I still have so many games I’ve picked up on Steam sales that I’ll happily wait for those $80 games to go on sale while going through my back catalogue
Bruh it’s 2025 and I’m still on a spin cycle of mostly 10 years old or more games
Pugstorm’s new game is going to be just 20 bucks. (It’s being published by Chucklefish so I’ll still be pirating it, but it’s nice that they’re still keeoing it indie)
Honest question. What’s wrong with Chucklefish as a publisher?
They are run by some if the worst bigots and transphobes. Who also exploited their “workforce” of volunteers. Just some all around shitsacks, and they don’t deserve any of my money.
yes, because the real problem is too much choice.
fuckin finbro bullshit.
I remember paying $10 for an Atari game. I know it’s not a great comparison, but I got hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay out of Qbert. Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?
It’s funny I mention Atari. They had so many games to play. the choices you had were bonkers. best part was you could take your carts to a friends house and trade or share.
can’t do that today since most games are digital downloads that need 32gb day-0 updates.
perhaps the problem isn’t the gamers, but instead it’s the greedy corporate interests that are poisoning the game industry requesting $80 single owner games.
I don’t disagree with you, but there’s no way you have thousands of hours in Qbert. Even hundreds is impressive.
I was a poor farm kid and winters were long.
I was still playing our Atari 2600 when the PS2 launched.
That really dramatically takes the steam out of your argument though.
If the same conditions for you existed today, any modern game would blow qbert out of the water, and indeed you would put thousands of hours into it.
Also, Atari games were $20 when they were new not 10. So with inflation it’s about the same as an $80 game today.
Daaamn haha. Fair enough.
The other thing is that there was simply fewer games back then so you either continue to play the good games you own or you don’t play games. I loved Ocarina of Time, but I’m not going to pretend it was God’s gift to mankind just because I played it tons in my youth. I played it tons in my youth because it was one of the best games that I owned, and even then I had plenty more options than I’m sure this person had on the Atari for good games
$10 in q-bert days is like 50-60 now :)
Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?
Satisfactory, Dyson Sphere project, Factorio, Minecraft, Dreamlight Valley
Arcade games were great because it’s what we had. Sit a kid in front a Q-Bert now and try to get 1000 hours out of it.
Stuff is getting too big, there’s too much emphasis on making it pretty to sell it rather than making it fun, but I don’t know that we could go back to arcade games. I fear our nostalgia is a half-dose of Stockholm’s syndrome.
$50-60 based on what? Adjusted for inflation in 1982, it’s more like $33 and distribution costs are way lower than back then. Truth is you just need to find a compelling gameplay loop but companies don’t like taking risks- not every game needs to be a massive endeavor like skyrim. Look at games like slay the spire and see how a cheap game can be compelling without having to be a AAA behemoth. And at that note, is there even anything wrong if a game only takes your attention for a hundred hours? I don’t see the need to extend the player’s attention with poor side quest grinding. These things add unnecessary cost
The $10 games were trash in 1982. You’re going to spend 30 on something like Q-bert https://www.polygon.com/2014/6/4/5779048/atari-et-ads-commercials-videos-1982
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
in 2025 Money, that’s $99, assuming you got it used I gave you 50-60
is there even anything wrong if a game only takes your attention for a hundred hours
I don’t think so, but you’re the one who mentioned it :)
but I got hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay out of Qbert. Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?
Wow, shift goalposts much? You said “$10 in qbert days” which was the 80s and now it’s not $10 it’s $30. You can just admit you got it wrong and it was never $10 (though I do think prices right now are actually well aligned at $60 because of the far lower costs in distribution and marketing). Also I’m NOT the OP who played thousands of hours on qbert. Great job quoting someone else.
certainly wont purchase a 80$ game with mid-tier playability.
Theres 3 things i never buy on day one. That’s everything, and 2 other things. I also don’t buy games that require 3rd party launchers, or require accounts except the ones i do buy.
I’m over the massive, over-produced games. I looked at the price of the new Indiana Jones game (AUD119), and even though I loved Machine Games’ previous work, I noped out. These days, I’m mostly reverting to simple arcade games more akin to the early era of gaming I grew up on. Shotgun Cop Man, from the people that made My Friend Pedro, just came out. It was $13. Finished it in one sitting, but I’ll probably play it multiple times. Much better investment.
Indie games and small publisher titles are my bread and butter. They keep the spirit and innovation that I grew up with alive.
I live in LATAM. I bought civ v once and never stopped playing it since
I don’t know who’s all this people who can buy games every launch, but they must be so incredibly privileged
y’all keep saying this but playing 1 round of Valorant will make you realise pretty quick how easily people drop $80+ on a game.
