Value for money in games

[J4MES OX4D 10,134]

I pretty much operate on a £1 = 1 hour ratio when it comes to games and nowadays I don't look at games on overall quality, but what they actually over in terms of value for money. I bought Dying Light a few weeks back for £30 and got a return of 45 hours on campaign completion and I can still see another 15 hours left on side quests and achievements. I think that's a fantastic return for my money and the fact the game is of a very impressive quality is a massive bonus on top. 

 

I recently saw feedback of The Order 1886 from a YouTube uploader who got the game early. He was quite damning about the game as he finished it in just over 5 hours with key cutscenes also included in the time. For a game that took 5 years to produce and a cost of £50 to the player; this is a pitiful return for the game in lasting quality and value for money. It makes you wonder why they bothered producing the title. It equates to £10 an hour for the gamer and 1 year of development = 1 hour of gameplay. Pretty pathetic really especially with today's high expectations.

 

I look back at the older Call of Duty titles and for £40 on each title; I probably had 500 hours of entertainment on each, so I had no concerns stumping up for the DLC as it was essentially bought and paid for and would give even more hours on top. Destiny may have been ridiculed in the media and I don't own the game but for £40 and the additional content; if you get 100 hours out of the product minimum, that is a bloody decent purchase regardless of any issues associated with it. 

 

I see people moan about games like DayZ who have 600+ hours on record all for just £20 and they still feel ripped off and letdown. That's kinda sad and maybe they should look at the bigger picture on how much they can get out of a game based on what they've financially committed to it. I once blew £7.49 (half price) on a game called Gone Home which I finished in 58 minutes - I felt robbed that I wasted my money and felt devastated for the people that spent £15 on it full price. This didn't stop IGN giving it a 9.5 as they failed to take into consideration the longevity and replayability. It's the type of game you only visit once and in one sitting so whether you spent £7.49 or £15 on it; the return rate is despicable. 

 

In this graphics-emphasised era of gaming; it seems so many developers have forgot to give us worthwhile games that represent a worthy purchase. It doesn't matter how good a game looks if it has no meat to it and with the lavish prices we have to pay; I think value for money is something that needs to be highlighted more than visuals and gameplay within the few hours on offer in certain titles. I can also spend £3.50 every 30 minutes down the pub and have a headache the next day so really; if a game can offer a lasting experience; I'd trump this aspect ahead of other criterias that may overlook value at the end of the day.  

[techno 3,520]

Have to agree all previous cods upto AW many hours, destiny lost count same with bf4 these have all cost pennies per hour which allows me to buy games to see if I like them if I dont it averages out in my eyes but if a game can be done and dusted in hours and is designed that way then shame on whoever produced it they are ripping people off.

On a side note people moan about stumping up $20 on dlc after spending 100's of hours in a game then moan content is unavailable to them.. Tough stop moaning or pay up as stated its been well worth it value wise.

[L_C_Scipio 395]

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's fair to equate value and quality. Just because a game only lasts five hours doesn't mean it isn't a high quality game. It might not be worth $60 to you, but that doesn't automatically make it a bad game.

I've never played Heavy Rain, but I always hear it spoken very highly of (Jason could tell us more). However, due to the nature of the game, I also hear it's not something you play more than once. That doesn't diminish the quality, though.

[J4MES OX4D 10,134]

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's fair to equate value and quality. Just because a game only lasts five hours doesn't mean it isn't a high quality game. It might not be worth $60 to you, but that doesn't automatically make it a bad game.

I've never played Heavy Rain, but I always hear it spoken very highly of (Jason could tell us more). However, due to the nature of the game, I also hear it's not something you play more than once. That doesn't diminish the quality, though.

I just think value for money should be championed as a criteria for overall quality rather than just what's on offer in the time you play. I have certainly played my fair share of shorter games in the past and have really enjoyed them but I guess I just expect more bang for my buck these days. 

 

I played and finished Heavy Rain a few years ago when I borrowed my mates PS3 and it was a great experience and a one of a kind game that just had that something special in terms of the concept and movie-style presentation. I think I got about 12 hours out of it and that would be an exception if I did pay the full £30 price tag at the time but a game like The Order that has been developed for 5 years, had a nine-figure production value and can only muster a duration lasting one sitting in some instances; it just seems lackluster for 2015. I think value for money will certainly be something of a major consideration before people purchase and how the mainstream will judge the game.

[Docwagon 856]

Black Ops 2 has probably been one of the best entertainment values I've ever had.  Even if I'd paid for it (I didn't, it was a Christmas present my aunt gave my son), it would be pennies an hour.