Integrate "How long to beat" into Steam Library?

[Backlight]

plz

[AmsterdamHeavy]

No thanks. The app doesnt need the kitchen sink included either.

[Princess Luna]

Please no

[Gwarsbane]

Originally posted by Backlight:

plz :ayase_waah:

I have played games and beat them long before the "average" time to beat. I have played games for longer than the "average" time to beat and I still don't consider them beat.

Take the Borderlands series for example. To get your character to the highest level you need to play through at least 3 times. But you can do one play though and you "beat the game" that way. But even though I have hundreds of hours in the games, I wouldn't consider any of them beat.

There is also the issue that Steam only knows a game is running. It doesn't know if its being played. So any one that lets a game idle will effect the game time.

The other issue with something like this is it would open up Valve to being sued by game developers because it drives people away from their game. People see it doesn't take long to beat a game so they don't bother buying the game because they think its too easy, or people see that the average time is 100+ hours so they think it takes a long time to beat a game and they don't want to buy it. When in fact it only takes 30 hours to beat and the extra time is people replying it or playing multiplayer.

Other sites can get away with that info because they are not the store selling the games.



So no, Steam does not need this built in. Its too inaccurate.

[Backlight]

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:

Originally posted by Backlight:

plz

I have played games and beat them long before the "average" time to beat. I have played games for longer than the "average" time to beat and I still don't consider them beat.

Take the Borderlands series for example. To get your character to the highest level you need to play through at least 3 times. But you can do one play though and you "beat the game" that way. But even though I have hundreds of hours in the games, I wouldn't consider any of them beat.

There is also the issue that Steam only knows a game is running. It doesn't know if its being played. So any one that lets a game idle will effect the game time.

The other issue with something like this is it would open up Valve to being sued by game developers because it drives people away from their game. People see it doesn't take long to beat a game so they don't bother buying the game because they think its too easy, or people see that the average time is 100+ hours so they think it takes a long time to beat a game and they don't want to buy it. When in fact it only takes 30 hours to beat and the extra time is people replying it or playing multiplayer.

Other sites can get away with that info because they are not the store selling the games.



So no, Steam does not need this built in. Its too inaccurate.

Okay....That sounds reasonable. I wasn't thought too much and I just thought that would be easy for me to arrange which game i play first.

Displaying this information on the store page does sound like it will affect the user's willingness to buy. But what if it's only on the library page? Steam has a list of recommendations for the next games that haven't been played yet(I don't know what it called in English steam client), and I think it would be good to show the estimated game duration in this list.

As for accuracy, if Steam is willing to design its own time counting function, I think it can improve the accuracy of the estimation by taking trophies into account. For some well-supported games, PS5 has an estimated gameplay time for each chapter (but it is true that there is no estimated duration of the full game, which may indeed be due to the kind of considerations you say)

(Above text is partly use machine translation,sorry if it's hard to understand)

[William Shakesman]

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:

Originally posted by Backlight:

plz :ayase_waah:

I have played games and beat them long before the "average" time to beat. I have played games for longer than the "average" time to beat and I still don't consider them beat.

Take the Borderlands series for example. To get your character to the highest level you need to play through at least 3 times. But you can do one play though and you "beat the game" that way. But even though I have hundreds of hours in the games, I wouldn't consider any of them beat.

There is also the issue that Steam only knows a game is running. It doesn't know if its being played. So any one that lets a game idle will effect the game time.

The other issue with something like this is it would open up Valve to being sued by game developers because it drives people away from their game. People see it doesn't take long to beat a game so they don't bother buying the game because they think its too easy, or people see that the average time is 100+ hours so they think it takes a long time to beat a game and they don't want to buy it. When in fact it only takes 30 hours to beat and the extra time is people replying it or playing multiplayer.

Other sites can get away with that info because they are not the store selling the games.



So no, Steam does not need this built in. Its too inaccurate.

Nobody sues HLTB already. If you are suing because an accurate an observable metric of your game causes fewer people to buy it than if you had hidden it, that says more about the developer than anything else

The answer isn't to second guess HLTB, EVERYONE who thinks they are very clever does that ("The average time for this game is 60 hours." "But I took 80!" Every single argument with these people lol.). The answer is integrating these third party sites doesn't offer much benefit and means you are integrating Canirunit too among other things. Users should be modding this stuff in themselves.

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by Backlight:

plz :ayase_waah:

No, it is a meaningless statistic that does not in any way provide an objective judgement on the value of a game, as has been explained many times already:
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/search/?gidforum=882959061469928464&include_deleted=1&q=%22Time+to+beat%22

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/search/?gidforum=882959061469928464&include_deleted=1&q=%22Average+playtime%22

[Gwarsbane]

Originally posted by Backlight:

Okay....That sounds reasonable. I wasn't thought too much and I just thought that would be easy for me to arrange which game i play first.

