Gaming

30431 readers

146 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

When was a game's price worth it to you? (lemm.ee)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Say a simple (hours enjoyed playing)/(price of game) equation. How many hours (you enjoyed) per $ do you think is reasonable/expected? Or is there other criteria for you?

I feel like I'm on the upper end here. But to be fair I also tend to play things that has a lot of replayability. So I usually reach 100+ hours on my favorites eventually.

Eager to hear how others reason about it.

Edit: Added the enjoyed part. I agree with the comments that frustrating hours shouldn't be included in the measure :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think that most of the games that I've really enjoyed have been ones that tend towards the "full price" side money-wise, but which I have played for a long time, replayed a number of times, not just done a single pass. Gotten DLC on. Often modded.

Think:

Fallout 4
Oxygen Not Included
Caves of Qud
Civilization V
Stellaris
Noita
Kenshi
Nova Drift
Kerbal Space Program
Rimworld
Mount & Blade: Warband

The amount I've paid per hour of play on those is tiny.

My real constraint is the amount of time I have. I mean, I haven't really been constrained by what it costs to play a game. I have a backlog of games that I'd be willing to play.

The waste, from a purely monetary standpoint, is overwhelmingly games that I buy and touch briefly, and don't find myself playing at all. Frostpunk sounded neat, because I like similar genres (city-building), but I completely disliked the actual game, for example. A few Paradox games (Stellaris) I've really gotten into, but a number I've also found completely-uninteresting (Europa Universalis, say). There are apparently a number of Europeans who are extremely into the idea of their historic people taking over Europe, for example, and Paradox specializes in simulating those scenarios. I just don't care about playing that out. Sudden Strike 4 -- I've really enjoyed some real time tactics WW2 games, like Close Combat, but couldn't stand the more arcade-oriented Sudden Strike 4.

If you could give me a Noita, but high resolution and with some neat new content and physics I'd happily pay $100.

I've played Nova Drift for about 180 hours. That game presently sells for $18. So I paid about ten cents an hour. The price of the game is a rounding error in terms of the entertainment I got from it. Paying ten times as much for a sequel or DLC comparable to the stuff in the original game would be fine as long as I were confident that I'd enjoy and play it as much as I did the original game.

Sudden Strike 4 is about $20. I played it, forcing myself back to it, made it to about an hour total. So I paid about $20 an hour, or about 200 times the rate for Nova Drift. And I didn't enjoy that hour much.

In general, my preferred model would be for publishers to keep putting out DLC on highly-replayable games as long as people are interested in buying it: when I find something that I know I like, I want to be able to get more of it. If the Caves of Qud guy would hire more people to produce more content and just sell it as DLC, I'd be happy with that.