Add "Average hours played" to store page

[Phelpsy4]

I would love to know the average hours someone has played a game when considering it for purchase. Yes you can look up how long it *should* take to complete, but some games get played more or less for one reason or another. I think it could be useful for some people when considering purchasing a game. You could exclude all 0 hour players as to not skew the average.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I feel like it could be useful.

[Pscht]

Use a browser to do everything on Steam aside from playing. Then get the Augmented Steam extension. Ta-dah, what you want is in there AND more.

[Wolf Knight]

the number is worthless. people idle games for various reasons.

they play for a bit, then alt-tab out to do something else, go to the bathroom, eat, get distracted, etc.

your suggestion would also give incentive for shady developers to try and idle the game using bot accounts to make it look better to people like you. remember, if the EXE is running the game is being played as far as steam is concerned.

[Phelpsy4]

Originally posted by Pscht:

Use a browser to do everything on Steam aside from playing. Then get the Augmented Steam extension. Ta-dah, what you want is in there AND more.

The suggestion is to add it to steam...I clearly do not want to use a browser extension...

[BJWyler]

What would be lovely would be people using the forum search to see the dozens upon dozens of threads on this topic and why a meaningless static is meaningless without having any other data behind it to put it into context.

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/search/?gidforum=882959061469928464&include_deleted=1&q=Average+hours+played

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

My question still stands...

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/4629231101531917338/

[Crazy Tiger]

As long as it can be disabled then. I really do not see the point in such a useless metric.

[Nx Machina]

How is average useful when for example i had 63.4 hours in Elite Dangerous on Steam BUT then switched to launching the game externally via the Target software from Thrustmaster where i have approx 4k+ hours.

[IFIYGD]

So- I have 1882 online hours played in The Long Dark. Steam does not count the 3600+ hours I have playing in offline mode or completely offline by launching through the .exe in local files.
A friend has 42 hours.
They have only played Wintermute Story Mode.
I have played Wintermute Story Mode, Survival Mode and all of the Challenge Modes. Over and over.
So showing the average of our combined playtime is going to tell you what, exactly?
There are people who have the game who have logged over 10000 hours in online mode, and I have no way to know how much of that time is actually playing, and how much is afk time. Those numbers are exceptionally high, even for someone who loves the game. Averaging them in would tell you what, exactly?

I think this idea has *some* merit for games with linear play that has set objectives and a set win state or end game objective. But has no merit for endless open-world games, or aRPGs/TRPGs that you can play over and over with different builds, or shooters where people idle and camp and play competitively for thousands of hours on a ton of different maps.

The problem is, if they add this for one game, they will have to add it for all games, many of which it is a totally useless metric for. Unless you plan on going through all 100000 or so games and apps in the Steam Store and picking out only the ones that it might be useful for. Get back to us when you are done making up that list, okay?

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by IFIYGD:

I think this idea has *some* merit for games with linear play that has set objectives and a set win state or end game objective. But has no merit for endless open-world games, or aRPGs/TRPGs that you can play over and over with different builds, or shooters where people idle and camp and play competitively for thousands of hours on a ton of different maps.

Even linear games can be replayed because they're, you know, enjoyable. I've played games like Mafia and Tomb Raider a couple of times, for example.

[IFIYGD]

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Even linear games can be replayed because they're, you know, enjoyable. I've played games like Mafia and Tomb Raider a couple of times, for example.

Yep. I've done the same.
But the OP seems to be looking for "time to beat or finish a game", which could be possibly seen by times for single playthroughs, but games that are designed to be "endless"- the metric will tell them nothing.
And even for more linear games- DREDGE, for example- a linear game with a story line you have to follow to progress, unlock quests, and reach the end state- but then you can play as long as you like just fishing and trying to complete every entry in the Encyclopedia, or just because you like fishing (I like fishing in the game- my hours are probably way higher than what is "needed" to complete the game because I just chill out and fish and fish and fish. )
Which is why I said *some* merit, not "a ton of merit".

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by IFIYGD:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Even linear games can be replayed because they're, you know, enjoyable. I've played games like Mafia and Tomb Raider a couple of times, for example.

Yep. I've done the same.
But the OP seems to be looking for "time to beat or finish a game", which could be possibly seen by times for single playthroughs, but games that are designed to be "endless"- the metric will tell them nothing.
And even for more linear games- DREDGE, for example- a linear game with a story line you have to follow to progress, unlock quests, and reach the end state- but then you can play as long as you like just fishing and trying to complete every entry in the Encyclopedia, or just because you like fishing (I like fishing in the game- my hours are probably way higher than what is "needed" to complete the game because I just chill out and fish and fish and fish. :dredge_wow:)
Which is why I said *some* merit, not "a ton of merit".

OP says average time, so I'm guessing they're actually more looking for a metric that tells them whether a game is worth the time.

The thing is that an average time played already gets skewed from the beginning due to card farmers. Then there is the people who install games, boot them to set them up and keep them in their installed backlog. Another subset is the idlers who want to have as many hours as possible on their accounts.

So many factors from the get go already remove the "some" merit you mention.

[IFIYGD]

Yeah, true. The OP seems to be one of the people more interested in $/hr metrics, instead of "Was it fun?".
I can spend $20 on a game that I play for 10 hours and have an amazing experience that sticks with me, or I can spend the same $20 at a fast food joint and have an experience that keeps me stuck in the bathroom for days. [_Taco_Bell_enters_the_chat_]

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by IFIYGD:

Yeah, true. The OP seems to be one of the people more interested in $/hr metrics, instead of "Was it fun?".
I can spend $20 on a game that I play for 10 hours and have an amazing experience that sticks with me, or I can spend the same $20 at a fast food joint and have an experience that keeps me stuck in the bathroom for days. [_Taco_Bell_enters_the_chat_]

At least both are experiences that do get remembered. 😜

[Brian9824]

The main issue is the number is completely useless because you have so many owners who might have played a few minutes for card drops, and then haven't played the game, or havent played it all yet.

So trying to average it across all steam users is going to be a literal random number, as its not indicative of the gameplay time.