Displaying this information on the store page does sound like it will affect the user's willingness to buy. But what if it's only on the library page? Steam has a list of recommendations for the next games that haven't been played yet(I don't know what it called in English steam client), and I think it would be good to show the estimated game duration in this list.

As for accuracy, if Steam is willing to design its own time counting function, I think it can improve the accuracy of the estimation by taking trophies into account. For some well-supported games, PS5 has an estimated gameplay time for each chapter (but it is true that there is no estimated duration of the full game, which may indeed be due to the kind of considerations you say)

(Above text is partly use machine translation,sorry if it's hard to understand)

If its on the library... then why bother? You already have the game, who cares how long it tells you it thinks it will take to beat it. Just play it and enjoy it.

Valve is not going to put in its own time counting function... again it still won't know if you are playing or just idling. I also wouldn't want something in my games tracking all that info anyway.

Taking achievements into considering means nothing. Valve has no idea how long its suppose to take to get achievements. After playing hundreds of hours in some games I still don't have all the achievements for them... because I don't care about going after achievements. If you do care about them, you could end up getting them faster than you usually do.

There is also the fact that SAM exists and can unlock any/all achievements for any game you have instantly.

Some games only unlock achievements after you are done your play session and exit the game. Meaning some achievements that you usually get within minutes, could be hours later.

So going by achievements is also rather pointless.

Again... who cares how long a game is suppose to take... just play it. If you enjoy it, keep playing, if you don't, then stop playing it and move on to something else.

[William Shakesman]

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Originally posted by Backlight:

plz :ayase_waah:

No, it is a meaningless statistic that does not in any way provide an objective judgement on the value of a game, as has been explained many times already:
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/search/?gidforum=882959061469928464&include_deleted=1&q=%22Time+to+beat%22

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/search/?gidforum=882959061469928464&include_deleted=1&q=%22Average+playtime%22

How many hours it takes to clear a game, measured on an average across many gamers, is not meaningless and is absolutely objective by any definition of the term. Just because you do not like it does not mean it is meaningless. (And ironic that you would link those threads as they show that it is indeed an objective and meaningful measure if you had read them.)

It is always funny though seeing the people who insist the buyer should research what he is buying suddenly shriek at the idea of the buyer getting any measurable metrics.

[William Shakesman]

Originally posted by Backlight:

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:

I have played games and beat them long before the "average" time to beat. I have played games for longer than the "average" time to beat and I still don't consider them beat.

Take the Borderlands series for example. To get your character to the highest level you need to play through at least 3 times. But you can do one play though and you "beat the game" that way. But even though I have hundreds of hours in the games, I wouldn't consider any of them beat.

There is also the issue that Steam only knows a game is running. It doesn't know if its being played. So any one that lets a game idle will effect the game time.

The other issue with something like this is it would open up Valve to being sued by game developers because it drives people away from their game. People see it doesn't take long to beat a game so they don't bother buying the game because they think its too easy, or people see that the average time is 100+ hours so they think it takes a long time to beat a game and they don't want to buy it. When in fact it only takes 30 hours to beat and the extra time is people replying it or playing multiplayer.

Other sites can get away with that info because they are not the store selling the games.



So no, Steam does not need this built in. Its too inaccurate.

Okay....That sounds reasonable. I wasn't thought too much and I just thought that would be easy for me to arrange which game i play first.

Displaying this information on the store page does sound like it will affect the user's willingness to buy. But what if it's only on the library page? Steam has a list of recommendations for the next games that haven't been played yet(I don't know what it called in English steam client), and I think it would be good to show the estimated game duration in this list.

As for accuracy, if Steam is willing to design its own time counting function, I think it can improve the accuracy of the estimation by taking trophies into account. For some well-supported games, PS5 has an estimated gameplay time for each chapter (but it is true that there is no estimated duration of the full game, which may indeed be due to the kind of considerations you say)

(Above text is partly use machine translation,sorry if it's hard to understand)

Sony can do this because they rule their domain, as it were. They can set the rules and demand developers track these time metrics. PC is an open platform and Valve has nothing implemented that can reliably measure this data and Valve, historically, does not want to require developers to do anything. It took them 20 years to actually say season passes are obligated to deliver what they promise, so I don't expect them to make devs track time. Cheevos don't work. Playtime has too many outliers. A community managed independent site, like HLTB, is on every level a better repository for this data than anything Steam is prepared to do, especially since they are in a better position to identify unique issues per game.