How do you judge value to a game?

If I regret playing the game then it has extreme negative value, if the game is pretty enjoyable I like it. I almost always trade in new games after 3-4 weeks and only rebuy digitally (when on sale) if I really enjoyed the game, which is pretty rare - I buy pretty much every new ps4/xbox one AAA studio game on release day (GCU) and rebuy digitally maybe 20%, pretty much the GOTY type games.

Order 1886 is the classic example. I paid $48, finished the game on a weekend, traded it in for $44. $4 rental, fun game but glad I didn't buy it digitally or keep it forever or anything like that. $5 is about what it was worth to me.

In contrast I loved GTA5, have bought multiple versions and own it digitally on PC and PS4 and paid near full retail for both and don't mind at all.
 
I think it's silly to judge a game's value by how long it is. In literally no other medium is this done. Movies aren't valued on a per-minute basis. Books aren't valued per-page. TV shows aren't valued per-episode; in fact, many people prefer shows to have fewer episodes.

I also don't like to judge a game based on how much I paid for it. Whether I paid the full $60 price or got it for free, I like to try to judge it by the same standards.

For me, it's a simple, subjective, binary question: "Was this game worth my time?"
 
I just ask myself these questions and usually if I answer yes to all, I would recommend it 100%, if there is one no somewhere, I would recommend with some caveats. If I have 2 no's I would recommend with caution. If I only had one yes, wait till it's dirt cheap. But usually the questions are rather interconnected.

1) Did I have fun? (Was it enjoyable to play)
2) Did I have enough fun? (Did I get enough time out of it)
3) Did I regret purchasing it at that price? (Was it worth the price I got it)
4) Do I want to play it again? (Is it replayable)
 
If I like it. Pretty much. I'm also in the "I don't know camp".
Watch_Dogs at full price = wank.
Watch_Dogs at £5 = Eh.

Though I usually don't factor in money a store quality of a game. Hard to say really.

I mean I clocked in 400+ hours on DMC4 Vanilla yet the entire game is shit aside from Gameplay.
 
Dollar per hour? The precision of having fun.

I just consider how interested in the experience offered by the game. If I've bought a lot of games close together I might decide to delay purchase a few weeks.

That's about it.
 
Cost / (enjoyment * time played)

Yea, I assume it's pretty similar for most people, I don't play online though unless it's an mmo so multi-player doesn't really add to the value for me personally.
 
It's great that The Witcher lasted me 90 hours, but I don't consider it more valuble than Arkham Knight which took me 15 hours. It doesn't really matter how long a game lasts for me as long as I enjoy it.
 
EGM1966 said:
Dollar per hour? The precision of having fun.

I just consider how interested in the experience offered by the game. If I've bought a lot of games close together I might decide to delay purchase a few weeks.

That's about it.
Click to expand...

Dollar Per Hour means I owe Capcom £1000+ just for SFIV alone.
 
Markitron said:
It's great that The Witcher lasted me 90 hours, but I don't consider it more valuble than Arkham Knight which took me 15 hours. It doesn't really matter how long a game lasts for me as long as I enjoy it.
Click to expand...

90 hours? Maybe you'd have been able to appreciate it more if you didn't rush through the game like that :P
 
KHlover said:
90 hours? Maybe you'd have been able to appreciate it more if you didn't rush through the game like that :P
Click to expand...

Lol. I love how the clock measured my playtime in days, was pretty amusing.
 
1) Is it the type of game I'd like?
2) Do I have anything I currently own that I haven't played or want to play?
3) How long is it?
3.1) How replayable depending on length?

I wouldn't splash out on a game genre I'm not entirely sure I'd enjoy, I'd only get it if I see the game super cheap because then I've got nothing to lose.

I just basically trust my gut feeling and if I see a price and I'm not feeling it I won't get it. Though I wouldn't buy the best 3 hour experience ever unless it was cheap. Because instead I could spend that money buying a film or book.
 
If I can get 20 hours off a $60 gamr I'm satisfied. Even if a game story mode is only 8-10 hours, it's somtimes okay if the game is great enough because I played those kind of games multiple times. Like God of War 3 is pretty short with no multiplayer, but I love that game so much that I beat it many times and the extra challenge mode too. I certainly got my 20 hours worth of entertainment.
 
