See average time it takes to complete game

[Nexvenator]

Like my title says I think it would be a great idea to see the average amount of time it takes steam users to complete a game in the store before you buy it. Just like how my kindle starts to acclimate to how many pages I can read, it starts to estimate how long it will take to read a new book by displaying a sort of timer at the bottom. Looking at some of the discovery type games like Myst and Riven I was wondering how much time it would take to finish it now that I'm a father to two little kids and have at most an hour sometimes during the work week.

[Eldin]

https://howlongtobeat.com/

It would be cool if something like this gets added to the store page.

[Crazy Tiger]

The site Eldin gives is a decent one to use as an indicator. But often enough games actually have too low input to be able to speak of actual averages. The issue with such things is that it's completely based on player input, which immediately is the reason why I doubt it will ever be implemented.

[Nexvenator]

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

The site Eldin gives is a decent one to use as an indicator. But often enough games actually have too low input to be able to speak of actual averages. The issue with such things is that it's completely based on player input, which immediately is the reason why I doubt it will ever be implemented.

I know but it doesn't hurt anyone to see an estimation based on the average even if it is skewed. In the example of Borderlands some players would spend upwards of 300 hours, I think they could easily show the data in a type of P chart so you could see even the outliers

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by Nexvenator:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

The site Eldin gives is a decent one to use as an indicator. But often enough games actually have too low input to be able to speak of actual averages. The issue with such things is that it's completely based on player input, which immediately is the reason why I doubt it will ever be implemented.

I know but it doesn't hurt anyone to see an estimation based on the average even if it is skewed. In the example of Borderlands some players would spend upwards of 300 hours, I think they could easily show the data in a type of P chart so you could see even the outliers

Steam can't accurately get that info. They have no way of knowing if people are playing the game, leaving it idle, sitting afk, playing in offline mode where time isn't tracked, etc.

Thats why sites like how long to beat rely on users actually putting down their info.

Also again, its an issue of its already done and there is an entire site dedicated to it. It's a waste of time for steam to try to develop their own system when there is already a well known site providing that information with years of data already in it.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Nexvenator:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

The site Eldin gives is a decent one to use as an indicator. But often enough games actually have too low input to be able to speak of actual averages. The issue with such things is that it's completely based on player input, which immediately is the reason why I doubt it will ever be implemented.

I know but it doesn't hurt anyone to see an estimation based on the average even if it is skewed. In the example of Borderlands some players would spend upwards of 300 hours, I think they could easily show the data in a type of P chart so you could see even the outliers

WHat does the tuime to complete have to do with the game's quality?

[SpunkyJones]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Originally posted by Nexvenator:

I know but it doesn't hurt anyone to see an estimation based on the average even if it is skewed. In the example of Borderlands some players would spend upwards of 300 hours, I think they could easily show the data in a type of P chart so you could see even the outliers

Steam can't accurately get that info. They have no way of knowing if people are playing the game, leaving it idle, sitting afk, playing in offline mode where time isn't tracked, etc.

Thats why sites like how long to beat rely on users actually putting down their info.

Also again, its an issue of its already done and there is an entire site dedicated to it. It's a waste of time for steam to try to develop their own system when there is already a well known site providing that information with years of data already in it.

Also developers might not want this info on the store page.

[Brian9824]

Also the biggest issue, steam tracks playtime, not when you "beat" the game. So people can beat borderlands in 30 hours then play it for another 3000 hours replaying it over and over.

Steam has absolutely no way to know when someone beat the game. Not to mention the definition of the word "beat" is vague. Many games have optional content, new game+, etc. So everyone's definition of "beat" is going to be different.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by brian9824:

Also the biggest issue, steam tracks playtime, not when you "beat" the game. So people can beat borderlands in 30 hours then play it for another 3000 hours replaying it over and over.

Likewise a game like street fighter, or a dota.. how would you rank that. EVen in an FPS.

Steam has absolutely no way to know when someone beat the game. Not to mention the definition of the word "beat" is vague. Many games have optional content, new game+, etc. So everyone's definition of "beat" is going to be different.

[Nexvenator]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by Nexvenator:

I know but it doesn't hurt anyone to see an estimation based on the average even if it is skewed. In the example of Borderlands some players would spend upwards of 300 hours, I think they could easily show the data in a type of P chart so you could see even the outliers

WHat does the tuime to complete have to do with the game's quality?

I don't know where you got the idea where I said time spent = quality.

Originally posted by brian9824:

Also the biggest issue, steam tracks playtime, not when you "beat" the game. So people can beat borderlands in 30 hours then play it for another 3000 hours replaying it over and over.

Steam has absolutely no way to know when someone beat the game. Not to mention the definition of the word "beat" is vague. Many games have optional content, new game+, etc. So everyone's definition of "beat" is going to be different.

