Measuring and defining "value for money"

Anything to do with games at all.
User avatar
Dig Dug
Member
Joined in 2011

PostMeasuring and defining "value for money"
by Dig Dug » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:16 pm

Being someone who has purchased many games over the years the question of "value for money" is one I often ponder over due to the differences between the games I've played, games on the market, trends in the medium itself and the ways in which the games are distributed these days.

I used to have one very simple hard rule. The time invested into the game must be equal to the cost of the game by the hour. So if I pay £40 for a game, I must spend at least 40 hours playing it for the value to even out.
On the surface this is a sensible way of looking at how good a game is at giving you value for money. New games are very expensive with £50 having become the norm for retail pricing again.

As I played more games I started to see some basic logical fallacies in this reasoning. Sin & Punishment is a very good game, one of the best games on the N64, there's just one big issue however, the game is less than an hour long, I paid £25 for it. I have finished Sin & Punishment maybe 5 times and I've probably spent no more than 7 hours playing it in total, if you break that down then I've spent £3.50 per hour played, obviously this will go down the more I play it but then I'm playing to get my money's worth instead of for the experience of the game.

This made me reconsider how I measure value. I've paid less than £4 for games that I've easily gotten more than 50 hours out of. The timed value for money becomes so good that it brings to question why you should ever buy more costly games at all.

In the end I came to see that the experience of play has a value of its own. Sin & Punishment may have cost me £25 for an hour-long first-time experience but that experience was none like any other game I have ever played (not even the sequel did for me what this game does), it is extremely unique and even now I can remember the game as a whole vividly. In the end I found value in the experience itself rather than the time consumed by the experience. This won't apply to everyone however, it is a subjective method for measuring a games value but one I feel is worth having in this discussion.

There's also the game itself, specifically I mean the physical content of the game. A digital download gives only the game as software, its purist form. Retail media however has more to it, a box, maybe a manual, a disc/cartridge that can be resold or traded around at a whim. Do we take these into account also when determining the value of the game?

Through all these things I've come to accept that the best way to value a game is to consider what the game is worth to the person. To me sin & punishment is worth the £25 paid for it, but I could accept that other people might consider it a rip-off based on the content. Likewise, I've seen many people say that Super Smash Bros. Ultimate represents some of the best value for money on the market due to the wealth of content in the game (although I wouldn't have missed those 30 hours wasted on adventure mode if it wasn't there).

As of now my personal definition for "value for money" in relation to a game looks something like this:
"The worthiness of a financial investment on a game based on perceived quality and personal enjoyment."
Obviously this can't apply to everyone. There are many kinds of games I don't play that would warp the definition, such as the rise of the so called "service games" where users are expected to continuously invest in something that is a changing work in progress.

So with all that said, how do you measure a games ability to give you value for money?

EDIT: As an after note I want to address steam also. I have 300+ games on my steam library, there are many games I have not played. However there are cases where I'm fine with that. I paid £5 for all the GTA games form 1-4 in a sale once. I've put around 30 hours into GTA III and Vice City, I've never touched the other games but I can't complain considering the time spent on the other games in my library. This is why steam bundles are so good, you often only need to play one game to feel like you got your money's worth.

User avatar
Kriken
Member
Joined in 2015
AKA: Best Boy
Contact:

PostRe: Measuring and defining "value for money"
by Kriken » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:35 pm

I guess I'm okay with shelling out a ton for a game that isn't that long or doesn't have much extra content because of all the bargains I've gotten in the past. For example long long ago I got Morrowind for £3 and put close to 1k hours into it. And I've gotten many hours from a few similarly priced games on Steam. So overall I feel like I make a saving on games and get value for my money, even if I feel like I'm paying too much for some games individually.

I'm glad I got Mario Oddysey for £40 and not £50 which is what I imagine it would have been closer to release, because realistically after I complete it and get a good chunk of the moons (as I'm probably not going to go for all of them anyway), I may not play through the game again in years or at all. Despite enjoying the game, because I'd prefer to move on to something else.

