Does game length affect your purchase decision?

[HighFive]

I always see myself buying games that will give me a lot for my money, and volontary skipping games, unless they are in special that is worth it for me. Like if a AAA game is coming out at 60$, and the time to beat of it is something like 5-8 hours, im not even considering it. And i even sometime applying this to some indies, even if they are like 15-20$ , if i see they take like 5-6 hours to beat, i wait again for a special. My best feeling point is a game that will at least give me a good 15 hours of play time on one playthrew. If i can throw in some example, games i didnt bought but waiting for a special at like 20$ are Star Fox Zero, Resident Evil 7, and one indie im waiting for a price drop on Switch is Steamworld Dig 2. Best the first one in like 4 hours, and was dissapointed, even if it was great and it was also on special when i bought it.

Just just wondering if you all do the same, or you just dont really care and enjoy the game for what it is, no matter how quick it can be finished.

EDIT: More speaking about the single player aspect of a game. Not counting multiplayer games in this, since we already expect them to be long time takers.

 

[StrykerIsland]

Nope, if it's a genre I like, I'll buy it. Though I tend to wait for it to hit $29.99 first, can't afford these $80+ games.

 

[Aeferis]

I consider how long a game is only if I need it to be kinda short because I don't have much time in that moment to spend gaming. In any other case, I personally don't care.

 

[Lunchbox]

Yes, it's part of the value prospect to me along with various other things such as price, genre, art style etc.

 

[Mobyduck]

Absolutely. One of the reasons I love roguelikes and multiplayer games. When I was younger it was my main concern, which game gave more bang for it's buck. I grew fond of those kinds of games (a lot of which were indie) and still prefer them.

 

[Nemesis_]

I think it does but not in the way most would think. These days I am very worried about buying something that's too long. Final Fantasy XV, for example, is a game I want to play but I know I can't sink the time into it so I've never actually bothered to buy it.

I will pick longer games up but I admit that it takes a lot longer for me to pick those up.

 

[Valkyr1983]

Quality over quantity for me

I'll pay 60$ for a 5 hour game if it's awesome, no hesitation

I actually don't like games over 20 hours if I'm being honest. Most open world games like witcher or botw, after a dozen or so hours I start beelining it towards main missions only... gotta beat that game so I can move on

 

[Sanctuary]

Not usually, but I'm not going to spend $60 on a five hour game either. At the same time, any game that espouses "100+ hours" to do everything as a virtue has me inwardly groaning, and is usually chock full off the same boring stuff that I was already doing daily in EverQuest or World of Warcraft. In those games it made sense, but it makes zero sense in a single player, offline game. Somehow though, "value proposition" became a selling point, regardless of what the game is actually giving you.

 

[Mona]

it absolutely is part of the discussion i have in my head for a purchase

but many other factors are also weighed in

also, ive played played both Journey and Portal about 6 times each, so even a short game doesn't have to be short if you get my drift

people will let some weird stuff affect their decisions though, i remember when Rayman Origins was coming out and people said it wasn't worth 60$ because it was 2D

 

[gosublime]

Strangely, I tend to like shorter games now. Work, kids and general stuff has got in the way so when I hear about a 100+ hour RPG it has to be something special that will make be buy it. For instance, I missed out on Fallout 4 as reviews and general feedback weren't amazing so thought I would pass.

 

[Coxy]

Nope none at all.

I only buy single player games so it does matter in terms of which game I play next but that's it

 

[Slayven]

Yes, I am not paying 60 bucks for anything that has under 20 hours of gameplay, UNLESS it has good replay value or a variety of modes

 

[Verdanth]

If I like the game and want to play it, what I usually do for short games is waiting for a pricedrop.

 

[Eszik]

I consider it both ways. If a game is "too short for its price" I'll probably wait for it to be on sale, but if a game is really long I know there's a chance I'll drop it halfway through so I don't jump on it either. It's not much about the price though, it's just that longer games don't appeal to me.

 

[HighFive]

Absolutely. One of the reasons I love roguelikes and multiplayer games. When I was younger it was my main concern, which game gave more bang for it's buck. I grew fond of those kinds of games (a lot of which were indie) and still prefer them.

