The developer of Hellblade 2 has explained why it prefers making shorter games, insisting digital distribution has opened the door “to games of all shapes and sizes.”
It’s an okay metric if your time isn’t really limited and if you can easily sink 400 hours into a game then your time isn’t really limited. For me 400 hours to 6-8 months of gaming. I don’t even consider price per hour when buying games because price is not really a factor. The biggest factor is whether I’ll have time to actually play it because my gaming hours are very limited. For me the metric is entertainment per hour because if I can get a few hours of gaming in I want those hours to be quality gaming. For me a game with 400 hours of gameplay but only 40 hours of quality gameplay is a waste of my gaming time. I would much rather take a 5 hour game that’s 5 hours of quality entertainment than a 60 hour game that has 30 hours of entertainment.
It doesn’t mean I don’t buy long games, it just means when I do that’s pretty much what I’ll be playing for the next X months. Right now the majority of my gaming hours go into Helldivers and I literally could not find time for another long, let’s say 60 hour, game. But I probably could squeeze in a 10 hour game. So $10/hour is absolutely worth it for me, if the entertainment is there. And price per hour is worthless to me because in most cases if the game is 100+ hours it’s unlikely to be 100+ hours of quality entertainment.
I just don’t think all hours of playtime are equal. I don’t have an issue putting 80 hours into into helldivers because I consider those quality hours. I do have an issue putting 80 hours into Far Cry 6, because most of that is extremely boring. But if you consider everything in price per hour then those two things should be equals (assuming we have FC6 discounted to the same price as helldivers). But they aren’t for me and I very much doubt they are for you.
It’s an okay metric if your time isn’t really limited and if you can easily sink 400 hours into a game then your time isn’t really limited. For me 400 hours to 6-8 months of gaming. I don’t even consider price per hour when buying games because price is not really a factor. The biggest factor is whether I’ll have time to actually play it because my gaming hours are very limited. For me the metric is entertainment per hour because if I can get a few hours of gaming in I want those hours to be quality gaming. For me a game with 400 hours of gameplay but only 40 hours of quality gameplay is a waste of my gaming time. I would much rather take a 5 hour game that’s 5 hours of quality entertainment than a 60 hour game that has 30 hours of entertainment.
It doesn’t mean I don’t buy long games, it just means when I do that’s pretty much what I’ll be playing for the next X months. Right now the majority of my gaming hours go into Helldivers and I literally could not find time for another long, let’s say 60 hour, game. But I probably could squeeze in a 10 hour game. So $10/hour is absolutely worth it for me, if the entertainment is there. And price per hour is worthless to me because in most cases if the game is 100+ hours it’s unlikely to be 100+ hours of quality entertainment.
Damn you’re not worried about death? I don’t have unlimited time.
But I have to heavily disagree with “in most cases if the game is 100+ hours it’s unlikely to be 100+ hours of quality entertainment.”
Sounds like we have different tastes. Cause 200 hours in HD2 is 200 hours of entertainment: Why else would I keep playing?
I just don’t think all hours of playtime are equal. I don’t have an issue putting 80 hours into into helldivers because I consider those quality hours. I do have an issue putting 80 hours into Far Cry 6, because most of that is extremely boring. But if you consider everything in price per hour then those two things should be equals (assuming we have FC6 discounted to the same price as helldivers). But they aren’t for me and I very much doubt they are for you.
Why should I? I’ll be dead then.