I know a guy who only buys games as last resort but bought all the gooner skins in Rivals.
I will continue to wait until games go on discount
I’ve only bought one $80 game thus far (And that was during a 30% steam sale so only $55) and from my years of experience of buying games, I can confidently say that my enjoyment in games goes down as price goes up.
Although weirdly all of the $80 games that released so far have been pretty bad so that’s strange.
Just like other aspects of commerce, we’ll see what the market does. I hate to say it that way, but that’s simply how it works. Look at what’s happening to McDonalds right now. They’ve been raising prices for years, now tariffs have made things even worse, and people have responded accordingly and go to McDonalds less. Ball is in their court.
Another good example is the recent news about Beyoncé no longer filling major concert venues. I know there’s a lot of factors going on in these situations, but the truth at the core of it is that prices finally went up to a point where a not insignificant portion of her audience noped out of the transaction. Simple commerce.
What AAA title is worth $80? The most time I spend gaming is in a 10 year old shooter, and an indie survival game. Both of which I bought for <$20.
KCD2 Is pretty damn amazing.
Yeah and its worth the 80$ cause it takes like 80 hours to finish lol
Finish? It took me 80 hours to find my fucking dog.
… There’s an icon for him on the map…
One you can spend at least 40 enjoyable hours on, I’d say
I’d say GTA VI would likely earn that for me. I’ll probably spend over 80 hours on that.
There’s plenty of jrpgs half that price point with twice the length though. Heck, even the previous GTAs have at least that length for a cheaper price, and are occasionally even cheaper now. Be patient and you’ll likely even get the game given away for free.
Length =/= quality. JRPGs specially love their bloat.
So much grinding…
Exactly
Why even suggest a different genre when the man said he will enjoy it?
I’m trying to point out that i don’t think that the length of a game shouldn’t really be indicative of the price. I have no issue with him enjoying the game or buying it.
Pointing out a game genre with more hours of gameplay for the price is a strange way to point out game length shouldn’t matter.
He was saying that £80 was worth it cause of the amount of hours. So i brought up games with similar or more hours that are cheaper. Including prior gta games…
Yes, he made a statement. And you answered a question he didn’t ask.
There’s plenty of jrpgs half that price point with twice the length though.
Gotta like the JRPG genre for those hours to be fun, though.
I think the last major JRPG I was willing to play to completion was Final Fantasy V.
I’ll play the occasional CRPG, but JRPGs aren’t really my cup of tea.
I’m lucky enough to own literally thousands of games. Most of which I get at a deep discount. Games like GTA and Red Dead are usually an exception where I’ll play on day one. Even though Rockstar tends to milk a title long after a release, the attention to detail is worth the price to me. I’ll still check reviews first however.
I have 170 games in my backlog and the summer sale is coming. I ain’t spending 80 bucks on one video game.
It’s funny how it’s not even quantity over quality because those 5 to 8 ~$10 to $15 games will provide high quality gameplay and storytelling.
The amount of options isn’t the issue.
For most 25-40€ games I buy, i can get a great experience for the next 30-50 hours.
Indie games absolutely crush the statistics, where some sub-15€ roguelikes have such insane replayability, that i’ve clocked over a thousand hours into a couple. Not to mention how incredibly creative, unique, and story rich some of them are.
Meanwhile, what used to be 60€, and is now 80€+, is some “cinematic” 20fps on console slop, that you can barely get 5 hours of real gameplay out of. I don’t wanna sit there and watch a movie with an occasional A button press. Or even worse, play something like the Assassins Creed reboot, that had 500 hours of gameplay, 490 of which is just useless collectibles around the map.
Measuring games by hours has become an increasing less useful metric to me because I already have my grinding games that I can endlessly replay. When buying new games, I’d rather get something I’ll really enjoy for a short playthrough than a long epic JRPG I can’t bring myself to actually set aside time for - even though I do really love JRPGs.
Check out Expedition 33. It feels like a love letter to jrpg but without the time commitment.
I agree, this game is a piece of art, really well made.
I watched the trailer and whats on steam about it, but it didn’t take me in, and im curently looking for an rpg to play.
Is it really completely turn based and not that action turn based abdomination jrpgs have implemented the past years? I noticed some kind of quick time events during fights, is that optional or always active?
It is turn based, something I wish FF would return to. There are quick time events for every action, it’s not absolutely necessary to do on certain difficulty, but really helps. There is a dodge and parry mechanic that you really should use to help survive.
If you are a fan of turn based rpg, you should check it out.
Quick times events and dodge and parry Events are the absolute opposite of what im looking for in a turn based rpg. I want it to be calm and where I can put down the controls at any time.