Click to shrink...

Mutiplayer games, you are expecting it having lots of time invest in it. Ill modify my question a bit, was more speaking of single player games. But yeah i agree, roguelike, i love em. Csnt wait for Enter the Gungeon to be release in Switch!

 

[Galdius]

Yes. I prefer shorter games than longer ones. I don't mind paying US$60 for a 8-10h game. A 30h game can take almost one month for me to finish it and I like to be able to play a few games a month so that I can downsize my backlog.

 

[Deleted member 6137]

It does not decide my purchase decision. If I think that the game will be good, I go for it.

 

[diablos991]

It does effect my purchasing decision.
But only if a game is too long.

Persona 5 never again.

 

[Rickenslacker]

They affect my playing decisions, but with purchasing I usually just wait for things to get cheaper regardless. It's a big mental hurdle for me to jump through if I'm under the impression that the game I'm gonna play is over 20 hours. Around 10 is something more preferable to me. Games just have a lot of fluff and padding to them that I'd rather be cut out to make for better pacing.

 

[The Almighty Tria]

No, not in terms of if it's short. If Modern Warfare 1 and 2 never came with multiplayer and we only the 5 hour campaigns, I'd be perfectly satisfied with my purchases.

But if it's really long? Hell yeah I'm gonna be hesistant on buying a game that is 60 hours long. Not just because I don't have as much time anymore, but also because 99% of games that long are about 80% filler, 20% actual worthwhile content.

 

[Plumpbiscuit]

To a degree it does, I mean I don't want to spend $60 on a 2 hour game when I could be spending $20 on a 30 hour game. Then again, those 2 hours might be the best I've ever had (as unlikely as that is) but generally there is a length in time in my mind I want to get out of a game for its price.

 

[mcwizardry]

Usually not, maybe in extreme cases where a game is unusually short.

 

[julia crawford]

Well, not really, but i like knowing what i'm getting into before buying a game.

 

[Gelf]

Only if I think I'm going to be bored for much of that length because of an element that pads out the playtime between the parts I want to play.

 

[Zephy]

Indirectly it does, because I tend not to be interested in short, linear games. I prefer RPGs, open(ish) worlds... And since I don't play multiplayer games, games like CoD with short campaigns are out of the question for 60-70€.

I value quality, but there needs to be a certain quantity as well to justify buying a game full price.

 

[Bioshocker]

In a sense, yes. If the developer says it takes 40 hours to beat the game, I won't buy it. There's no time. I tend to buy 12 hours SP games and shorter indie games like Inside and Little Nightmares nowadays. And I'll always throw money at racing games, preferably those that are just as fun for 30 minutes as for five hours. (Forza Horizon 3).

 

[Robin]

I always see myself buying games that will give me a lot for my money, and volontary skipping games, unless they are in special that is worth it for me. Like if a AAA game is coming out at 60$, and the time to beat of it is something like 5-8 hours, im not even considering it. And i even sometime applying this to some indies, even if they are like 15-20$ , if i see they take like 5-6 hours to beat, i wait again for a special. My best feeling point is a game that will at least give me a good 15 hours of play time on one playthrew. If i can throw in some example, games i didnt bought but waiting for a special at like 20$ are Star Fox Zero, Resident Evil 7, and one indie im waiting for a price drop on Switch is Steamworld Dig 2. Best the first one in like 4 hours, and was dissapointed, even if it was great and it was also on special when i bought it.

Just just wondering if you all do the same, or you just dont really care and enjoy the game for what it is, no matter how quick it can be finished.

EDIT: More speaking about the single player aspect of a game. Not counting multiplayer games in this, since we already expect them to be long time takers.

Click to shrink...

Fixed your thread title, hope that's cool =)

 

[Deleted member 9486]

To some extent as if it's under $10 hours and available at Redbox I can just rent it a night or two when I have a free weekend.

Otherwise not really as I buy most things physically with 20% GCU discount and sell after beating. A shorter game I can beat faster and self or more as the value hasn't dropped yet.

