Quote from: Galileus on January 21, 2014, 12:44:25 PM
Comparing multi-player titles to a single player title in terms of length or replayability is just a no-no. Never do thatAlso, different genres and types of games can vary in length. I would expect longer gameplay from a RTS than from spectacle fighter for example - simply because of the way they handle.
Also, soaked more than 1k hours into Tribes and never paid a buck for it
And I disagree as to counting hours into bucks. Of course it's not a 1:1 relation, where you say how much the game should cost in correlation how long you play it - but some 60$ titles round up to 4h of uninspired and bland gameplay, and this IMHO is a great deal for concern. Especially if you can get 20$ titles that will give you 4h of extremely fun game or 60$ ones with a lot of replayability on top of long core game. The relation is not important above the minimum buck/hour you're willing to pay - but that is important. After all, we don't have unlimited resources, and thus there will be downtime between games we can play or want to play. In this case it's often better idea to get slightly worse, but much longer game than to blow it on extra-short experience that will leave you empty-handed one day after the purchase.
Which further proves my point which was that the cost doesn't determine the value.
Also, different genres and types of games can vary in length. I would expect longer gameplay from a RTS than from spectacle fighter for example - simply because of the way they handle.