Sounds more like an action rpg with turn based elements to me. Exactly how it looked in the trailer.
Thanks though.
Sounds like how Super Mario RPG did it which was overall pretty excellent.
I haven’t played the game but if that’s true I’d still consider that well and truly turn based.
It’s absolutely turn based. You’re trying to stretch it to something it’s not. Yes, it has QTEs. That doesn’t make it an action RPG. Nothing happens by surprise. You can put your controller down and nothing will happen. Also, as the other person says, you can ignore them if you want; just set the difficulty lower.
Most of the game is just walking around exploring though, and you only enter fights when you walk into an enemy. You always know what’s going to happen when. There’s almost no surprises.
I feel like play time per money spent mattered when most people were buying offline games at full price but to me it hasn’t been relevant for a long time. I might pay full price for a game that is incredible for 5-10 hours but a game that is mediocre for 100 hours I wouldn’t even play for free.
I fully agree with that. There are some games that are fully worth the price, even if the hours/$ isn’t quite there, but in most cases it’s not anymore
Would be interested to know what games you have >500 hours in. Especially if they aren’t multi-player online games.
-
Fallout 4. A lot of this is going to be due to mods.
-
Wargame: Red Dragon. Intended to be played multiplayer; I played it single-player. Steel Division II is a far better single-player choice if you don’t mind the different setting, as the AI is much more interesting.
-
Skyrim. A lot of this is going to be due to mods.
-
Fallout 76, the only entry here I actually play multiplayer (and even that to a minimal degree; that game tends to have players having pretty minimal interaction with each other unless they’re actually trying to play with each other). I would recommend playing Fallout 4 over Fallout 76 unless you specifically want multiplayer; Fallout 76 is just the closest thing to “more Fallout” short of a Fallout 5.
Not run through Steam, so no Steam stats (though available on Steam) but I’m sure that they’re way up there:
-
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. Free and open-source, though there’s a commercial build on Steam if you want to effectively donate. If not, can download from their project page.
-
Dwarf Fortress. Free, though there’s a commercial build on Steam with a fancier, more-approachable UI and such.
-
Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup, though that’s going back a few years. Free and open-source.
Some others with a fair bit of playtime:
-
Steel Division II. Primarily a multiplayer game, but I only play single-player.
-
Mount & Blade: Warband. The Prophesy of Pendor mod adds a fair bit of time to this.
-
Elite: Dangerous. Though I don’t remember how I accumulated that many hours. Wasn’t super-impressed with the game. Probably pretty in VR, though.
-
Carrier Command 2. Primarily intended to be played multiplayer, but I play single-player.
Out of those I’ve devoted a ton of time to rimworld and oxygen not included, are any of the others on your list similar, or others you’d recommend for someone who likes them? I tried dwarf fortress but I found it to be… not my bag. I didn’t get very far into it tho.
(I do like mods, so that’s an ok requirement)
I tend to like games that have lots of “levers” to play with and spend time figuring out, so I think that tends to be the unifying factor in the above games.
I don’t know of anything really comparable to Oxygen Not Included in terms of all the physics and stuff. I’d like something like it too (especially since Tencent bought ONI and now has some locked graphics for some in-game items that you can only get by enabling data-harvesting and then playing the game for a given amount of time, which I’m not willing to do. They don’t have an option to just buy that content. At least it’s optional.)
For Rimworld and Oygen Not Included, both are real-time colony sims. Of those, the closest stuff on my list is probably:
-
Dwarf Fortress (note that the commercial Steam build looks quite different from the classic version, has graphics and a mouse-oriented UI and revamped the UI and such, which may-or-may-not matter to you; if the learning curve being steep is an issue, that makes it a tad gentler). Rimworld is, in many ways, a simplified Dwarf Fortress in a sci-fi setting and without a Z-axis.
-
Kenshi. Not a colony sim. You control a free-roaming squad (or squads) in an post-apocalyptic open world. That’s actually a bit like Rimworld. However, you can set up one or more outposts and set up automated production there. It’s getting a bit long in the tooth, and the early game is very difficult, as your character is weak and outclassed by almost everything. Focus is more on the characters, and less on the outpost-building – that’s more of a late-game goal. I find it to be pretty easy to go back and play more of. There’s a sequel in the works that’ll hopefully look prettier. Not really any other game I’m aware of in quite the same genre.
The other things on my list don’t really deal with building.
