Games are great, I love them and you love them (if you don't, you're on the wrong site buddy :p). They come in all shapes and sizes and you're are guaranteed to find the one that's right for you, a bit like trying to find a woman/man. The Witness released recently and people gasped "how much?" when they found out the price. "How could an indie developer release a game for $40?" people cried in anguish. Ok, it wasn't that extreme but some people were a little annoyed at the price tag.

The Witness is fairly small in size but is packed with a load of puzzles, you can spend 40 hours on it and still finish. So is it fair for people to complain about the price tag when you can get a lot of mileage for your money? How should we put value onto a game?

Like the point I just mentioned, a game that can run for hours and hours can certainly add value but even that point of view can get complex. For instance, Candy Crush is a game that I've racked up a load of hours on but I wouldn't pay $40 for it. Candy Crush doesn't have anywhere near the production value as The Witness but if we are strictly looking at how many hours you can get out of it, they are pretty much on the same level. Even if the game is quite long, would we want to spend the amount of hours available to complete game or are the hours we spend playing it good quality gaming hours. This is when it all becomes subjective, give 10 people a copy of The Witness, ask them about how good the game was and how many hours they were prepared to put in, they would probably all give you a different answer.

Which brings us to game budget, let's take a look at some "AAA" games. GTAV, TLOU, Heavy Rain, COD, Battlefield etc. Name a number of "AAA" games, imagine they've just launched and put a price tag on them, I bet you can think of some you wouldn't pay $10 for and some that are worthy of the $60 of your hard earned. So it it fair to value a game based on budget?

What about the people that make the game? Should we pay more for games made by developers with a proven track record? Kojima could cram a game case with horse shit and custard creams and it still would sell because he has made a name for himself. Which brings me back to The Witness. Johnathan Blow has made a name for himself with Braid. Is it fair that we pay more for the talent? Like how we would pay more to watch Barcelona play compared to Grimsby Town (soccer reference).

So there we have it, how should we judge the value of a game? Game length, budget, the devlopers making it or a combination?

It's highly subjective but these are some common factors that play a role in determining a game's value to a player. And then there's also quality and fun that matter.

For me it's simply how much enjoyment I think I'll get out of it.

For example, I would happily pay $100+ to see one of my favorite bands or artists in concert & that's for only 2 or so hours of entertainment. Yet, I wouldn't even pay $20 to go horse back riding for 10 hours.

Games are the same for me. Sometimes it's about length, while other factors are about how good it looks overall.

I will say that a game having multiplayer or co-op tends to help simply because of length. That's certainly not the only importance tho.

I feel like I'm really lenient with criticism of game length. As long as I felt like I had fun and like I could replay because it was so enjoyable, and not for the sake of any real replayability, then I'm fine. I could have shelled out upwords of $30 for Shovel Knight, and I would have been fine with that price.

Ubisoft have made good games like... ummmm!... I'll think of one in a minute... come back to me!

To be fair to them they have published some good games, they just beat the dead donkey out of 'em!

In my case the value cames from:
1. Fun: The game is fun then it is valuable. No matter how much hours it takes to get to the credits.
I bet 90% of the people on vgchartz has a copy of Super Mario Bros. (NES)
Splatoon is succesful because of how fun it is.
There are games like FIFA or Assasins Creed, those games are fun as well but they lack....

2. Soul: I mean they make a deep impact in the person who played it. Maybe those people´s minds change the way they afront life.
Super Metroid, Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Shadow of the colossous.
The last time i remember COD has some kind of souls was in the airport mission of COD2.

3. Legacy: They need to be remembered because their contributions to gaming and artistically and technically speaking.
Leged of Zelda, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Half Life even the fuckins SIMS.
The witness lacks legacy, it takes some elements from other games and perfects those.(sorry if i mistake my english). Yes, It is original but nothing new.

4. Nostalgic element: After palying it for the firs time, and play it again or get in some kind of touch with it, a game needs to evocate some memories from the time it was played for the first time.
For me i get chills evry time that the main screen from OOt gets displayed. I remember the old days when my wife (back then my girlfriend and myself played the game on saturday mornings) i even remeber the cold abd how we get close inside a blanket.
Metal Gear solid 2 and the 2K hysteria, Halo and the online multiplayer with friends.

5. The money factor:A game needs to be economically valuable.
Since past gen i stop buying games on day one. Nowadays, A game devaluates itself so quickly that its getting so irresponsible to spend great ammounts ofmoney  for something that will lose its "money value" in only a month.
I bet none of you would buy a car that will become half price in a month after release.
Wild Guns, Mega Man, Almost all Nintendo Games.

6. If those elements are fulfilled then we will get a Valuable Game. I mean For gaming community in general.
Chrono Trigger, Ocarina Of Time, Doom, World of Warcraft, Tetris, Super Mario bros 3.

I remember all ofyou that i havent played all the games in existence so maybe i forgot some of your favorites.

My price point for any game is defined by 3 factors:

1. Developer
2. Let's play videos on youtube
3. Word of mouth

The only way I would pay day 1 price tho is if it's the sequel of a franchise I love. I need to play at least some part of the game to even consider paying $60+

Hmm, that's a tough question. There isn't exactly a simple way to determine how much a game should be worth. For me, I would say: Fun factor, game length, replayability, ...visuals? (for a lack of a better word) For example, smaller games with simpler visuals and scope like on handhelds I would put on lower prices, and the big budget games at around 50-60. Of course, these are obvious, haha...

For example, I think considering how Splatoon launched, I'd say 30 to 40 was a better spot, due to the short amount content and simpler visuals. And The Order I would put around 20 to 30 because although the visuals are excellent, I can't look pass its short length.

I don't think my comment helps, haha... xD

Ditto.

You should judge it however you want, how much value a game has is completely up to you.