HomeКомпьютерные игрыRelated VideosMore From: Jim Sterling

Pricing Games By The Hour Is Some Absurd Shit (The Jimquisition)

19620 ratings | 352183 views
http://www.patreon.com/jimquisition http://www.thejimquisition.com http://sharkrobot.com/collections/Jimquisition-merch Green Man Gaming believes it can formulate an hourly price for its games, but this "Average Cost Per Hour" nonsense is... well, nonsense! __ Twitter: https://twitter.com/jimsterling Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jimsterling0 Jim’s Big Ego (No Relation): http://bigego.com/ Bandcamp of the Sax Dragon - https://carlcatron.bandcamp.com Nathan Hanover - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-8L7n7l11PJM6FFcI6Ju8A
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (4297)
GECKman88 (1 day ago)
I agree, price per H can fuck off. BUT I will say that two games costing $60 and both are high quality but one is like 2 hours of content and another is at least 10 hours, then.... I'm sorry I will go for the longer game for more bang for my buck. On that note FUCK paying full price to some shit cunt for a two hour game no matter how "good" it is.
op_player (2 days ago)
That was some perfect music choice around 8 minutes in. Time-Pink Floyd.
RevTn (2 days ago)
Thank you sir.
gridsleep (3 days ago)
I've spent 3,080 hours in Rapture.
gridsleep (3 days ago)
Amortization schedules for... games? Isn't Double Jeopardy already part of a game?
Derek Dincer (3 days ago)
Holy shit you're... wider... than I expected.
DracosKasurani (3 days ago)
Cost per hour is suggestive since these day many of those high time sink game are mostly multiplayer deathmatch mode or open world with a lot of dead time in it (aka walking simulator). A game should alway be value by his fun factor over time.
King_Oskar (6 days ago)
Now that I think of it, The Settlers Online has both a premium currency with happy hour double value once per month, to simulate "investment", and a DAILY LOGIN BONUS to make a compulsion to play again and again, ooooh noo!
Michael Wood (9 days ago)
Overwatch (9 days ago)
It sounds to me like what you are REALLY arguing about is padding out a game with bullshit. But that does NOT mean that the length of a game is not an essential part of the value proposition (If time spent and money spent happen to have value to you). Sometimes people are asking you a different question, just like you argued against something that is peripheral to your actual statement. The simple fact (and yes, it is a fact.) is that many people cannot afford to purchase a new game any time they want to. This isn't as simple as someone trying to relate Money to Hours of Entertainment. It can often be Hours Worked to Hours of Entertainment. And not everyone can just change how many hours they work. The way that GMG did it is not helpful. But that doesn't mean that some personal metric is always a bad thing. When people have to budget money for games, how long they can play it and have FUN is a real metric. This doesn't mean that every game needs to be a deeply modable Elder Scrolls/Fallout game that you can dump 2000 hours into for the low low cost of $50 for a Game of the Year edition. But if a good game is only 3 hours long, and costs more than a movie ticket, then it had better be mindbogglingly good to justify all that time that you DON'T have entertainment until you can afford another game. So yes. I DO think that cramming extra garbage into a game just to pad it out is a vile crime against gamers. But saying that the length of a game that you have fun with is NOT an important factor, is discounting a portion of gamers that might genuinely need to consider it.
Can someone please tell me the cost of a pound based on a dollar Asking for a friend
lordgamermon (11 days ago)
GeniusLad32 (12 days ago)
As a gamer on a budget, I totally understand the price per hour argument. If I can buy rainbow six siege for £40 that I'll get 300+ hours out of or 5 indie games for the same price that I'll get 10 hours at most, I'm definitely going to pick R6. People don't seem to realise we can't afford every game out there. I normally agree with Jim but I think he's wrong here. Edit: To address his later point about liking shorter games that end, I don't like that as much. I appreciate the large open world games or infinite multiplayer ones because I play one or two games to death each month. I have two jobs to save before uni and the rest of my time is spent gaming. I can't afford to switch to a new game every day or two. It's not possible. I get that it's just his stance but millions of gamers are not earning anywhere near what Jim is. We have to budget our hobby.
