Uncharted The Lost Legacy revealed: fullish game, not DLC

[Kerotan]

Probably be priced at $20 or $30

[BananaKing]

Probably be priced at $20 or $30

Ehh, too expensive for a 6~ hour DLC. (I'm guessing around 6 hours)

I bought the witcher 3 season pass for 25, and that had 40~ of content.

[Legend]

Ehh, too expensive for a 6~ hour DLC. (I'm guessing around 6 hours)

I bought the witcher 3 season pass for 25, and that had 40~ of content.

I've never liked this line of thinking. Games are more complex than just playtime.

Plus as I've grown older I have less free time. Sometimes I prefer shorter games than these huge RPGs.

[DerNebel]

I've never liked this line of thinking. Games are more complex than just playtime.

Plus as I've grown older I have less free time. Sometimes I prefer shorter games than these huge RPGs.

I couple months ago I saw a highly upvoted comment in a reddit thread of a guy saying that his philosophy when buying games is that one hour of game length is worth $1... I wanted to punch that dude through my screen.

[the-pi-guy]

Ehh, too expensive for a 6~ hour DLC. (I'm guessing around 6 hours)

I bought the witcher 3 season pass for 25, and that had 40~ of content.

I agree.  
Since Skyrim was like 600 hours, for 60$, that's like 0.10$ per hour.  

Uncharted 4 was too expensive, should have been like $1.50.  

[Riderz1337]

Ehh, too expensive for a 6~ hour DLC. (I'm guessing around 6 hours)

I bought the witcher 3 season pass for 25, and that had 40~ of content.

And 30 of it is spend walking/riding your horse.

Don't get me wrong, I love Witcher 3. Bought both expansion packs (Beat hearts of Stone) and I've played almost 60 hours but the majority of it is spent doing filler battleship. Ppl said Hearts of Stone was like 10 hours but I beat it in 3...

I couple months ago I saw a highly upvoted comment in a reddit thread of a guy saying that his philosophy when buying games is that one hour of game length is worth $1... I wanted to punch that dude through my screen.

shame like this pisses me off way more than it should. How the hell can you put a value dollar on something like that. Uncharted could have been just single player and I beat it in 13 hours and I would GLADLY pay 80$ for an experience like that. The multiplayer was just the icing on the cake that I just so happened to enjoy quite a bit at the time and played 30 hours.

[kitler53]

And 30 of it is spend walking/riding your horse.

Don't get me wrong, I love Witcher 3. Bought both expansion packs (Beat hearts of Stone) and I've played almost 60 hours but the majority of it is spent doing filler battleship. Ppl said Hearts of Stone was like 10 hours but I beat it in 3...

shame like this pisses me off way more than it should. How the hell can you put a value dollar on something like that. Uncharted could have been just single player and I beat it in 13 hours and I would GLADLY pay 80$ for an experience like that. The multiplayer was just the icing on the cake that I just so happened to enjoy quite a bit at the time and played 30 hours.

i'm not a gamer that puts much value into price per hour but...

...i've got one friend who really is.  to be blunt he is poor.  he can only afford a hundredish dollars in games a year.  he buys on sale only and even then he really evaluates how many game hours he'll get out of the game. each game he buys basically has to last him 2-3 months. 

i used to loan him my games but then i went full digital and it isn't so practical to game share on ps4.  ..but anyways i'm just saying that people have their reasons for being the way they are.   i'm basically the opposite of him because i have 2 kids so and a hundred hour game could quite literally take me a year to beat.  i like short games with no filler.

[BananaKing]

I've never liked this line of thinking. Games are more complex than just playtime.

Plus as I've grown older I have less free time. Sometimes I prefer shorter games than these huge RPGs.

i have a lot less time to play than i used too. but i am liking these huge open world games more and more. i dont mind spending a lot of time on a game if its worth it. The Witcher 3 was worth it. Bloodborne was worth it. Farcry 4 was worth it. i didnt bother spending 55 bucks on uncharted, because one its quality and two it has multiplayer. so it has enough content to justify a full price.

to me the amount of content needs to justify the price tag. quality also plays a role here as well. the division has a lot of content, but it doesnt feel like a must have or a fantastic game. so i am waiting till the price drops. i spend 30~ hours into Dooms multiplayer, that alone justified its full purchase. its a balance between how much content you get, and the quality.

to me The Witcher 3's two expansions totally justified its price. two great expansions that i spent roughly 40 hours playing, and enjoyed them a lot. is certainly worth 25$. but if another expansion where to come, and was just 6 hours and was 25$, no thanks, ill wait. i waited for The Old Hunters to drop to 12$, and that was 8 hours long.

I agree.  
Since Skyrim was like 600 hours, for 60$, that's like 0.10$ per hour.  

Uncharted 4 was too expensive, should have been like $1.50.  

i never implied that thats how i count it. 20$-25$ for a 6 hour expansion is too high for my taste. regardless of its quality. ill wait for the price to drop and get it then. thats what i did for the old hunters.

And 30 of it is spend walking/riding your horse.

Don't get me wrong, I love Witcher 3. Bought both expansion packs (Beat hearts of Stone) and I've played almost 60 hours but the majority of it is spent doing filler battleship. Ppl said Hearts of Stone was like 10 hours but I beat it in 3...

umm no. 30 hours of the expansions is not riding on your horse. i did a good amount of exploration during my time with the expansions. but honestly i did it because it was fun, and The Witcher 3's worlds are fun to explore. you can spend as much time on your horse as you want, but that doesnt take away from the beefy content that both expansions offer.

sure, Hearts of Stone doesnt compare to Blood and Wine. but after all, thats just 10$ stand alone. which isnt that expensive.

not sure how you beat it in 3. unless you are waaaaaaaay over powered. and still then, its rather impossible. not sure how you beat it in 3 hours, when the fastest play through on How long to beat is 4 hours and 15 minutes.

[Riderz1337]

umm no. 30 hours of the expansions is not riding on your horse. i did a good amount of exploration during my time with the expansions. but honestly i did it because it was fun, and The Witcher 3's worlds are fun to explore. you can spend as much time on your horse as you want, but that doesnt take away from the beefy content that both expansions offer.

sure, Hearts of Stone doesnt compare to Blood and Wine. but after all, thats just 10$ stand alone. which isnt that expensive.

not sure how you beat it in 3. unless you are waaaaaaaay over powered. and still then, its rather impossible. not sure how you beat it in 3 hours, when the fastest play through on How long to beat is 4 hours and 15 minutes.

I was level 38 and pretty much all the bosses like the frog king or w.e were extremely easy/button mashy.

You have to admit, the majority of the time spent playing Witcher 3 is spent doing filler stuff. Go here...Use your Witcher sense to find some foot prints blah blah blah...I love the game but it's got tons of filler content where you're doing the same thing over and over.

i'm not a gamer that puts much value into price per hour but...

...i've got one friend who really is.  to be blunt he is poor.  he can only afford a hundredish dollars in games a year.  he buys on sale only and even then he really evaluates how many game hours he'll get out of the game. each game he buys basically has to last him 2-3 months.  

i used to loan him my games but then i went full digital and it isn't so practical to game share on ps4.  ..but anyways i'm just saying that people have their reasons for being the way they are.   i'm basically the opposite of him because i have 2 kids so and a hundred hour game could quite literally take me a year to beat.  i like short games with no filler.

I used to be like this and I still ended up doing things like spending $60 to get Last of Us day one. I would rather spend my money on something I would enjoy, rather than something that has a long play/campaign length. If a game can provide both then that's even better.