Average cost per hour of gaming

Backlogging is super inefficient, unless you’re operating a just-in-time video game inventory management system, you are losing Enjoyment Points and Jesus hates you.

Snacks are hard to figure, especially if you regular sneak in drinks, and you regular snack while gaming. For some people, that might be a wash.

Between a ticket, concessions (theater popcorn and a soda have always been inseparable part of the movie-going experience for me) and gas, I spend just about $25 to see a film, which works out to $12.50/hr. So if a game lasts 6 hours, at full price (with sales tax) it’s a better value than going out to see a movie.

How about Netflix? A lot cheaper than the theater and less downtime. You could even make your own popcorn at home.

Maybe with Netflix you could even average more than one fun per hour (FPH). Can you imagine?

This should be an official measurement of all things.

Not everything I end up watching on Netflix is 1 point of enjoyment per hour. Also, my home theater setup isn’t as nice as that of a movie theater.

I guess whatever you use as your baseline will have a significant impact on your habits.

Also, keep in mind, Novelty is a big factor when it comes to fun, so things like Netflix and long games may eventually trail off.

Well, friends tell me they have lots of “fun” doing so and so. Fun, yes, but how many?

So this proves how great the Dark Souls series is because basically it has cost me pennies per hour to play it.

What do we call that? Fowers? Funyuns? Piffle-doops?

This thread, seems like a pretty poor value so far. Maybe wait for a sale.

created 15h
last reply 1m
84 replies
344 views
25 users
5 links

Behavioral Approach System / Behavior Inhibition System is in the ball park of what you are looking for. Its a way of measure of how much value gains and losses, fun and novelty has on a person.

It’s broken down into 4 parts.

Behavior Inhibition System
Fun Seeking (BAS)
Drive (BAS)
Reward Response (BAS)

There is even a scale that Carver and White published in 1994 that is pretty good.

Again, you can’t forget about the enjoyment factor.

This isn’t a valid comparison. The price per acquisition is analogous to how much it costs to develop a game, and is compared to projected ticket sales. I bet curators do indeed take both into account. But acquisition / development costs are of little interest to gamers or museumgoers.

From a museumgoer perspective, the best analogy to play time is the museum’s collection size, since people generally do spend more time in larger museums. And museums with large collections do tend to advertise their size.

Regardless of how the metric is calculated, it’s absurd to suggest that all hours of entertainment/art appreciation are equal. Culture is not fungible.

I knew it! In your face, @tomchick!

Guys, guys, as long as we’re dividing one thing by another thing… if say, one game has a Metacritic score of 84 and lasts 10 hours, do you have 8,4 fun per hour and if another game with a Metacritic score of 84 lasts 2 hours, do you have a whopping 42 fun per hour?

Maybe you could add downtime ratios by genre. In any JRPG, you have to cringe through a lot of dialogue by angsty teens before each dungeon.

No, the metacritic score is already broken down to Entertain per Hour. So, the true value of the game is

Metacritic Score / Cost * Hour
84 / 60 * 10 = 14
84 / 60 * 2 = 2.8

Avengers Infinity Wars
84 / 12.69 * 2.5 = 16.55

So, that is simplified (no snacks, no line waiting, no gas, no installation) but it does give you an idea. Your 60 dollar game is not worth the price, but if it ever goes on sale, suddenly it’s value works.

And it only works if you enjoyment of a game is exactly the same as that of the average of critics. So, this is just bogus math.

But like examples in physics, the numbers might be off, and everything is simplified to the degree that it’s not usable, but the concept, I think, works.

Hm. Your math would make AAA devs. proud, because very long games are the funnest things out there.

84 metacritic score / 60$ * 100 hours = 140 funs. KAPOW! Take that Avengers!

So far my cost/hour of Pillars of Eternity 2 is about 73 cents per hour, and that’s with buying a second copy, buying the season pass, and buying into the beta.

However, my total cost/hour of Kingdom Come Deliverance is over $17/hour because I couldn’t really get into it.

Basically, and this may have been brought up but I only skimmed the first part of the thread so far (sorry) I feel like this is all bullshit because it’s really more based on what you get out of a game than what the “time to beat vs. cost of game” is. It doesn’t matter if the average cost per hour is $1.19 when it’s a game I don’t end up enjoying and only play for 30 minutes.

That’s only true if I actually play 100 hours and if my enjoyment doesn’t dwindle over time.
But throw in Multiplayer, and you might get hundreds of hours of fun. Of course, the DLC’s will up the total cost of the game in the end.

Still, Video Games usually seem like a better deal.