By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How many hours should a single player game today be to warrant a sixty dollar purchase?

 

How many hours should a single player game today be to warrant a sixty dollar purchase?

5 hrs 13 3.49%
 
6-8 hrs 16 4.29%
 
10-12 hrs 75 20.11%
 
15-20 hrs 119 31.90%
 
21+ hrs 117 31.37%
 
Who cares? If the game i... 33 8.85%
 
Depends on the DLC and ho... 0 0%
 
I don't play single player games....sorry. 0 0%
 
Total:373

well i dont think games should cost 60 to begin with so im not gona vote on this. i would rather use this as a guide for a purchase. for every $4 spent i should get a minimum of 1 hr of gameplay, if there is more then that is a bonus. so a $60 game, if i were to buy one, should give me a min of 15hrs.

$60=15hr
$50=12.5hr
$40=10hr
$30=7.5hr
$20=5hr



Around the Network

Depends. I would rather play a 6-8 hour quality game than a 30 hour game that sucks. Honestly, I don't like really long games. If it takes me over 40 hours, I probably wont play it. That is a big reason why I don't like skyrim and some of the longer rpg games. For me, I think the magic number is 10-15 hours.



Jay520 said:
I buy virtually all my games after a price cut unless I'm going to put over 100 hours into the game. If I anticipate that a game will only last 10 hours of less, then I'll probably wait for it to be $20. I just don't value games enough for me to buy them full price when I know they will be cheaper later.

I'll be getting a rental service soon so actually I want have to worry about any of this though.

Also, I disagree with the idea that games have become shorter compared to last gen. From what I've played, action/shooter games have always been around 10 hours long and that hasn't changed. The longer games were RPGs, racing simulators, and open world games, which is the same this gen. I don't see what's changed.


I understand totally, but I never said games have become shorter. I said the price of games was fifty dollars and there was more gameplay in each game, because back then thats what it was all about and we accepted it or bought the game used from Gamestop. With the advent of online gaming and indy games this generation, it seems to have forced  consumers to think long and hard about what is worth sixty dollars, fourty, twenty or even five dollars. We might be headed to an age where that becomes the mode of payment for a type of game.



I don't have much time to devote to super long games. As much as I love Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3, they take me months to play because I only play for an hour a day and not even every day. If I was still a kid I could spend hours every day playing games, but I'm not and long games take too much time to finish. I still play long games but I must say that shorter campaigns like Halo 4 don't overstay their welcome and feel very satisfying. If they are good enough I'll replay them a few times or more. With long games I rarely go back because I can't justify the amount of time it takes to replay what I've already experienced. At least with Mass Effect I could replay them as the opposite sex and do things differently. But most of the time I prefer games to be completable without requiring me to neglect my life.

 

Besides, look at it this way:

A movie ticket costs $10 for about 90 minutes. At that rate per hour a 10 hour game would cost about $66.66. It's pretty much the same amount of money per entertainment hour. Anything over that is just gravey.



arcelonious said:
There is much more to a game than its length, so I don't put a great amount of emphasis on it when I'm deciding whether or not to buy a game. For example, Journey is an incredibly short game, but it is also an amazing experience that I feel is worth every penny.


Yes, but you can buy the Journey download for $15 dollars. Its well worth it.



Around the Network

Boy are you people spoiled today. Back in the day there were SNES games that I beat on my first play through that cost $60 or more, and in today's $$$ that's close to $100.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

NightDragon83 said:
Boy are you people spoiled today. Back in the day there were SNES games that I beat on my first play through that cost $60 or more, and in today's $$$ that's close to $100.


Are you associating it with inflation as the times have gone by?



S.T.A.G.E. said:
NightDragon83 said:
Boy are you people spoiled today. Back in the day there were SNES games that I beat on my first play through that cost $60 or more, and in today's $$$ that's close to $100.


Are you associating it with inflation as the times have gone by?

I'm associating it with the fact that people today whine about spending $60 on a game with a 5-6 hour single player story / campaign and limited or no other game modes, when this was the norm back in the 16-bit era, and in many cases those games were even shorter despite costing more if you factor in the rate of inflation.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

I don't have the time anymore to finish 50+ hours games so I'm fine with games lasting 12 hours or so. Longer isn't always better.



where did you get that GUI for black ops 2 in the OP