What’s a Good Value for a Video Game?

[Jackson]

Hey everyone,

I’ve been thinking a lot about game value recently and wanted to get your thoughts on it. I frequently come across opinions where people say, “It’s a good game, but it’s too short.” This got me wondering about what constitutes a good value in a video game.

Personally, I find that a game’s length doesn’t always equate to its value. I actually enjoy games that don’t feel stretched out. Sometimes, extending a game beyond its natural length can make it feel tedious rather than enjoyable. For me, a well-designed game that keeps me engaged for around 10 or more hours is impressive.

I also tend to replay my favorite games, which means the initial length of the game doesn’t tell the whole story. If a game is compelling enough, its value increases through replayability and the additional hours I spend with it.

To put it simply, I’m content with a value of around 1 hour of gameplay for every $5 spent. This metric helps me gauge whether I’m getting a fair deal. It’s challenging to find comparable value in many other forms of entertainment, so this standard works well for me.

How do you measure a game’s value? Do you think game length is a key factor, or do you focus more on replayability and overall enjoyment? I’d love to hear your thoughts and how you determine whether a game is worth the investment.

Looking forward to the discussion!

[Qbert ⭐]

I am a bit more simple... I like stories and action... If I have a connection with that or the characters, it's a good game for me.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Jackson:

Hey everyone,

I’ve been thinking a lot about game value recently and wanted to get your thoughts on it. I frequently come across opinions where people say, “It’s a good game, but it’s too short.” This got me wondering about what constitutes a good value in a video game.'

If the entertainment value high relative to the cost.
This doesn't mean long.
A short impactfuil game is waay bettter in my opinion than a game than a long dull game.

Originally posted by Jackson:

Personally, I find that a game’s length doesn’t always equate to its value. I actually enjoy games that don’t feel stretched out. Sometimes, extending a game beyond its natural length can make it feel tedious rather than enjoyable. For me, a well-designed game that keeps me engaged for around 10 or more hours is impressive.

Exactly so.

I do consider the Game's length A factor, but not THE factor..
Even a pleasant experience becomes dull and boring if it goes on too long.

[matt]

Any new game has to compete against:
- Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and Civilization games, all of which I've been playing for decades
- whatever is being bundled at Humble and Fanatical
- my very large backlog of bundled games that were bought on impulse
- all of the free games that I get from Amazon Prime every month
- all of the games that I get from Humble Choice every month
- procgen games that never get old
- my urge to replay all those classic RPGs like Pool of Radiance, Ultima 4, and Wizardry

I usually wait until games drop down to $5-$10 for indie games, $10-$15 for AA games, and $20-$30 for AAA games. Otherwise, I'll buy another bundle at Humble instead, or just go back to playing Skyrim.

[Start_Running]

That's stiff competition, only for the game to be absorbed and assimilated into aforementioned backlog.

Personalyy I have never paid more than $10 for a single game m'self. Because no. No game is worth a fortnight's worth of grocceris.

[Ben Lubar]

Imagine some fast food you like. Think about how many of those you'd have to buy to equal the price of the game. If the game brings you at least as much joy as eating that many of that food (not necessarily all at once), it's worth the price.

Not giving any specific examples because last time I did someone got really mad at me for some reason.

[IxianMace]

Replayability and overall enjoyment is what I look for in a game. The core gameplay loop needs to feel fun and rewarding. There also needs to be a sense of progression. If I reach a point where there's no room for improvement or growth, that's when it feels like it's time to move on. Game length doesn't have much value if the quality of the experience isn't good.

[D. Flame]

If you get more than 1 hour of playtime per $1 then it is a good deal, including replay value or multiplayer.

If you are super hyped for the game: $60
Mildly interested: $40
A little interested or indie game: $20
Mobid curiosity: $10

[Realigo Actual]

cinco

[ReBoot]

Nor length nor replayability. By this account, something like Minesweeper or some grindy MMO got the best value by definition. Neither I'm gonna spend considerable time with.

I'd rather have a game that entertains me, that yields fun playing it, than a long game. I'd rather play a game with an 8h campaign of pure gaming bliss than a game with 50+ of content-for-the-sake-of-content.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by ReBoot:

Nor length nor replayability. By this account, something like Minesweeper or some grindy MMO got the best value by definition.

I'd rather have a game that entertains me, that yields fun playing it, than a long game. I'd rather play a game with an 8h campaign of pure gaming bliss than a game with 50+ of content-for-the-sake-of-content.

Mine Sweeper was free, and has been played for decades, so it is a great value, actually.

And most MMO's are poor value because they typically require reoccurring fees.

Two of my greatest games of all time are Super Mario Bros. 3 and Dark Souls 1.

I have 3k+ hours in DS1 on XB360 alone. I have countless hours in SMB3. They are pure gaming bliss, but they also had near endless replay value.

[Kargor]

Originally posted by Jackson:

This got me wondering about what constitutes a good value in a video game.

Whether I liked it, or not.

“It’s a good game, but it’s too short.”

In fact, there have been games where being short saved them from being a thumb-down. Games without a story are likely more prone to that kind of view -- if the novelty factor runs out before you get anywhere close to the end, it's easy to become tedious.

[Chernobyl No.4]

$20-30 tax included. No game should go above this baseline and for $60 it should be flawless.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

Long term view: Games are cheaper than they have ever been by far. Games in the 80s, like PacMan for the Atari 2600 in todays dollars would be like $155 dollars.

Short term view, I personally use the cost of a movie ticket as an "entertainment baseline", so youre talking about $5 an hour. So it doesnt take very long for a game to far outstrip a movie as far as per hour value. I have games that were less than $20 that I have hundreds or even thousands of hours in so it ends up being pennies per hour.

Bottom line its what the value is to you.

[The nameless Gamer]

Probably the best value of a game is how much fun the time you had with it was. A 10 hour game the player had fun with all the time has more value than a 100+ hour game which was mostly grinding or traversing an empty open world.