|
|
Post by Ex on May 24, 2022 21:21:43 GMT -5
If you buy a video game, how much time do you need to get out of it, to feel your investment was returned? Like if you buy an expensive retro game, or brand new $70 game, how many hours of entertainment do you expect out of it entertainment-wise? Is there any kind of $$$-to-fun-ratio that you hope for? If you buy a cheap game do you care less if it isn't any good? If you paid $50 for an old game, got 5 hours out of it, is that a good return?
|
|
|
|
Post by toei on May 24, 2022 21:56:37 GMT -5
The strength of the experience is more important than its length.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ex on May 24, 2022 22:02:08 GMT -5
So if you paid $50 for a game that you greatly enjoyed that lasted 30 hours, but also paid $50 for a game you greatly enjoyed that lasted 4 hours, then both are of equal investment return?
|
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on May 24, 2022 22:10:49 GMT -5
toei keeping it simple, lol. I think a lot of old school gamers will lean more towards that sentiment. This might be why I've gotten a little more defensive in recent years when it comes to some people complaining about prices for shmups, or some retro styled games. You might be able to beat them in an hour or two, but there still could be hours worth of content and options to play with. Self-challenges to 1CC something, but "replay value" is a very subjective thing I guess. And on the other hand, I'm not exactly buying up a lot of new shmups, so maybe I'm not practicing what I preach, hah...
But I've been kind of frugal about my video game spending for awhile now. I got cutthroat with new PS4 games I didn't like and kind of made a soft rule, if I don't see myself beating it and putting it away on my finished shelf, I don't need it. Battlefield 1 and Horizon Zero Dawn were two games I didn't like and sold right away, for Yakuza 0 which was the best decision ever. But that's how rare this kind of thing has become, I can remember such specifics.
Besides that though it's been ages since I spent a lot on some retro gaming hunts. Before ebay and Amazon really became a thing, I did go around a lot of mom and pop stores here in the midwest to get everything I wanted on the SNES. Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy II / III, Secret of Mana, etc were usually $50 a pop. I think Mega Man X3 is probably my most prized position on the SNES now, which I only paid that much for as well. Think it goes for over 200 online. I also got the Ninja Gaiden Trilogy for a few bucks somehow haha... think that was an accidental placement out in the cheap loose carts.
Again, the hours = worth thing can be kind of tricky. We're all older here and have been doing the adult life for awhile now, so it's almost like I compare these things to a meal or food now, lol. If I only spend $5-10 on something and just get an hour of fun out of it, that's pretty cool with me. That's good eating. If I get more time out of it, that's a steal.
$50 is kind of my soft cap on retro stuff. I also have yet to spend $70 for something new since that just seems to be a PS5 tax right now. But I remember those ~$80 N64 days, lol. I only buy a couple brand new games a year, maybe even just ~2 or so sometimes. I can usually wait for the Ultimate Omega DLC Included Editions for a third of the price (when they're not Nintendo).
I think I'd like to get back to collecting for the OG Xbox again someday. I wonder if it's still like an underground secret with dirt cheap prices compared to the PS2/GC. But honestly... I think I'm reaching a point where I favor emulation again. Not because of the financial savings, but we are truly at a point in gaming history where these old consoles are getting trickier to work with. I have some consoles that are about as old as me and still work fine. But then I have bad luck like my THIRD PS2 being weird at times while I'm in the middle of a game. The reliability factor is starting to be an issue, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
Post by toei on May 25, 2022 6:48:12 GMT -5
So if you paid $50 for a game that you greatly enjoyed that lasted 30 hours, but also paid $50 for a game you greatly enjoyed that lasted 4 hours, then both are of equal investment return? I enjoy a lot of things, but rarely greatly. I'll pay 50$ for that experience. I find that valuable experiences linger anyway. If I watch a really good movie, even if it's only 90 minutes, it'll remain somewhere in my mind all day, and influence how that whole day goes. If I had some great appetite for gaming that always needed to be satiated, I can see how those calculations would be valid. But they don't apply to me as I am. |
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on May 25, 2022 8:59:04 GMT -5
Quantifying the movie vs gaming comparison can get a little funny too. It would kind of automatically make games better by default for the most part since they're longer experiences. Though even beyond that, I do value gaming more for the most part haha.
