Around how many hours of enjoyment would you say would be worth it for a 70$ game?

[K12]

I don't think that game length is actually a good thing. It does however allow for deeper storytelling and mechanics that build over time allowing for skill mastery and experimentation. Length without content is just crap... plus any big timesink games nowadays will almost certainly release in a pretty shod (if not barely playable) state anyway.

I will say that any full priced game that is less than 10 hours long has no excuse for including filler or anything that (on repeated playthroughs) I'll be thinking "oh shit not this bit again" when I see it starting. I can accept buying a $70 (or ?50) game that is 6 hours long but it needs to be so good that I want to play it through 3 times at least.

There is no minimum but I get to the end of the game and thing "oh is that it" then it's not enough.

I very rarely pay full price for games anymore now. The last game I bought at launch was Portal 2 and that was definitely worth it.

 

[meowchef]

There is no $/hr limit or range for me. If the content is of extreme quality, I don't care how much it costs.

For example, had I known before Portal released exactly what that experience would entail, I would have had no problem paying full price for it.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

It's a funny question, because the game that I spent the most of my life on, and I'm talking thousands of hours probably, was FREE. That was Counter-strike, since it was in beta.

With my hipster comment out of the way, I would say at least 10-100 hours. My criteria for spending that much on a game is basically either it's a fantastic, well-written and replayable campaign, or a mind-blowing open world (not a massive collect-a-thon, or endless fetch quests), or a truly special multiplayer game that doesn't get old because of the experience it provides each time.

Having said that, I've paid full price for less than 3 games in my life, one of them being Witcher 2 which I don't regret at all.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I wouldn't even bother. Unless it's something that's going to get a limited release in your region, that game which is $70 today is going to wind up being significantly less in a few months. Hell, the big games from the past 3 - 5 months or so that are still selling for $60 are going to have their prices slashed soon after E3 and the other gaming conventions coming this summer. Unless it's a Nintendo game of course.

I'm really sorry, I seem to have completely missed the point of this thread. I just can't really quantify a fun factor like that. I've put hundreds of hours into Bethesda RPGs from Morrowind and Fallout 3 to Skyrim and New Vegas...but I wouldn't pay $70 for a single one of them.

 

[FalloutJack]

I dunno. How long am I up to on Fallout 4? I'm not done yet.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

for that kind of money, it better be at least a 1000 hours, otherwise you're just being scammed

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

It definitely depends on the game:

If we're talking about an adventure/action/RPG/SRPG/strategy/platformer/sandbox game that includes a large area to explore, several quests, a large, expansive story, bonus content upon completion (excluding New Game +), and some online component that does not default to a tacked-on multiplayer, then that would be worth the price of admission for me.

In the case of a fighting/racing/puzzle/multiplayer-only/visual novel/sim game, which can be played in short bursts or completed in a matter of hours, then they would need to have highly polished visuals, a unite art style, engaging and beautiful vocals and scores, a multiplayer component (it wasn't the focus of the game play), and free dlc along the way, I'd be a little more hesitant, but it would help ease me into a purchase.

If any of the two types of game include paid dlc at launch, then they completely miss the point of tacking an extra $10 to the experience and should scale back to a more appropriate price tag.

 

[Amaror]

Depends.
If it's really mindblowing, super amazing fun then I would say it would need to provide at least 15 - 20 hours of it to be worth 70 Euros.
If it's just a good, fun time then I would say it would need to be about 70 hours to be considered "Worth it" in my book. That does include however that it's good enough to keep me having fun for those 70 hours, not only technically provide 70 hours of content. A game like Fallout 4 were I just got too bored to continue after 30 hours is not worth it.

 

[ThirstyGator]

It'd have to be Skyrim-esque in overall length for me to drop 70 bucks on it. Not since the 6th gen have I regularly bought games at full price and if I do it these days, it's only because it's made by nintendo (and won't drop in price anyway), I'm predicting the game will become hard to find later, or because I'm paying the "Atlus tax". Even if it were 10 hours of constant awesomeness, not paying 70 dollars unless it has some real replayability.

 

[SweetShark]

Reaching a specific age now and not having a lot of time for videogames, I would say maybe 20 hours max if it is a single player game.
If it is a pure Multiplayer game on the other hand, then if I am 100% sure this game was made for me, I would gladly pay 70 euros for it.
In reality I still didn't paid a game for such a big amount of money.

 

[SweetShark]

for that kind of money, it better be at least a 1000 hours, otherwise you're just being scammed

No truth because there are sometimes games which you play for 100+ and you get bored at some point....
Metal Gear Solid V is a good example. I played only played I think near 20 and quickly get tired of its gameplay even it was a lot of fun...

 

[william1657]

I generally just say if I played the game for more than 1 hour for every dollar I spent it was a good game.
If I really enjoyed the game though I wouldn't fault it for being short.

I think by this standard the best game purchase I ever made was the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion collection I bought that had all the DLC included. I got it for $10 and played it for more than 100 hours.

 

[Guffe]

I'd say maybe the shortest, full price, game that I bought and think anwers the question is/are Bayonetta (1 and 2).
I think they were around 15-20 hours to complete? and then in the second game there were challenges and online stuff which I also put soem hours into.
But for a full 60? game, I want a minimum of 10 hours, and if it is that short, it has to be something special!

 

[Silvanus]

For $70, I would be expecting about 20-25 hours at the very least, and it better have some kind of replay value.

$70 is really bloody pushing it. I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a game unless I had a huge attachment to the franchise and reason to know it was going to be an amazing instalment in that franchise.

 

[Silverbeard]

I tend to lean towards the 'one dollar for each hour of playtime' camp but one needs to remember that a game won't give the same level of enjoyment for every hour one plays it. The average game will have a few hours of mind-blowing excitement and unbelievable thrill, a few hours of 'What were the devs thinking?!' shit and all the rest will be grindy tedium. The scale of those three relative to each other will vary depending on the game itself but the metric is still there. The same applies to movies, books and music albums by the way.
So I'm not sure a 60 hour experience for a 60 USD game is really justifiable if the scale is skewed heavily towards grindy tedium. At the same time, it would be wholly justified if the scale is skewed towards mind-blowing excitement.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

If it's seriously good, around 10 hours. I can live with that If I walk away with having enjoyed pretty much every moment of a game.

 

[duwenbasden]

If I am buying it at full price, I expect at least 60 hours out of it. However, the only time I will buy full price is I trust the game enough to warrant it.

Also, I will never pay full price for a "story-driven" game, since Netflix is $9 and I get an equal amount of entertainment out of it.