Yureina Sf (14 days ago)
I've used cost/hour in the past to determine whether or not I wanted to buy a game. Specifically, it was during the days when I was very short on funds and did not have steady income. In other words, the money I had to spend on entertainment was precious and I wanted to get the most bang for my buck. If I was to buy a really short game in those days, it meant that I would probably have to go replay Baldur's Gate II or Deus Ex for the billionth time. As great as those games are, sometimes you need something new, you know? That idea led me towards playing Paradox Grand Strategy games like Europa Universalis III and Crusader Kings II or in large replayable RPG's like Fallout 3/New Vegas and Skyrim. While cost/hour was a big factor for me... so too was a quality game. I wasn't buying a game just because of how long it was, but rather because it was both long and worth playing for that length. This changed when I finally did get steady income and could spend vastly more on entertainment than before. Cost/hour became far less important than overall quality. But even so, I do make notes of how long games are in my Steam reviews for people who are in the position I used to be in: one where money is scarce and you need to spend it wisely. I still do say things like "wait for a sale" in my reviews if I think a game is overpriced or is far too short for what you get out of it. But mostly I say "wait for a sale" these days about shitty overpriced DLC as a way of saying "If you must get this, then don't pay full price and reward this company for its bad behavior". Just playing Devil's advocate a bit. :3
Violence City (15 days ago)
But dude. Your back?!
Verde the Star Warrior (16 days ago)
Sterdust is the best...but he already knows that
Vencirtegorix (20 days ago)
K Manitou (20 days ago)
People this heavy don't live very long. I don't like your creepy friends, but I'd like to have you around for a while.
James Laidler (20 days ago)
Wrestling is fake.
Greg Wolf (21 days ago)
Irrelevant, but the game is actually called Descenders.
Stephen Trail (22 days ago)
Portal 2 isn't a long game, but it's my favorite game of all time. Worth full price imo.
This sounds like the argument of someone who doesn't need to buy their games. Fact is that you need to work to pay for games. Some people can't afford or simply don't want to pay $60 for a 2 hour experience when they could get Skyrim instead. Time is a very important part of gaming.
Hamasake Gagf (23 days ago)
only reason i am not addicted and spent tousands of dolars on game is because my parents were smart and never let me ewen close to their credit cards fun litle info browsers games are full of same of pay to win formula of mobile games i would argue its where it started from before mobile games came into popularity
SrMeechio (23 days ago)
Dat Sterdust booty jiggle
Javasboi (23 days ago)
FUCK GREENMANGAMING! They screwerd me over so much with Far Cry 3....they didnt deliver the download files and refused to either refund me or make sure I got the game files....so I had to pirate the game and activate my cd key through the illegaly downloaded client to activate my purchase. I even got a warning for constantly "bothering" the tech support with my errand. Fucking scummy piece of shit site if you ask me, use GoG instead, GMG blows!!!
Thomas Lucock (28 days ago)
I always value quality time over length of time. Take MGS Ground Zeroes vs Phantom Pain. Ground zeroes is short and to the point, tells the story it needs to tell, and is endlessly replayable though the different play styles, whereas the Phantom Pain is what feels like a 12 hour game stretched out to 120 hours.
Agusloquillo (28 days ago)
That Dungeon Keeper Mobile example you provided was fucking brillant, Jim. A contradiction which completely flies in the face of the "average cost per hour". You great, great man.
Derek A (29 days ago)
I've been of the opinion for a long time that games are far too long these days. The problem isn't actually the length of the game; it's the trade-off that comes with it. All things being equal, the shorter the game, the more depth it has. Alternatively, the longer the game, the shallower the experience. It's possible to make a long game that has depth (think Witcher 3), but it takes more resources than most publishers are willing to devote to it. I'd rather have deep games that last 10 - 20 hours than boring grindfests with mediocre sidequests that are 100+ hours long.
Yankesik (29 days ago)
The only use of this statistic is if you are seriously low on money, and want to buy a game that will take care of your free time for as long as possible, for as little as possible.
You know the deal son (1 month ago)
I admit I want long games
Ypulse (1 month ago)
brainwashed players value games by game hours, so devs will sure start selling games per/hour
Ypulse (27 days ago)
monthly fee is already cancer to begin with. and hourly pay is problematic even more as jim already explained why in detail
stylesrj (27 days ago)
Well it wouldn't be any different from a paid subscription model... except instead of paying a monthly fee it'd be an hourly fee. The horrors...
くんマフムード (1 month ago)
so what about a game like bloodborne, how can we price that one? a game that you can literally speed run in a few hours or spend 100 of hours in depending on how you play it, rather than this bullshit, isn't it better if we price games by their uuum ....... quality? maybe?