As for more generally how I value games, I go by "hours of enjoyment." Padding sucks so you can't just go by length IMO. It's how many hours of top level fun I have with the game that matters. A 20 hour game that's fun all the way through is a better value to me than a 30 hour game with 10 hours of padding/boring content. But a 30 hour game that's fun all the way through is a better value than both, and so on.

 

[EasyRoad]

Not really but maybe it should... it might make my backlog shorter

 

[Black Knight]

In some cases yes, but mostly it depends on many factors like :
* the price compared to the game quality.
* the franchise, if it a game from a series that I love then I may consider buying it, but it has to be polished and well designed game on it's own.

But honestly this is very rare cases, even a game with a lot of contents like The Evil Within 2 I regret buying it, because I was disappointed with the game (even though I am a big fan of the first game), so yeah I have to choose my games carefully, as there are many options in this generation.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Yes, but in the opposite way to the OP... I'm less likely to play a game if it's a massive 50 hour open world game. I prefer linear games I can finish in 10-15 hours. Gaming time is precious and I want to get through as many as I can.

 

[Borocor]

Yes, there is a limit. When I heard the new South Park game was longer than Stick of Truth, that was a negative to me. I enjoyed the first game, but had more than enough by the last few hours. Changed me from a likely buy on release to a wait for Steam sale.

 

[HighFive]

Strangely, I tend to like shorter games now. Work, kids and general stuff has got in the way so when I hear about a 100+ hour RPG it has to be something special that will make be buy it. For instance, I missed out on Fallout 4 as reviews and general feedback weren't amazing so thought I would pass.

Click to shrink...

Not pointing RPGs directly. If i could give an example of a game i bought without hesitation that gave me a good 20 hours of playtime was Doom. I felt it was totally worth it. Another gsme in my buy like i wont hesitate is the indie Golf Story. Even if its like 25$ im feeling i will enjoy , knowing its a 20 hours game. If the game was beatable in 5-6 hours, i would wait.

 

[Alienhated]

It kinda does, but not because i don't want to play long games, but because i know that nowadays "lenghty game" just equals countless hours of boring, repetitive filler content sprinkled all over bloated and needlessly huge open worlds.

 

[ShellshockPrime]

I usually check out what game I might be interested in, before I buy it. I don't want to spend $60 on games that you could easily beat, but have no replay value afterwards.

 

[ShinkuTachi]

Length really isn't a primary consideration for me, and this is coming from a person who primarily plays JRPGs. As long as I enjoy the story, characters, OST, and have tons of fun playing; the length of the game really doesn't matter.

Imo, the quality of time spent is always more important than the quantity of time spent.

 

[Mobyduck]

Mutiplayer games, you are expecting it having lots of time invest in it. Ill modify my question a bit, was more speaking of single player games. But yeah i agree, roguelike, i love em. Csnt wait for Enter the Gungeon to be release in Switch!

Click to shrink...

Fair enough. On the single player spectrum, there are plenty of genres that I give specially consideration when making purchase choices because I know I will be able to spend more time on them. More recent examples are Rise to Ruins, a mix between god game and city manager, and Cook! Serve! Delicious! 2!!, which I think I have more than 30 hours on already.

Even though I have more disposable income nowadays, time is still important for me. Like you, I can't see myself buying a 60$ game that will only last for a few hours.

 

[PrimeTime]

Game Length is one aspect, but if the game encourages and rewards multiple playthroughs through different endings, unlocked content that's another thing to consider. I'm finding that attempting to platinum games (some games not all). is a great way to get the most out of your experience. Of course this is only true if the devs weren't forcing you to participate in a collect-a-thon.

To answer your question, I'm reluctant to buy a game at full price if it's only going to be a 10 hour or less experience. I think 20 hours minimum is probably my threshold.

 

[Creamium]

Yes, but in the opposite direction of the OP. If a game's supposed to be 60+ hours in length, I will mostly hold off on getting it unless it's a franchise I love. I've come to love shorter/well paced games more and I'm ready to spend money if the overall experience is great but short. For instance I got Inside immediately at launch because there was a high chance I'd love it and I could finish it in one or two sittings. Same with Steamworld Dig 2, got it as soon as I saw the positive impressions + playtime averages. A short and well-received game will end up way higher on my wishlist than a 100 hour epic. You really have to set aside time for those and I'm only willing to do that a few times a year.