Is it fun? Yes? Worth my money.

Did I enjoy my time? Yes? Worth my money.

No other metric worth a damn. Dollar per hour and that crap to me is just looking for a way to dislike games.
 
I judge it on a case-by-case basis. There are genres out there that do nothing for me, so their value is for instance incredibly low by default. I think there's something to be said about how long a game can entertain you with as little low points as possible. Open World games for instance have a lot of square miles of game, and often a lot of content, but they usually contain so many dips in my interest, and I rarely ever finish one. On the other hand you can have relatively short games that keep your interest from start to finish, and maybe you'd be tempted to play it again one day. Sometimes there are decently sized games that you can play over and over again back-to-back. I played pretty much nothing but Resident Evil 4 for a solid three months for example, and I still consider it one of my best gaming purchases to date.

Then finally there's there value angle as an artistic medium. How long will it stick with you after you're done? Did it reach you on an emotional or intellectual level? I'd argue that in this regard, sometimes even a bad game has more value than a mediocre one. I remember games I hated a lot more than the ones I thought were just ok. In that sense the bad games have become a part of me, while the dull ones left no impression at all.
 
20-30 hours seems to be the sweet spot for me at 60. It is rare I will pay that much for a game that doesn't hit that. Of course length isn't the only and probably not even the major factor, but it does play a big role looking at my Steam library.

KevinCow said:
I think it's silly to judge a game's value by how long it is. In literally no other medium is this done. Movies aren't valued on a per-minute basis. Books aren't valued per-page. TV shows aren't valued per-episode; in fact, many people prefer shows to have fewer episodes.
Click to expand...

I don't know. You have a point with books and I am only speaking for myself here, but if movies for example had as big as range in lengths as games do it would be a factor for me there as well. If I had to decide between a good 12 minute movie or a good 120 minute movie for the same price I would be lying if I said it wouldn't matter. The same I guess could be said for tv if I have to pick between a good series that was 1 1-hour episode or one that was 10 1-hour episodes.
 
Do I like playing it atm and am I going to finish it?
Do I like to spend a lot of time in it and am I dedicated to that game?
Am I happy that I played that game in hindsight - like remembering it years later?

I'm not really interested in replaying a game, so one run has to be enough
 
I have a series of questions:

1) Did I enjoy my time with it?
2) Did I learn anything from it? (eg new genre I like, did I like the narrative, mechanics, etc)
3) How much did I pay for it?

Usually if 1 & 2 are both answered as yes, 3 doesn't matter.
 
It's just a feeling. You know when you're happy with something and what you love about it. Some of my all time favorite games are massive affairs, some are relatively short and snappy, and they all focus on and achieve different things. If I was explaining a value proposition to somebody, it's easy to provide a checklist to them for games with a lot of length and scope... for shorter games that you just think are amazing, you kind of have to explain some indeterminable, nebulous quality and end it with "I dunno... but you might like it." Then again, it depends on what questions people are asking. ie: "Does this game have [x]?" or "I like games like [x, y, x], is [game] like that?"
 
BashNasty said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's not that difficult for a game to get me 1 hour per dollar when I generally don't buy games when they're $60. The only games I buy full price (or more for collector's editions) are games that I am pretty sure I'll get a ton of hours out of, most recently Witcher 3 and GTA V. I've paid Blizzard about $250 for Diablo 3 and its expansion which I've played for ~1200 hours. Something like Batman, however, which I know is relatively short, I'll wait until it's on sale for $5-10 a couple of years from now. Another way to contextualize this is that, if I run out of game time on a game, this means that I either need to go back to another game for my entertainment (ie. still has hours of play left) or I need to spend more money to buy a new game.

KevinCow said:
I think it's silly to judge a game's value by how long it is. In literally no other medium is this done. Movies aren't valued on a per-minute basis. Books aren't valued per-page. TV shows aren't valued per-episode; in fact, many people prefer shows to have fewer episodes.

I also don't like to judge a game based on how much I paid for it. Whether I paid the full $60 price or got it for free, I like to try to judge it by the same standards.