Victor Cross (1 month ago)
Someone just pointed me at this video. The COST of something is not equivalent to the VALUE of something. Avg Cost per Hour is in fact a valid metric. Especially in conjunction with other metrics.
OpinionsGetYouBanned (1 month ago)
you all have views because you're fat.
Olika120 (1 month ago)
Time for me to make an open world game with a flat map that takes about 10 hours to get from one end of the to the other one
MMOJunkie (1 month ago)
i dunno, I played fallout new vegas for over a thousand hours and I paid £5 for the game and all the dlc, thats about £1 for every 200 hours of playing, that's value for money compared to AAA games that end after 4 hrs and cost £50+, admittidly I am a fan of post apoc rpg's and I will gladly destroy my social life to just gank one more raider, but I agree with you, it is a bit silly to put a value on a game by the averages.
pekonimestari (1 month ago)
god damn Jim. you bomb game devs more than US bombs when they find oil in other countrys. i like that
pekonimestari (1 month ago)
sry for bad english
Shiranui (1 month ago)
Brendon Andrews (1 month ago)
I've been doing the cost per hour for games since.. well... I can remember. It's how I judge what I feel like spending on certain games.
Rob Butler (1 month ago)
Make that 33... That joke would have worked better if I bothered to watch this on time. Fuck it
Strazdas (1 month ago)
Youtube is doing cirrect with subscriptions. I want your (and everyone else) channel to show up on subscribtions list and on subscription feed but i NEVER want to have a notification about a new upload. Im not going to drop what im doing to watch a video, i watch them when i have time to watch them and i can open your channel for that.
Nod Music (1 month ago)
I'd say beyond my personal opinion, it's not all that useful because i might have tried a game - sunk 1-4 hours in, have a good impression it will be a great game but have too much life stuff going on and never get back on it (The last of us) and thus bring the avg. down. This is usually all down to whats going on in my life when i try to play something (or buying too many games at once). Some games i pick up at the right time and can sink tonnes of hours into (tomb raider game) but still think it was pretty shit and not worth the time or money. Maybe something like avg time to complete main content would be better and avg time beyond...
android927 (1 month ago)
How can you possibly argue that a simple metric, one that can be calculated by taking the cost of a game and dividing it by the average total playtime, is "100% subjective"? The formula (Cost of Game) / (Average Playtime) is always going to give you the same result when given the same inputs, so it is by definition not subjective.
HRK (1 month ago)
if You Have That Much God Like Strength, Just DO! THAT! A Few Times A Month My Friend, You'd Have A Physique To Match That inner Strength. i Consider Myself A Buff Nerd. You've Given Me Hours of Information(& Laughs,So) My Gift 2 You is My Greatest info That i Figure Out & Used 2Cut Down Some, Weight Lifting is Just Simple Math. Always Lookit A Mirror(Not! 4 Vanity)... To Get An idea of What Your Results Look Like,When!, They Start Working. Addition=Repetition Multiplication=Sets Subtraction=How Many Sets Left Division(i Usually 4Get That1 M8...) But i Think it=Something Like if You Can Count To 10, Count To 10 On Every Lift or Exercise & Then Start The Count Over & Remember Your Sets. You Can increase Repetitions When Your Comfy, Good & Ready =) i'm Not A Physical Trainer or A Health Nut But, i Know That Method Works, Because i Spent The Time Applying My intelligence For 4Years in High School, So Much They Banned! Me!(...Those Weak Chickens!) From The Schools Weight Room, All Because i Started Embarrassing & Out Lifting All The Football Players(Losers =) Lifting The Very Last Bars On The Machines & The Heaviest Dumbbells On The Shelves >=) ...Bitova Rap There(Almost) &...i Became The Lead On The Volleyball Team, Although i Always Hit The Ball 2The Ceiling Thou(Still Brought Us To Victory), So...i Became Too Stronk XD. i Mention This Cause You Seem Like A Smart Lad. Oh & if You Do Take My Factoid of an Opinion(Still Fact!) Use Instrumentals That Move You To Get Up & Out of Bed(You'll Know When Your Shoulders Start2 Shimmy), Like Video Game Music or OC Remixes of VG Music, John(TB, Rest His Soul) Liked Them As Well, Or Classical Music. Those Are What i Find Pretty Refreshing =) Seen As it's Text...i Hope i Don't Come Across As Smug-___- Not My intention, Have Good! Day Jim =)
Greg Wolf (1 month ago)
I don't know professional wrestling. Is it just acting rather than actual risky fighting?
