Thought this piece from Motherboard was pretty interesting and wanted to share it with the forum.
Personally, while I completely agree with the sentiments of the headline, I still find myself thoughtlessly resorting to something akin to this metric… and I hate it. I am currently in graduate school with limited funds so, when I spend money on a game, I try very hard to “get my money’s worth” and this sometimes means a sort of cost/time analysis creeps in to general research and opinion forming about the game. That is not to suggest I am buying +60 hour JRPGs because of how long they are–I do have limited time to devote to gaming after all–but it does mean I find myself feeling a little limited in a lot of the great indie titles I read about because it “feels” harder for me to justify multiple $10-$20 purchases for “shorter” products.
I am curious how other people navigate this issue. I have to reiterate that I think “cost per hour” is generally a bad way to judge a game but when you are stuck with limited time and funds it definitely feels like it creeps in. Regardless, the final paragraph from the Motherboard piece is worth quoting:
Buy games that look cool to you. Don’t worry too much about what your value per hour is. It sucks to spend $60 for a bad game, but cost per hour won’t stop that from happening. No matter the cost, one hour of something special is better than 100 hours of garbage.