Pause counting "Time Played" (hrs on record) when a game is minimized or not in focus

[Yirg]

Some games have a really poor save systems which mean that the only option to not lose progress between sessions is to leave the game paused. in this cases I normally minimize the game or Alt+Tab out of it, but unfortunately the Steam client keep counting game time as if I'm still playing. This means that game that took me 5 hours to complete are recorded as ones I played for 150 hours. An easy solution would be to pause counting if the game is not in focus.

Thanks!

[𝕊𝕋𝕌ℝ𝕄-𝕂𝔸𝕋]

Well, this is where the realms of single player game realm mingles with mmo-style game play monitoring for social purposes.

As it stands, (and as you have brought to light) the current data is only really useful for showing off to your mates how long you have been playing a game for. - A bit like the length and weight of fish being caught amongst competetive fishermen...

As a single player statistic ... it is as much use as an ironingboard made from said caught fish...

[Yirg]

Actually, I find timing useful for a completely different reason - submitting game times to howlongtobeat.com. I'm using this site all the time to prioritize my backlog and to help me decide which games to purchase, and I'd like to contribute times too. The problem is that my times are frequently useless because of the way Steam counts it.

[𝕊𝕋𝕌ℝ𝕄-𝕂𝔸𝕋]

I understand your motives.. Yes, you can be competetive in how LESS time it takes you to complete a game / level, whatever..

So, if you want to claim the glory.. you have to devote the situation to have no distractions... don't drink a lot so you dont have to go pee..

In my reasoning, I do not judge game time as value for money, because of the people who just fly through a game without even PLAYING it.. They just want to ''BEAT'' it and gloat about how they have done so... It is definitely not a measure for a game's integrity at all.

You are right in your point about the uselessness of the time played as an accurate measurement,.. but then again, one person plays a lot slower than another, choosing to explore more, or sandbox more, rather than hunt for the glory of completion in a certain time limit set by none-specific factors..

I suggest adoptiong a new form of judging a game's value for money, that way, this issue will become redundant! lol..

To be honest, it would be complicated to design a system to determine your personal behaviour on your computer.. it would mean incorporating some pretty intrusive software, that I'm CERTAIN no one will be comfortable with. In my humble opinion, I think technology of today is already intrusive enough without everyone knowing when you go to take a pee!

[Yirg]

Originally posted by KL Master Dan StormCats:

I understand your motives.. Yes, you can be competetive in how LESS time it takes you to complete a game / level, whatever..

Actually, I think you got it wrong again ;) I have no competitive motives here. The way I view game times is different. If it's very long game (e.g. 25 hours), then it's a serious turnoff. I simply don't want to invest that much time in a single game when I have so many great games in my backlog that I want to get to. On the other hand, if a game is very short, e.g. 2 hours, it's also a turnoff as it's likely to be less immersive than games that allow you some time to develop related skills before they abruptly finish. To me the sweet spot is somewhere between 4 to 7 hours.

In my reasoning, I do not judge game time as value for money, because of the people who just fly through a game without even PLAYING it.. They just want to ''BEAT'' it and gloat about how they have done so... It is definitely not a measure for a game's integrity at all.

I take my time and don't care if it takes me longer to finish a game compared to other players. I just don't want to spend all my time on one game.

You are right in your point about the uselessness of the time played as an accurate measurement,.. but then again, one person plays a lot slower than another, choosing to explore more, or sandbox more, rather than hunt for the glory of completion in a certain time limit set by none-specific factors..

Agreed, but HLTB.com solves it very nicely. Each game has different timings for different playing styles. All you need is to submit reliable time, and this isn't something that Steam currently provides.

I suggest adoptiong a new form of judging a game's value for money, that way, this issue will become redundant! lol..

Game time is not the only factor I'm using to prioritize my backlog and choose new games. There are other factors (metacritic.com scores, genre I'd like to play at the time etc). I really don't need to remove game time from my selection criteria, as I can get it from HLTB.com. This request is mostly altruistic, I'd like to be able to contribute to a valuable resource I'm using frequently. It won't help me directly in any way.