Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)RE
Posts
2
Comments
788
Joined
10 mo. ago

  • No, I was actually considering multiple playthroughs as well as clearing it to 100%. (Though some games also put in some ridicilous grinds that make reaching 100% extremly time-consuming, those I consider asshole design and are not included).

    I'm talking a couple of days playtime, not a couple of days real time.

    an hour of play per dollar

    That's only 3.333 days of playtime for an $80 game .... I don't think that is very good.

  • Sure, nothing wrong with single player games in general. But I wouldn't pay $80 for a game that can be "finished" in a couple of days. If people want to do that, that's fine of course. But don't complain about game prices if you're specifically selecting the games with the worst playtime/price ratio.

  • And I’d change the “years of content” to something like “you can play it once every few years and it’s still good”

    I would not.

    If you have a game you can only play once a every few years, its probalby a singleplay/campaign only game. THOSE are the issue. Get a game with a good multiplayer and you can play it perpetually ... for decades even.

  • The problem is throw-away game culture and generally low quality games. A good game can provide you with years of content and would be well worth a >$80 price tag.

    But people keep paying the same prices for trash games they play for 2 weeks and then move on. And honestly, they deserve these prices.