In the spirit of “Time to crate” the gaming metrics I would like to see in storefronts are Time to Microtransaction or Time to Loot Box
Now that would be actionable information.
I’ll bunny hop to that.
I, on the other hand, think it’s worth at least twice that. I got more value out of Inside than many 100+ hour games.
HLTB has multiple numbers. Besides, when you’re up that high you need to use your own understanding of how you play games.
The other annoying thing about this is the metric is most appropriate for children, who have a lot of time but little money, and it perpetuates the idea that games are for children.
I mean, not really. It’s just a number at GMG. But if you wanted to complain in a hypothetical sense, then there you go.
Actually that’s the best argument in favor of that I’ve yet seen. My kids would sit and eat an entire bag of candy at once if I let them, under the logic that if one thing is good, then twenty of that thing will be twenty times as good.
I suspect almost any game that isn’t dropped quickly because it’s bad will look very well compared to other entertainment sources like TV and Movies… where you might drop 15-30 for just 2 hours. Or what are the big cable packages going for now… 160?
Cool, this makes my movie math easier.
My math is usually E/H / C/H, were E is enjoyment, C is cost and H is hours. I use movies as a baseline comparison, since ticket prices don’t change too much day to day.
Now that I have some sort of math for cost per hour for games, the rest of the math is a bit simpler (although still not easy).
Well I would never do the math, but the Gaming Industry has said for years that games are a good value in comparison to other medium options. Movies have been part of that discussion. It’s not something I just… made up.
Do the math. It’s fun!
Step 1 - Do Math
Step 2 - ???
Step 3 - Fun!!!
Ok, I’ll bite legowarrior.
Average matinee movie price that I go to is $5. Most movies are around 2 hours. So cost per hour is $2.50. Assuming Enjoyment per hour is 1, if the whole movie is good, then enjoyment cost per hour is still $2.50
For a $60 game to hit that cost per hour, it would have to provide 150 hours of entertainment. If I’m spending 20 minutes out of every hour in a big RPG not in the game itself but in menus and loading screens and maps and other incidental places where I’m not in the enjoyment zone, then 40 minutes of enjoyment per hour. So then a game would have to be 225 hours long to be worth the same amount of enjoyment/hour and cost/hour as a good movie.
Holy shit. That’s a lot of freaking hours. I guess Bethesda RPGs would hit that. And ARPGs. FPShooters would be shit out of luck. You spend less time in menus in those though, so they could be closer to 150 hours long. But shooters are generally shorter than that.
Edit: That was pretty fun, and kind of surprising. I had no idea games were so expensive compared to movies.
Edit 2: I’m an idiot.
Ok, so $60 game would have to provide 24 hours. And then if I’m in menus for a 3rd of that time, it would have to be around 36 hours.
My math is slightly different, since most of the movies theater tickets I get are around 7 or 8 dollars.
Then again, this is also probably why I never buy a game for more than 25 or 30 dollars, and usually spend less than 10 dollars per game.
Seems pretty context dependent. The average movie I go to costs* somewhere between £10 and £15, which is about a third to half of the typical game I buy, and 1/5 to 1/3 of a full-price triple-A game.
- Would cost, if I didn’t mainly go using “free” tickets from cinema membership
I’m not following. Wouldn’t it be 24 hours, or are you assuming your enjoyment per hour on games is significantly lower?
That math doesn’t seem to be right. If the movie is $2.50 an hour based on $5/2, then wouldn’t the $60 game need 24hrs to equal $2.50 per hour?
You’ve got an error in your math. unless you are going straight into a 2 hour movie, and you never buy ultra expensive snacks, you’re missing data points.
You need add 10-20 minutes standing in line, 30 minute previews. .We’ll call the commute a wash since there is download time not included on the other side. But you gotta add snacks if you’re buying them, to your cost.
You guys are hilarious. I fuckin’ love this thread.
Oops, you’re right. I should be dividing, not multiply. Man, that’s embarrassing. And now everyone has commented on it, so if I change it to avoid embarrassment, it will be too confusing.
Damn it.
We really should be factoring the average cost of backlogging games. :)
Maybe we should be lobbying museums to label paintings with the acquisition price divided by the average time spent contemplating them. Radical transparency!