Oxygen Not Included has automated production. If you’re willing to go outside “colony sim”, there is a genre of “factory-building games” where one controls maybe a single character or base element and just tries to create a world of automated production stuff, maybe with tower defense elements. I’d probably recommend Satisfactory if you want 3D and a first-person view. I like it, but in my book, it doesn’t really compare with the games that I’ve racked up a ton of time on, winds up feeling a bit samey after a while, looks like I have thirty-some hours. Mindustry is a free and open-source factory builder that you can grab off F-Droid for Android to play on-the-go; that and Shattered Pixel Dungeon are probably my open-source Android favorite games. Dyson Sphere Program has outstanding ratings, but I have not gotten around to playing it.
There are a few colony sim games sort of like Rimworld or Dwarf Fortress. I tried them, and none of them grabbed me as well as they did, but if you want to look at them:
-
Rise to Ruins is a colony sim does have combat, but less focus on individual characters than Rimworld. I don’t like it mostly because the game is not really designed to be winnable, which I find frustrating. There’s growing “corruption” coming in from the edges of the map, and the aim is to try to last as long as possible before becoming overwhelmed; you can flee it to other colonies. Technically, there are some ways to defeat the corruption, but not really how the game is intended to be played.
-
Prison Architect. This has somewhat-similar graphics to Rimworld. You build and manage a prison. It’s not a bad game, but it doesn’t really have the open-world scope of Rimworld.
-
Timberborn. This was in fairly Early Access the last time I spent much time on it, so I’m kind of out-of-date, and it looks like it’s still in EA. Doesn’t have the combat elements from Rimworld or Dwarf Fortress.
-
Gnomoria is kind of like a much-simplified Dwarf Fortress. It didn’t really grab me, but maybe it’s your cup of tea.
-
Klei, the guys who developed Oxygen Not Included, are currently working on a new 3D colony sim called Mind over Magic. I have not played it, but if you’re desperate for more ONI and like colony sims, might be worth investigating.
-
That is a fine collection of games there! :)
Lots of love for Starbound, that game is underrated af.
RimWorld …
Minecraft, slay the spire, civilisation, atomicrops.
Balatro could have been a contender but I lost interest suddenly and unexpectedly.
spoiler
Tetris the daddy
Stellaris, civ v, oxygen not included, city skylines, x3/rebirth/4, workers and resources: soviet republic, kerbal space program, rimworld, crusader kings 2 and 3.
Basically anything civilization/city/base/colony builder is my jam and some of them have over 2000 hours over the years. I like building perfect societies and roleplay how people live in them in my head while i do it. It’s one of the ways i relax and express creativity.
To be fair, while paradox games like Stellaris or the crusader kings games you mentioned, certainly have a lot of replayability (I don’t really care much for CK myself but have over 1000 hours on both Stellaris and EU4), they’re not great examples for where cheaper games by smaller companies offer more than expensive ones from bigger ones. Partly because paradox is fairly sizable and well known these days, but mostly because those games are quite expensive, just split into numerous expansions that come out over time. One can opt out of getting them, sure, but they’re where a lot of the different options that bring the replayability come from.
I’m right there with you. I absolutely hate Paradox’s DLC policy and I’m guessing they lose a ton of paying clients the moment they hit the store page and get a 200-500€ price tag for the full experience, or even over 100€ for just the best hits for a really old game. I know they have mouths to feed, but i really don’t like the way they do it and how they abuse their position of niche games nobody else makes. Nevertheless, even though you may choose not to purchase their expansions, you still have extremely healthy modding communities to carry you over.
Still, i wasn’t coming so much from the angle that it’s a smaller company providing better value than larger companies, rather showing to the OP that there are non multiplayer games that easily can provide over 500 hours of entertainment regarding the slighly off topic matter presented on the latter part of their comment. Of note is the fact that they don’t use grinding mechanics to do it, for the most part (x series can be a little grindy in some aspects, but not overly), which is the mark of how incompetent devs try to get more “entertainment” hours out of their games.
I’ve clocked 600 hours in Kerbal Space Program, and probably high thousands to over ten thousand in Minecraft.
Baldur’s Gate 3, Cyberpunk, Kingdom Come Deliverance, Witcher 3, Fallout
Really any RPG you can easily get 1000 hours of play.
Well I’m not them, but for me: KSP1: 1800.8 hours. Current cost $40 = $0.02 an hour DCS: 1294.7 hours. Money spent eh $300 = $0.23 an hour Witcher 3: 1131.5 hours. Current cost: $40 = $0.03 an hour. Civ vi: 589.9 hours. Current cost: $60 = $0.10 an hour Stardew valley: 579.3 hours. current cost $15 = $0.026 an hour Fall out new Vegas: 543.6 hours. Current cost: $10 = $0.0018 an hour
Now if we add in the $2000 worth of peripherals I have to play dcs it’s cost balloons quite a bit but, it’s not terribly difficult to get high playtimes in cheap games. I would also say the cost per hour for me is double or triple what it actually is, as these are the current prices, and besides dcs I buy everything only on sale lol.