Dan Bahlert (1 month ago)
This concept might be good to combat micro-transactions since it then becomes needed info to know the average MT spent by each player.
Garrette (1 month ago)
As i'm getting older, I just can't be bothered with hundred hour games. Most long games are full of filler content. Games that sit around the 4-20 hour mark are the most appealing to me because I will actually be able to finish them.
Gregory Johnson (1 month ago)
What's the name of the song in the intro
MrZurb (1 month ago)
Buying a game which can be completed in 3 hours for 60€. This would be great indicator for that kind of games.
stylesrj (27 days ago)
If the game is shorter than the average movie but costs more than a ticket or three... I think it's not worth it. That's about it for my analysis of cost/time.
BluePsion (1 month ago)
Dwarf Fortress has a great cost per hour.
Nicky Wilson (1 month ago)
Wow that was a good slam Jim. Fight Simon Miller next please. Its like batman vs Superman of YouTube podcast world.
Michael Dobson (1 month ago)
I like the fact that Time by Pink Floyd is playing in an episode about play time
Bound4Earth (1 month ago)
I think the episode has a great point of view, but to an extent. Brothers: a Tale of Two Sons is a great example of this. It is a great journey, but at only two hours you end up losing regardless of how much bullshit you place on the thoughts afterwords, it still ends up being price at an insanely high 10 dollars an hour, yet doesn't provide that much more then any mainstream game. Therefor even Battlefield and CoD provide similar experiences. They give you similar hours of game-play and the storytelling is just as gratifying and they have multiplayer which means value for your dollar, depending on your point of view. It is useful when looking at all of the data. Just as claiming original story equaling 2 hours for $20 is worth more then 10 hours for $60 dollars plus multiplayer. In the end, even if the story is clever and original (which brothers was not), you still only get 2 hours for $20 with no replay-ability, whatsoever. Just claiming the amount of content alone should be thrown out for some opinion of the content is just bullshit, because subjective things are subjective to everyone in differing ways and hours that you can play a game, says more then what you get out of it due to the subjective nature of that entire process. I respect you and will continue to do so in the future, but to claim that money spent per hour of game-play is a garbage metric and should be thrown in the trash is just ignorant. Brothers is an example of a great experience, but just like the AAA games, is way overpriced and not a measure of anything meaningful without the other data points. By itself may be less meaningful, but with everything else taken into account we could have eliminated Brothers from the charts, not a bad thing imo. It was a decent story over better then average game-play for an insane price. Art and story alone, do not always equal great games and we should also keep that in mind Jim. TL;DR: I think throwing game-play per hour based on costs into the trash completely is an ignorant point of view. In the grand scheme of things, cost per hour, can play a very important role and even help developers of games, like Brothers, price their games fairly (instead of hiding behind the ignorant overpriced art logic) and help them sell even more copies at the much more reasonable $5 price tag. Overpriced art, is still overpriced at the end of the day.
Yaboi (1 month ago)
When was the last time you had a very limited budget with which to decide what games you're going to play? I for one have to be very picky with what games I buy, because I have to pick games with some decent longevity, that'll last me a few days at the very least. I think you're missing this.
Ben Bristow (1 month ago)
The notifications not on by default is a good thing IMHO. Don't want notification spam on your phone for every channel if you're subscribed to loads, you can still see your subscriptions on the homepage when you want to watch YouTube. If you're really obsessed with a YouTuber then you can hit the bell.
Julia-6 (1 month ago)
You get a like for the slam in the beginning
Elim Rawne (1 month ago)
they will never calculate humanities' decision-making because we're all a bunch of ever changing frakkers and proud of it! Machine learn thís you wankers! Nice episode Jim, cheers.
J Darbz (1 month ago)
Ahahaha that body slam! Fucking joke, ur hillarious my friend watch all ya vids laughing out loud
HoH hoch (1 month ago)
I don't think it's the cost per hour that's the issue here. People just need to decide if that price they're paying per hour for "completion" of the game is worth it. Sure two 60 dollar games that are both five hours long will have the same price per hour, but if one is balls to the walls orgasmic and the other is utter shit, one can argue that one of those games has a price per hour worth paying for.
