responses aren't particularly conducive to a good discussion either, so I'd climb down if I were you.
 
I look at it as the best bang for my buck - what looks like fun, will last me potentially hundreds of hours of gameplay, and can be played in short bursts. I stopped valuing games as simply "enjoyment" after getting a job and paying bills. Its there to help destress me; I don't have time to immerse myself in games anymore.
 
Op I don't fully understand your method so I have a question.

You, have two games in front of you, both cost $60. You have played an hour of each of them at a friends house so you have an idea of the quality of each game. Game 1 you think is 7/10 and gives you your 1=1 ratio that you like, Game 2 is 9/10 but only gives you 15mins per dollar. Which game would you buy?
 
I don't think the price has anything to do with the quality of the game. Whether its free or 60 dollars, its still the same game. The value of the game should be judged by its quality by whether its good or not and that's usually up to each person to decide on their own.
 
Depends on the game. The main reasons I play a game are to A. ) Experience something new or B. ) To destroy the dreams of people I play against. If a game doesn't seem like it's going to give me either of those, then I usually drop it.
 
Depends on the game. Does the amount of money I put into the game matter? A little bit, I do want to get my moneys worth out of a game so I tend to only pay full price for games that will last me a long time. A game can have great value to me even if it's short and I paid full price if it was fun & was an amazing experience for one reason or another.

If a game is long I am more likely to say I got my dollars worth out of it just for the sheer amount of time I played it, but there is a limit to that if it starts to turn my mind to mush from boredom born of addictive instead of playing for fun.
 
Generally I look for 2 dollars per hour of quality (non padded) gameplay to feel as though I have gotten my money's worth. So a 60 dollar game would need to offer 30 hrs of quality gameplay for it to be worth it to me. That doesn't necessarily need to be in a single playthrough, a shorter game that is fun to play through multiple times is also fine. If it doesn't offer that, I can just wait for a price drop.
 
I tend to think about whether or not I would want to revisit it again someday, if it has a new game plus or differences in subsequent playthroughs. How long the game is and what it is that contributes to that length ; if the only reason a game is longer is because you can clear out 50 repeat sidequest icons on the map it's not a value add to me. And if the game comes from a dev that tends to release a better version that comes out next year like a GoTY edition or something, I won't buy that original release and will wait to see how it plays out with DLC etc down the line. Examples like Arkham Knight and Bethesda games, I feel have almost no value at release for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How often do you replay games?
2 3
134
3K
StueyDuck replied
How do you accurately assess a game's quality?
47
1K
killatopak replied
How do YOU determine value?
2
51
2K
Varteras replied
How important is IQ and FPS to you to enjoy a game?
2
66
889
Avid Reading Horse replied
  • Poll
How many hours do you usually give a game if it doesn't meet your expectations?
Poll  2
51
845
Represent. replied
Top Bottom