Well I’m not them, but for me: KSP1: 1800.8 hours. Current cost $40 = $0.02 an hour
My electricity costs to run the game are higher than the cost of the game itself at that point.
EDIT: Keep in mind that some of these have DLC, and if you buy them, it increases the price. Kerbal Space Program with all DLC is $70; that’s still an extremely good value at 1800.8 hours, but does bump the number up. Fallout: New Vegas has (good) DLC that I would want; all DLC would take the game to $45. Civilization VI would go to $230 (and I assume that they’re still turning out DLC). I listed Stellaris myself, along with a lot of other people. I really liked the game, and even the base game is a good game, IMHO, but in typical Paradox game fashion, if you buy all the DLC, it adds up to quite a bit — $470 currently, and they’re still turning out DLC. Someone listed DCS, I have The Sims 3 on my list, Total War: Warhammer II. All of those games have pricey DLC libraries that, if purchased in total, run multiple hundreds or over a thousand dollars (with the Total War: Warhammer series using an unusual take on this, where prior games in the series also act as DLC for the current ones). They can still be pretty cost-competitive per hour with other games, but only if the person who buys them is actually playing them a a lot.
Factorio, stardew, civ vi are my top 3.
Factorio, eu4, stellaris, satisfactory, slay the spire, etc
FTL for me
Peglin for me. Cheaper world games I have an insane amount of hours in.
For indie and cheaper stuff specifically? The Binding of Isaac is over 1k hours between my two copies. Rimworld, Factorio, and Terraria are all close to 500h as well. If Minecraft counts as one for you, this is an outlier with roughly 4k hours since 2011.
Otherwise, I am quite into MMOs and story-rich singleplayer RPGs, so there’s a handful of them with well over several thousands of hours played too.
and Terraria are all close to 500h as well.
If you like Terraria, have you tried Starbound?
Yes. I didn’t like it nearly as much, if at all. I’ve heard mods make that game infinitely more enjoyable though, so maybe i’ll try it again some day
XIV, but I never engage with other players aside from solo queue for dungeons etc
Terraria is the easiest one.
I wish I had more time to play other single player time sinks like Dwarf Fortress, or even BeamNG.drive.
It kills me the the Jedi games, TLoU2, GoW games, they’re fun but they’re what, max 30 hours to beat? And they’re trying to up the price to 80?
Red dead 2 deserves 80. Cyberpunk in its current state could deserve 80. Both are around 100-120 hour games and I’ve replayed them multiple times. 30 hour games by proportion deserve a quarter of the price.
Never will understand people equating monetary value with how long they spend time with a game. Quality /= quantity or else Ubisoft and gacha games would be the best games of all time.
Obviously quality of gameplay matters, but point is that you need to take into account hours of gameplay, not just treat the game as a single unit, if you want to have a useful sense of what kind of value you’re getting, since the amount of fun gameplay you get from a game isn’t some sort of fixed quantity per game – it colossally varies.
If the way one rates a game is to simply use the price of the game, and disregard how much you’re going to play the thing, then what you incentivize developers to do is either (a) produce games coming out with enormous amounts of DLC, as Paradox does, if you don’t count DLC price, (b) short games sold in “chapter” format, where someone buys multiple games to play what really amounts to one “game”, (c) games with in-app purchases, data-harvesting or some form of way to generate an in-game revenue stream, or simply (d) short, small games.
I have a lot of games that I could grind for many hours — but I haven’t done so, never will do so, because I’ve lost interest; they’re no longer providing fun gameplay. I’ve gotten my hours out of the game, though that number is decoupled from the number of hours to complete the game. I have other games that I’ve played to completion a number of times, and some games — particularly roguelikes/roguelites — which aim for extreme replayability. The hours matter, but it’s not the hours to complete the game that’s relevant, but the hours I’m interested in playing the game and have fun with it.
For some genres, this doesn’t vary all that much. Adventure games, I think, are a pretty good example of a genre where a player has to keep consuming new art and audio and writing and all that. They aren’t usually all that replayable, though there are certainly adventure games that are significantly shorter or longer. But you won’t be likely to find an adventure game that has ten, much less a hundred times as much reasonable gameplay as another adventure game.
But there are other genres, like roguelikes, where I don’t really need new content from an artist to keep being thrown my way for the game to continue to provide fun gameplay. There, the hours of fun gameplay in a game can become absolutely enormous, vary by orders of magnitude across games in the genre and relative to games in other genres.