Ira Jacobs (1 month ago)
It's not a very USEFUL metric, but I don't see the harm in them providing it. If some dumbass is going to buy a game based on the fact that it takes 32million hours, and see that it's a really grindy game, welp, enjoy your garbage. End User reviews are always going to be the most useful info, just make sure to read both positive and negative.
Daniel Maier (1 month ago)
Was Green Man Gaming founded by Spoole?
War_Cheese (1 month ago)
I'd appreciate another appearance of the Cornflakes Homunculous.
SilentShadowLT (1 month ago)
You call the number of hours spent by a person on the game objective. I'm fairly certain you'll also agree that the game's price is objectively a set number. As such, dividing one by the other gives an objective value. The real question is, is the game worth that $/hr price tag. A lot of games these days are both short and shit, but still cost a fortune -- the statistic is quite valuable. Even if the site wouldn't make that calculation for us, I'm fairly certain we would silently do it in our minds anyway. If I hear that the game's 100 hours long, I know that even if it isn't that good, I'll have something to mindlessly do. Though you might consider it a waste of time, I still find my self in need of such games at times. After all, how you choose to spend your time falls under the subjective label.
Victorya Kujisawa (1 month ago)
bs, what is with games that have many content like fallout/skyrim/anno do i have to pay for them around 300chf? because i played over 600hours. another bs idea pay for any hour you played + taxes =P
John Howell (1 month ago)
is that the little girl photo from the apocalyptic gameshow from mitcheal and webb? if so sweet
Grappling Hook Jones (1 month ago)
I have played 130 hours of Stardew Valley. Imagine how expensive that game would be
DPM (1 month ago)
Imagine if they had to put a price on GTA V based on gameplay time, I don't think anyone would be able to afford it because people still play it to this day and most likely have hundreds if not thousands of hours on their belt.
Nick Armor (1 month ago)
I got Super Mario Bros All-Stars about 20 years ago and I still play it semi-regularly. I wonder what the cost per hour of that is?
agnosticgo (1 month ago)
I like to know if a game is 'short' although short isn't really a measure of how long it takes to play a game. A game with endless and mindless unnecessary filler is worse then a game that is too 'short'. I am a single player game fan and play games for the stories, if a game can tell a story in 14 or so hours and takes 50 hours to do it, that doesn't make it 3 times better that generally means I'll get bored of the game a couple of hours in and uninstall it and not buy anything made by the same people for quite a while, that means that a 14 hour game becomes a two hour game and if I spent 60 dollars or more on it, that is only slightly less expensive then going to the cinema and at least at the cinema you get a big bucket of popcorn.
RamRod13 (1 month ago)
I kind of like the cost per hour rating. When it comes to single player, I actually prefer a really well done short game because I don't have enough time to dedicate to a very long game anymore. I can pair the dollars per hour metric with the overall rating to find something that works better for me.
Max M (1 month ago)
Why is there no link for the remix of floy'ds "breath" you used, 'cause I'm desperately curious
DragonEye (1 month ago)
Jim. Stop deceiving us. We all know Skyrim is the best game to use as a baseline for not just games, but also YouTube videos. So I want 60 hour videos or I'm not donating anymore you cheat.
Matt Nash (1 month ago)
That...was actually a damn proper body slam, my good Ster. Well sold too.
Welther47 (1 month ago)
This means we will get more filler and less quality, especially by EA and the like.
Calpsotoma (1 month ago)
Actually, average length of time people have played it would be more useful than completion time. If it takes 20 hours to complete, but people tend to stop after 5, that says a lot
Calpsotoma (1 month ago)
So, one of the games I really enjoy is Slay the Spire. It is a roguelite that you can finish a full run in an hour. It takes longer to unlock different cards and relics, but what is the length on that? It doesn't have a full ending (as it is still in early access and has many new features added weekly), so what even counts as a game completion for it?
Romano Coombs (1 month ago)
I clicked like, on the bodyslam... *blushes* - The Internet Police
You Are Not Allowed (1 month ago)
Holy shit, that body slam.
Gee Wags (1 month ago)
Cost per hour is just price devided by average hours played. There's nothing magic about it, and it's a common mental calculation people make before buying a game.
Gee Wags (1 month ago)
Okay, was it a gun holster full of "nipples", "nickels", or "Naples"?
HelterSkelter (1 month ago)
Cost per hour makes sense to me when buying DLC. You already know you like the game, you know you want it but the value of DLC varies so much from game to game and even within the same game. I get that you could easily work it out without a graph but why not just have it there? Having comparable graphs side by side could help you decide between buying a single DLC pack or a season pass.