 

[Cleve]

Not like it used to. I'm in my 30s now and it's not the $ per hour that matters as much as the enjoyment per hour. It's not my teenage years with the ps1 where I bought padded out jrpgs that were mostly poorly written drawn out messes. I have no problem spending $60 on a great 6-8 hours.

 

[Deleted member 9714]

It depends on the price. I wouldn't pay $48/60 for a game that's 10 hours or less. The sweet spot for me is 30-40, but I like plenty of RPGs that go on for 60-80 as well. I'm not really interested in indie games that take only a few hours to complete. I fine with Nintendo platformers and Naughty Dog games that fall on the shorter side, since they tend to be really good regardless.

 

[Phil's Empty Chair]

If a game is really short I might wait till a pricecut unless its really good like Inside for example.

 

[clay_ghost]

Yes. I only have so much time so if the game requires me to invest a lot of time , it have to be portable else i wont get it. I can only play around one to two 80 hours plus games on home console per year.

Main reason i am dropping MHW and have not start Persona 5 yet lol.


Edit

It not based on $ but based on how much time i can spend on the game lol.

Please make more games portable so i can buy them :D

 

[TRUE ORDER]

Not that much I must say, if it's completion time is fair enough, has extras or replay value I don't mind at all (as long as doesn't take only like 2 hours to end it for example)

 

[Bman94]

It's hard to really tell how much you'll be invested in that game.

I paid $5 for Fallout 3 and It jist couldn't hold my attention. I gave it like 10 hours and I just couldn't go on.

Meanwhile I paid $5 for Game Dev Tycoon on Steam and I have over 300 hours played on that.

I guess it really matters on the quality of the product. Even though I bought Bayonetta 2 (and 1) on sale for like $50, each game is about 12 hours each but that quality was so good that I wouldn't have mind paying full price.

Then what about games that have Ultimate Editions with all the DLC? How do we justify costs for them? I was ADDICTED to Injustice 2 when it first came out. I bought the Ultimate Edition for like $100 but man I put so much hours into it. I was pretty garbage online so I barely spent any time on there but I had so much fun from the story mode, the Multiverse anf just local multiplayer.

Or games like Stardew Valley which length is going to be long no matter what?

It get hard to pinpoint a games worth soley off of length.

 

[Number9]

Yes, negatively.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

Honestly, I'm less likely to skip a game because it's super long than skip one because it's short.

 

[javiergame4]

Yes, especially single player games. If I see reviews saying they are like 5 hours length then I just Redbox it or buy it at half price.

 

[Deleted member 17403]

No, if I like something, I'll buy it regardless of its longevity

 

[gosublime]

Not pointing RPGs directly. If i could give an example of a game i bought without hesitation that gave me a good 20 hours of playtime was Doom. I felt it was totally worth it. Another gsme in my buy like i wont hesitate is the indie Golf Story. Even if its like 25$ im feeling i will enjoy , knowing its a 20 hours game. If the game was beatable in 5-6 hours, i would wait.

Click to shrink...

I'm rather sad and have a list of games that I will buy. I have the one I'm going to play next teed up so when I beat one game I can go straight on to the next, buying my next game at the same time.

So, at the moment I'm playing Death of the Outsider, with Pyre downloaded. When I finish Death, I will buy Hellblade, Hob or Echo depending on which is cheaper at the time. Means I'm usually behind the times and deals have started and I have no backlog - it's more of a forelog! Sometimes games that I am really hyped for can jump the queue - Bloodborne 2 would be an example.

So, the way I've organised myself means that the cost isn't as important as if the game gets on to the list and that is through reviews, feedback on sites like this and hype for certain games. Time is one of those factors but for me, the shorter the more likely it is to go on so that I can experience the full game as I will play the whole thing before moving on.

Note - I don't really do multiplayer games. And yes, I know it's quite sad to be this organised but it means when I play games I'm not trying to work out the controls or where I am each time.