Support NeoGAF

[Sorcerer]

I don't think its quite apples to oranges. Games have the same content as movies then just repetition. Not like you are experiencing 70 hours of unique entertainment. Basically a game is just an interactive movie, with activities to keep you busy.

I think to myself how would I make the Phantasy Star movie? The game has literally about 30 minutes of story (if that) and the rest is just grinding in between the story bits. But I do love grinding for the story bits.

 

[Zeeed]

.

 

[Sorcerer]

edit

 

[RoadHazard]

No, not really. Why are we comparing gaming to movie theaters? Why don't we compare it to Netflix? Netflix costs me 15 dollars a month and I get countless hours of entertainment.

When going to the cinema or buying a game you pay for exactly what you want to experience, and you get it day 1. On Netflix you watch what they think you should watch, and you won't get any brand new movies (except for stuff they produce themselves).

Sure, Netflix is very cheap per hour of watched content (if you use it a lot), but the comparison was between going to the cinema vs buying a game. Now, some games last 15 hours while others last 150, and it's up to you which ones you want to spend your money on.

 

[Justin9mm]

It's not a good or relevant comparison. You can also spend $20 to buy a basketball that gives you years of entertainment.

Compare it to other games for the best comparison. Time alone is not enough to make your value judgements though. There's some games that can have you grinding the same repeated content for dozens of hours.

I somewhat agree with you but I think cinema vs gaming is a good comparison. Watching movies and playing games is similar entertainment that can be compared.

Comparisons have to be similar.. Putting cost of a basketball vs a video game under the guise of entertainment is not really a fair comparison because the cost and effort put into making that ball is not the same/similar.

 

[Justin9mm]

Perspective is subjective!

 

[Yselacrey00]

When going to the cinema or buying a game you pay for exactly what you want to experience, and you get it day 1. On Netflix you watch what they think you should watch, and you won't get any brand new movies (except for stuff they produce themselves).

Sure, Netflix is very cheap per hour of watched content (if you use it a lot), but the comparison was between going to the cinema vs buying a game. Now, some games last 15 hours while others last 150, and it's up to you which ones you want to spend your money on.

So then compare it to buying a Blu-Ray, that would make more sense. Not a lot of people buy those things though, so that shows you how people aren't willing to spend money on movies.

 

[BigBooper]

I somewhat agree with you but I think cinema vs gaming is a good comparison. Watching movies and playing games is similar entertainment that can be compared.

Comparisons have to be similar.. Putting cost of a basketball vs a video game under the guise of entertainment is not really a fair comparison because the cost and effort put into making that ball is not the same/similar.

I don't agree that going to a theater to watch a movie is similar to buying a game. The price of going to a theater is paying for how you experience the movie, as well as what you experience within the movie. Buying a game is paying for what you experience within the game, and in the case of physical games, something you can display, loan to someone, or resell. There's very minor similarities.

 

[TheMay30thMan]

I really don’t understand the need to justify a purchase by forcing an arbitrary subscription model on it. If you paid $70 for a new game and you’re happy about it, thats totally fine. Bringing up how many dollars you spent per hour just makes you sound like you’re desperately trying to excuse the purchase. Plus it makes zero sense. You own the game, don’t you? Why measure it by hours per dollars when you’re can replay it whenever you want?

 

[Redlight]

Gaming an expensive. Comparing the price to to movies just feels like an attempt to justify some games going up to $70. It's a reach.

You can buy music which has, effectively, infinite enjoyment attached to it. If my favourite ever album was $1000, would that be fine because it's good 'value per hour' deal compared to movies?

 

[Sejan]

It’s not a perfect comparison, but it’s definitely worth considering the length of a game at purchase. I wouldn’t be satisfied if I got 500 hours of content in a “watching paint dry simulator” if I was bored to tears even if it were technically a good value. I think the equation needs to factor in the value of the experience itself in addition to the length of experience.

 

[Justin9mm]

I don't agree that going to a theater to watch a movie is similar to buying a game. The price of going to a theater is paying for how you experience the movie, as well as what you experience within the movie. Buying a game is paying for what you experience within the game, and in the case of physical games, something you can display, loan to someone, or resell. There's very minor similarities.

I think your missing my point but ok