For me, it's a simple, subjective, binary question: "Was this game worth my time?"
Click to expand...
Actually, we do in fact do this with other media except that there's already a standard amount of time for movies and books. A standard theatrical release is 1.5-2 hours and $13 (Canadian). Looking at Indigo.ca's top reads, you get 10-15 pages per dollar at non-sale prices which, depending on how fast you read, translates into a time per dollar measure. If these other media had such large time variances as video games did, we would probably be having a similar conversation about those.

Would you pay $60 for your standard 2 hour movie? How about $60 for a 1 minute movie on Youtube? 10 page novel? 1 sentence "novel" but a really profound one?

Back to games, would you pay $100 for a 1 hour game but a damn fine 1 hour?

At some point, someone will say that they're not willing to pay for what's offered at the suggested price, and that's how that person subjectively values the game whether by hours or subjective quality of experience. I am arguing, however, that there is a correlation between hours played and subjective quality (thus value) of a game because most people, I hope, would not continue to play games they weren't enjoying OR they would wish that an excellent game didn't end when it did (or that they could wipe their memory and play it fresh again).
 
I dont if the game looks fun i will buy it regardless of the price. I base all my buying decisions off of trailers and gameplay videos and it has worked for me as i have yet to buy a game i didnt enjoy.
 
Gameplay is king for me. Graphics and story are just bonuses for me.

If the gameplay is strong or fun enough, i can take shitty graphics, shitty stories or shitty everything else.

Well. To a degree. If a game's themes or story are sufficiently shitty not even gameplay can save them for me.

I have passed on games with good gameplay over other stuff i didnt like, for example Bayonetta (character design), Catherine (stupid premise) and Binding of isaac (maximum over edge!).

Games that are in thin ice are Skullgirls (absolutely hate 80% of the character designs, but it's a damn fine fighting game) and Persona 3 (Too pretentious for me, but the gameplay is addictive).
 
How much fun I had, how "full/satisfied" I felt.

There is no basic, x amount of hours type formula for me.

Despite getting Destiny for $40 on launch day and sinking 40 hours into it, I still felt the game wasn't worth it. Whereas getting Uncharted 2 for $60 and not even touching the MP, I was more than satisfied with what I got.
 
Firstly I need to enjoy the game, and have fun with it.

Now onto pricing. If the game is less than $20, then the game can be as short as it wants. That's roughly two movie tickets and would equal around 3 hours, shortest game I've played was maybe 4 hours so $20 is always worth it.

Next price point is around $30-$40. This is typically reserved for a steam sale, or a year old game that has gotten cheaper. This price point is almost exclusive for RPG's, as I'll be guaranteed 20+ hours on it.

Now onto day one purchases of $60+. I only pay full price for "Souls" games (developed by A team and Miyazaki) and Metal Gear games.
 
Whether it's new and interesting, or a continuation of something already interested/invested in.

Something like GTA is not good value for me, because it feels empty and exploitative even though there's loads of content. Gotta like it.

After that. Amount and quality of content determines value.
 
If I'm talking about value in monetary terms, the only time I don't feel like I get good value is when I've paid over the odds to get a game that I could have found cheaper elsewhere.

I generally enjoy most games I buy, and I don't think games are overpriced, especially if you shop around. Even if I don't enjoy a game, it isn't worthless to me because I can just trade it in.
 
I would suspect that for most people the amount of time they put into a game in proportion to the amount they paid for it is the main criteria. That and personal enjoyment.

All because you got a game on the cheap does not mean you will like it, so it is not exclusively about price. Sometimes people pay $100 for Chrono Trigger on SNES and they love it anyway.
 
Before buying the game.

Does this game look interesting or is it a franchise i know and love? IF yes, pre-order. No don't bother until reviews are out.

(99.99% of new franchise would get a no, unless I trust the developer which unfortunately only amounts to Arena net, CDPR, nintendo, ND, Lord Nomura developed games aka kingdom hearts, Number Metal gear solid games).