I guess, but seeing the average time users spent playing said game is interesting to see.

Originally posted by brian9824:

Originally posted by Nexvenator:

I know but it doesn't hurt anyone to see an estimation based on the average even if it is skewed. In the example of Borderlands some players would spend upwards of 300 hours, I think they could easily show the data in a type of P chart so you could see even the outliers

Steam can't accurately get that info. They have no way of knowing if people are playing the game, leaving it idle, sitting afk, playing in offline mode where time isn't tracked, etc.

Thats why sites like how long to beat rely on users actually putting down their info.

Also again, its an issue of its already done and there is an entire site dedicated to it. It's a waste of time for steam to try to develop their own system when there is already a well known site providing that information with years of data already in it.

I don't quite see how an algorithm to record data that's already public and steam actively tracks (hours played) on your profile, and pulling the average would be a monumentous time sink.

[cinedine]

Originally posted by Eldin:

https://howlongtobeat.com/

It would be cool if something like this gets added to the store page.

I strongly disagree.
It dumps down an experience to yet another meaningless number that people can pre-emptively judge it upon. "Uh ... why does this game cost ten dollars if it can be done in two hours?".
"To the Moon" or "Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons" are frequent examples of very short but incredible experiences.

---
Apart from it being impossible to determine for Steam when a game is "beaten" - how would you define that at all?
What does "beaten" mean for a game like Skyrim? Just the main quest? All side missions?
GTA? Again, just story or 100 %?
Civilisation? One game?
CS:GO?
Ever heard of idle games?

Also your example for Myst: with guide or without? Myst can be speedrun in under a MINUTE! Or you can take several days trying to figure out the puzzles.
Broken Age took me probably eight hours on my first playthrough. But I also have the trophy for playing it through in under two hours.

[Nexvenator]

Originally posted by cinedine:

Originally posted by Eldin:

https://howlongtobeat.com/

It would be cool if something like this gets added to the store page.

I strongly disagree.
It dumps down an experience to yet another meaningless number that people can pre-emptively judge it upon. "Uh ... why does this game cost ten dollars if it can be done in two hours?".
"To the Moon" or "Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons" are frequent examples of very short but incredible experiences.

By that notion then overall user reviews by the community should simply be removed especially now with review bombing or how easily the community can be offended over one change. Wolfenstein 2 has just as much negative ratings to positive simply for the fact gamers think it's a SJW fest but that doesn't stop the game from being fantastic. IMO hovering over a game in the store page and seeing mixed reviews is much more detrimental to a game over my suggestion, also video game consumers have always complained about AAA single player games campaigns being completed in a short amount of time, this isn't a new concept,

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Nexvenator:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

WHat does the tuime to complete have to do with the game's quality?

I don't know where you got the idea where I said time spent = quality.

That wasn't my question. I said 'time to complete'. Not 'time spent'. Those are two different metrics. I also never said one equalled the other. I asked what correlation does time to complete have with game quality?

The important thing is after all the game's quality right?

[Nexvenator]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by Nexvenator:

I don't know where you got the idea where I said time spent = quality.

That wasn't my question. I said 'time to complete'. Not 'time spent'. Those are two different metrics. I also never said one equalled the other. I asked what correlation does time to complete have with game quality?

The important thing is after all the game's quality right?

I'm sorry do you not spend time when completing a game? You spend time to complete something correct? Again I don't know where you keep reaching at this idea where I said time to complete correlates directly to the quality of the game. No one ever mentioned this haha

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by Nexvenator:

I don't quite see how an algorithm to record data that's already public and steam actively tracks (hours played) on your profile, and pulling the average would be a monumentous time sink.

Well thats part of the problem. A lot of that data isn't public, it depends on your profile settings.

Also what your describing now is an average time played, not an average time it takes to complete the game.

Average time played across steam users is totally different, and that is far more feasible IMO. It's not open to interpretation the way "beating" a game is, and if its not 100% accurate its not as big of a deal.

So you have to clarify exactly what data your looking for

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Nexvenator:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

That wasn't my question. I said 'time to complete'. Not 'time spent'. Those are two different metrics. I also never said one equalled the other. I asked what correlation does time to complete have with game quality?

The important thing is after all the game's quality right?

I'm sorry do you not spend time when completing a game? You spend time to complete something correct? Again I don't know where you keep reaching at this idea where I said time to complete correlates directly to the quality of the game. No one ever mentioned this haha

Now you're just being evasive.
Might surprise you to know that many people, argyuably the majority of gamers will keep playing a agme even after they've beaten it. Hence why the two measures are very different.

There must be some correlation in your mind otherwise you wouldn't ask for such information when making a purchase decision. If you made no correlation between the two then they data would be abnout as meaningful to your purchase decision as the name of the lead developer's cat.