It's like a monthly subscription... except far worse.
Gunnar Karotte (1 month ago)
Well, I think one of the best examples for a shorter game that was excellent was Hellblade. Awesome game, and the price was totally worth it, although it wasn't open world. Or Multiplayer. It was just... good. I don't care how much the cost was "per hour".
Christian Hostetler (1 month ago)
The discussion of game length is like talking about dick length. Its all some people talk about despite overall quality being a more important and valuable metric.
Anonym (1 month ago)
The system is pretty decent if it factors in the average playtime. There are rather few titles like portal which are great experiences that are short but those games usually cost only up to 20 € in the first place so you usually know what you're up for. If a game is 60 bucks I expect to be entertained for a while. If most people quit after only 8 hours of playtime there is most likely something wrong with the game. The system clearly cant be applied to free to play games because you cant evaluate the actual price of those games easily. Yet it is kinda useful for triple A games. In my whole gaming "chareer" there was only 1 game that I consider great that didn't hit the 1€/1h playtime mark and that was the latest doom. And thats only because i didnt bother with multiplayer so i guess I could have had more fun with it, the content was there. Getting a 1€/1h played statistic is what I aim for in gaming. and judging from my steam history that kinda metric actually really reflects how I view games. If a game is great I usually tend to replay it because it has replay value. I have over 1000h in bindings of isaac and only payed 20 bucks and for me that is insane value and that alone is a good sign for me that the game is great. I bought no mans sky for 20 bucks and played roughly 20h. The game is still bad but I got what I payed for, if I had payed more I would feel cheated though.
Daniel K (1 month ago)
Pretty much how many bosses think your good if you spend more hours at your desk, and don't look at the quality and quantity of your work!
MANHATTANrasta (1 month ago)
3:38 I miss when Jim use to hand draw things for the Jimquisition.
Joseph Stott (1 month ago)
Clearly, length of a game isn't as important as how much enjoyment it brings. So we should really have a graph that shows $ per unit of fun. The scientists should get on that, should be pretty easy.
Mike Mitchell (1 month ago)
Lost it at the dungeon keepers mobile bit.
Piko Island (1 month ago)
I am also an adult and would like to see shorter games. Anything with more than 40hours of gameplay probably isn't getting my money.
kalackninja (1 month ago)
shouldn't the cost per hour simply be the total cost per game divided by average completion time
1981Mog (1 month ago)
So how much to get bodyslammed by Sterdust? Asking for a friend.
TheNextDecade244 (1 month ago)
What about those games that don't technically have a time limit on how long you can play them? Like Minecraft, or Stellaris, or some other sandbox-y thing? Are they worth infinite money now?
joe daly (1 month ago)
ok 12 seconds in and i cant believe jim fucking sterling son managed to pick up that guy.
Martin Nicholls (1 month ago)
2800 hours in a free game and I'm nowhere even close to started. GMG? Dota 2 BTW.
darkinertia2 (1 month ago)
Cost per hour is subjective, just like REVIEW SCORES...how can you think an arbituary number thats used to justify buying a game is wrong, when you think a arbituary number used to justify buying a game is right?
BadTrip (1 month ago)
You are wrong. It's a perfectly valid metric. Useless, agreed, but the logic is valid. And FFS change the intro music. It's almost as annoying as you.
Peter Parker (1 month ago)
look jim....we need an un interrupted sterdust vid....i may move to move to london in a year and I NEED to be able to seem legit for the limies so I NEED to say i KNOW STERDUST
Grakthuul (1 month ago)
I agree completely that length does not equal value. I also don't think a cost per hour metric is overly helpful. All that said, I can't afford to spend $70+ on a game I'm only going to get 4-8 hours of enjoyment out of. I can only afford to buy one full priced game most years. I need the games I buy to be both good and long, ether from game play or because it's highly replayable. I wish I could afford to spend $70 on a great game I'm going to play for a few hours. However, the simple truth is I can't afford to spend my new game budget for a hole year on a short game. Something I do to make sure I get my monies worth out of a game is wait for reviews, watch some game play videos and think long and hard before I spend that momey. I never pre-order a game.
Rigon (1 month ago)
Excuse me: does it add the "microtransaction" cost per hour too? with peak and average values? just to find pay2win, pay2fun or pay2anything bullshit in time. also what is the average time spend before the first microtransaction? just to have a "counter-metric".

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.