But yeah curious to see what others think of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on May 25, 2022 10:48:00 GMT -5
If you buy a video game, how much time do you need to get out of it, to feel your investment was returned? Like if you buy an expensive retro game, or brand new $70 game, how many hours of entertainment do you expect out of it entertainment-wise? Is there any kind of $$$-to-fun-ratio that you hope for? If you buy a cheap game do you care less if it isn't any good? If you paid $50 for an old game, got 5 hours out of it, is that a good return? This is actually quite tricky to quantify. I do think that length can have some effect on how I perceive the investment - all things being equal, a game that is longer but gives me as much fun I might esteem slightly more highly than another at the same price. But a lot of this goes out the window when good games wear out their welcome - I just don't have the patience that I used to in most cases. It also varies by genre - just because I pay $50 for a 50-hour JRPG versus $50 for a 5-hour run-and-gun doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to be miffed at my purchase of either, especially since the shorter game has a much higher chance of getting replayed in the future. And yes, there is a threshold where a game is cheap enough that it doesn't matter if it's good, bad, short, or long, I'll still think it was worth the purchase just to have access to it and actually potentially play it one day. (A lot of my original XBOX purchases were like this, actually.) That doesn't even account for games that I buy because they complete a hole in my collection. For example, I bought Wizardry II recently for a whopping $35. There's a good chance I never play the game more than about fifteen minutes, yet I still think it was worth the purchase because it's an NES RPG and I'd like to have all of those some day. Anyway, basically it's messy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ex on May 25, 2022 11:51:35 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts thus far gentlemen.
Here's some crazy ramblings from me about the subject:
Let's say Joe buys a game for $50. He ends up beating that game in four hours. Therefore he paid $12.50 per hour for that entertainment. Now let's say Joe buys another game for $50, but it ends up taking 10 hours to beat. In that scenario Joe paid $5 per hour for its entertainment. Which was the better deal? Well, both games were decent enough that Joe beat them, but the latter game lasted over twice as long. It stands to reason the 10 hour game was objectively a better investment than the 4 hour game was, from a purely monetary perspective. The 10 hour game is Joe's better return.
Let's say Joe makes $25 an hour (under the table for simplicity's sake). Joe buys a game that costs $50. In order for Joe to get an equal return on his time that he worked for the money, the game needs to provide at least 2 hours of entertainment for him back. Now let's say that game lasted 30 hours. Nice, Joe got 28 hours extra entertainment when subtracting the 2 hour investment required to buy the game. And he only paid about $1.66 per hour of entertainment in this scenario. That's a good return for Joe.
Now let's say Joe buys one more $50 game. He plays it but he hates it. He only spent 30 minutes on it. His return is now negative, because it takes Joe 2 hours to make $50. He's only gotten thirty minutes out of the game, he's only gotten $12.50 worth of entertainment from it. So now he's out $37.50 on money, and an hour and a half on time, that was invested into this game he doesn't like. Then Joe sold the game later on eBay for $5 (maybe it was a sports title). He spent 15 minutes total setting up the auction and handling the packing and shipping. Well now he's in an even worse return situation. Because that 30 minutes of entertainment he got, is now shortened by the 15 minutes he spent selling the game. Yet his $37.50 loss has been mitigated to a $32.50 loss by the $5 profit. Or has it really? Maybe Joe could have threw the game in the garbage and worked 15 minutes longer at his job, getting a little overtime instead. All in all, this $50 game as an investment was bad and his return was terrible.
Lastly, let's say Joe gets a game for free because Bob gave it to him. Joe really enjoys the game, he ends up spending 10 hours on it, and finishes it. Joe spent 0 hours and 0 money to get this game. All of the 10 hours were a positive return in the form of entertainment. And there was no monetary loss. This was an outstanding return for Joe. (Even if it wasn't for Bob.)
|
|
|
|
Post by toei on May 25, 2022 15:05:25 GMT -5
I just can't think of games or other forms of entertainment I'm into as like pounds of ground beef, where one pound is roughly the same as another. I value the individuality of any good entertainment too much, and I'm not playing games to kill time. I don't have enough time. I'd birth more if I could.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ex on May 25, 2022 15:40:12 GMT -5
I do understand your perspective as well. I was just offering food for thought so to speak.
I do often wish I had a time dilation machine.
|
|