So definitely personal enjoyment >>> hours spent playing, especially since I feel like I'm getting my money's worth overall.

Then there's the Digitial vs Retail copy thing. Not too long ago I was fully on board for going all digital but then I reconsidered. Can't trade in or sell my digital copy of the game if I get bored or feel 'done' with it like a retail release. Can't temporarily swap a game with a friend so we can save money on buying a game that way. So especially with how much games can cost these days, I'm taking in mind the possibility of selling it later to recoup that cash.

Twitch | Twitter | Kriken_1 on Threads | Bluesky
he/they
User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: Belfast

PostRe: Measuring and defining "value for money"
by Meep » Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:40 pm

I don't think you can quantify value in time alone. For example, I recently played What Remains of Edith Finch and while it is a very short experience you can tell there is a massive amount of detail and work put into every part of the game. It lasted about the same length as a movie and I thank it stacks up quite well by comparison in terms of value.

jawafour
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: Measuring and defining "value for money"
by jawafour » Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:34 pm

Oh, boy, "value" is so tricky to judge!

I remember getting 8-bit computer games on cassette for £2 and £3; some were terrible but some offered tremendous fun. Fast forward to today and I feel that I have got great value from paying full-price for games like Mad Max, Pro Evo and No Mans Sky... but what was I thinking in paying full price for things like Smash Bros and Destiny 2? Obviously they're not "bad" games, but definitely not the right choices for my personal tastes.

I think value is tougher to assess nowdays as, quite often, there are so many versions of a game and extra on-going expense (passes, loot boxes and other DLC) becomes a factor. I really enjoy the Elder Scrolls Online game and would regard the initial outlay as offering value; but the increasing focus on loot boxes is tarnishing the experience in my view.

In past years there have been many occasions when I have bought games and not gained what I regard as "good value" from them. From January I plan on being far more selective and - hopefully! - tougher in deciding what games to buy. I feel this approach ties in to "value" as I am looking to spend less but still gain great enjoyment from gaming; this probably means buying fewer games but playing more of those that I do.

User avatar
rinks
Member
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Aboard the train that goes around the world

PostRe: Measuring and defining "value for money"
by rinks » Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:36 pm

I don’t bother.

User avatar
Ironhide
Fiend
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: Measuring and defining "value for money"
by Ironhide » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:18 pm

I don't have any pre defined rules for measuring value for money, if I enjoy playing the game and have paid less than the RRP for it then I usually feel like I've got my money's worth.

Image
User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Measuring and defining "value for money"
by Dual » Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:56 pm

Here's an easy rule to live by:

Never spend more than £20 on a video game.

Gemini73

PostRe: Measuring and defining "value for money"
by Gemini73 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:28 pm

I'm more likely to take a punt on a game if it's pretty cheap, but that is down to other expenses. Whether a game is good value for money or not isn't something I've really given much thought to

User avatar
The Doom Spoon
Member
Joined in 2018
Location: South Wales
Contact:

PostRe: Measuring and defining "value for money"
by The Doom Spoon » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:45 pm

I tend to look at the potential hours that can be put in compared to price but also will keep in mind the quality of the time spent on a game.

For instance I've bought Code Name: S. T. E. A. M for £2.82 off Amazon. Never played it before and have no idea what it's going to be like, but if I get more than 2 hours if enjoyment out of it then it's a win for me.

I paid full wack for Mario Odyssey (about £50) and put in 20 hours of game play, completed the story and was happy with the quality of time spent on the game. If you're a compleationist and wants to find everything there is to get in the game then you can get many more quality hours out of it.

I always debate getting the FIFA games every year as I begrudge paying £50 on a yearly basis for the same game with updated kits and players, but I put in 150+ hours every year.

Image Image

Return to “Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: D_C, Peter Crisp, Ploiper, Rawrgna and 390 guests