Using my criteria the only game I would pre-order from now on would be
Horizon: Zero dawn
technically Until dawn (but I hate scary games, so no).
MGS 5, but i can wait, I do know for sure I will buy it.
Kingdom hearts 3.
Zelda wii U
That's it.

Fallout 4, I will wait a couple of years until all the bugs are fixed and mods are available.


After I buy it and play it?

Did I have fun? Yes, worth the money. No, oh well, life goes on.

Using my criteria I rarely buy games that I ended up hating. The only game that I bought and downright was pissed was ME 3 but the journey was fun. For the ending, I dropped the controller on the ground and simply walked away.
 
Usually I measure it by the quality of my time with the game. I usually don't mind paying full price or more for a game that I've spent my time enjoying it but I get quite upset when I pay (even if it's on a sale) for a game and don't play or don't enjoy my time in it.

For me it's not a matter of numbers, but my overall enjoyment of my time with a game, be it low or high.
 
Almighty said:
I don't know. You have a point with books and I am only speaking for myself here, but if movies for example had as big as range in lengths as games do it would be a factor for me there as well. If I had to decide between a good 12 minute movie or a good 120 minute movie for the same price I would be lying if I said it wouldn't matter. The same I guess could be said for tv if I have to pick between a good series that was 1 1-hour episode or one that was 10 1-hour episodes.
Click to expand...

Philtastic said:
Actually, we do in fact do this with other media except that there's already a standard amount of time for movies and books. A standard theatrical release is 1.5-2 hours and $13 (Canadian). Looking at Indigo.ca's top reads, you get 10-15 pages per dollar at non-sale prices which, depending on how fast you read, translates into a time per dollar measure. If these other media had such large time variances as video games did, we would probably be having a similar conversation about those.

Would you pay $60 for your standard 2 hour movie? How about $60 for a 1 minute movie on Youtube? 10 page novel? 1 sentence "novel" but a really profound one?

Back to games, would you pay $100 for a 1 hour game but a damn fine 1 hour?

At some point, someone will say that they're not willing to pay for what's offered at the suggested price, and that's how that person subjectively values the game whether by hours or subjective quality of experience. I am arguing, however, that there is a correlation between hours played and subjective quality (thus value) of a game because most people, I hope, would not continue to play games they weren't enjoying OR they would wish that an excellent game didn't end when it did (or that they could wipe their memory and play it fresh again).
Click to expand...

Yes, when you use absurd examples like a 12 minute movie or a one sentence novel or a 1 hour game, it's easy to argue your point. But we live in the real world where that doesn't happen. Movies and books have come to an agreement on what's a reasonable length. Within that reasonable length, nobody argues that the longer ones are inherently better and worth more money than the shorter ones.

In no movie review will anybody say, "This movie was only 1.5 hours long, so it's worth less than this other movie that's 3 hours long."

In no book review will you read, "This book was only 300 pages, so it's worth less than this other book that was 1000 pages."

Only with games do people say, "This game was only 10 hours long, so it's worth less than this other game that was 50 hours long."
 
KevinCow said:
Yes, when you use absurd examples like a 12 minute movie or a one sentence novel or a 1 hour game, it's easy to argue your point. But we live in the real world where that doesn't happen. Movies and books have come to an agreement on what's a reasonable length. Within that reasonable length, nobody argues that the longer ones are inherently better and worth more money than the shorter ones.
Click to expand...

Yeah which was kind of my point. The reason saying "this doesn't happens in movies why does it happen in games" doesn't work is because movies have come to that agreement and games clearly haven't. Since the difference in game length can be much more then 1.5 hours compared to 3 hours this gets argued over unlike movies. Which is what my 12 minute example was trying to show. As that is pretty much the equivalent of a 4 hour game compared to a 40 hours game. But if you prefer how about 36 minutes(12 hour game) compared to 120 minutes(40 hour game).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
For how much longer do you think PS3/Wii games will be able to be redownloaded?
30
142
Xion_Stellar replied
How do you select what to play?
18
500
Danjin44 replied
How do game key cards work? 🗝️
36
626
MrCunningham replied
  • Poll
How important is game preservation to You?
2
52
933
seething left replied
What dead game do you miss?
2 3
123
712
ClanOfNone replied
Top Bottom