5punk

I'm pretty much torn between the two sides now because keep in mind that 5punk is not a group of "average gamers". Granted we might be lacking actual skill in multiplayer, except those few utterly talented bastards, but you do have to admit that most of us can finish a singleplayer game in about half the actual intended time. But ultimately since it's a 5punk article (whatever we call it), Berk is right, 30 hours is really a far shot for our average time on an SP game.

The point, which may need some more clarification, is that gamers who limit themselves to only buying stuff like Far Cry 2 and Crysis are actually paying more than if they went for the options they wouldn't usually consider because they don't like the price - casual games are considered to not be long enough, and MMOs too expensive.

I don't necessarily think you can solidly conclude something like that though, as it depends on how much an individual will actually enjoy those other games. Apart from eve, I pretty much hate mmos - not because of the price, but just because they get too... meh after a while (and a "while" generally isn't considerably longer than a typical decent length single player - based on my xfire stats for aoc and coh, anyway - so the price doesn't end up being super-cheap either). It seems difficult to me to try and make an "average" case or conclusion about what is the most bang for your buck when it basically comes down to tastes in genres/types of games to begin with. For people who sink over 9000 hours a week into mmos the cost will be dirt cheap, but for someone who possibly wont like them that much or sink that much time into them then saying they're spending too much because MMOs are cheaper on average (based on someone else's tastes) seems too... I dunno.

Dog Pants wrote:I've also noticed it looks better on my little monitor at work than it does on my 22" widescreen monster at home. Looks longer.

So what you're saying is that smaller makes it bigger? Did your missus tell you that?

Gunslinger42 wrote:

The point, which may need some more clarification, is that gamers who limit themselves to only buying stuff like Far Cry 2 and Crysis are actually paying more than if they went for the options they wouldn't usually consider because they don't like the price - casual games are considered to not be long enough, and MMOs too expensive.

I don't necessarily think you can solidly conclude something like that though, as it depends on how much an individual will actually enjoy those other games. Apart from eve, I pretty much hate mmos - not because of the price, but just because they get too... meh after a while (and a "while" generally isn't considerably longer than a typical decent length single player - based on my xfire stats for aoc and coh, anyway - so the price doesn't end up being super-cheap either). It seems difficult to me to try and make an "average" case or conclusion about what is the most bang for your buck when it basically comes down to tastes in genres/types of games to begin with. For people who sink over 9000 hours a week into mmos the cost will be dirt cheap, but for someone who possibly wont like them that much or sink that much time into them then saying they're spending too much because MMOs are cheaper on average (based on someone else's tastes) seems too... I dunno.

That's not the point I'm trying to make though. I'm not suggesting that everyone should play MMOs because they're the cheapest. As I already said, there's no point buying a game you don't like because you're not going to get good value for money. The point I'm trying to make is restricting yourself to only mainstream titles because you don't like to spend money on the other types is wrong, as they actually generally turn out cheaper. I do see a lot of people on various forums proclaiming subscription based games are too expensive, and that they refuse to pay a monthly charge to play a game, and if you make a general analysis it's actually the complete opposite. Casual games stem from my own experience - why spend £6 on something that looks like a browser game? Well as it turns out they're not all so casual as browser games and give you more bang for your buck than a typical single player FPS.

That's not the point I'm trying to make though.

I figured it wasn't, but the conclusion just felt that way when I read it

Gunslinger42 wrote:

That's not the point I'm trying to make though.

I figured it wasn't, but the conclusion just felt that way when I read it

Okay, that's a fair criticism.

I think I get quite a lot of value from my games, but only because I play them to death, get bored, and play them some more.

Most of all, Starcraft, £10 - 327hrs = 3p/Hour

I reckon I've played it twice as much as that before I got Xfire though, which would take it down to 1p/Hour
If it were not for the fact that my original (scratched to buggery) disks cost £30 on release, bringing the total ~1000hrs to 4p/Hour

I think I bought Starcraft twice too. I made a point that a game with a decent multiplayer can massively increase its value; COD4 for example. 6 hours of gameplay from the single player game, over 200 from the multiplayer.