If it's a game I'm going to get hundreds, or sometimes thousands of hours from, then I'll pay more. If you look at price per hour spent on entertainment, it's hard to compare. However, you often have to wade through a bunch of shitty overpriced games to find those gems.

Okay, back to EU4 now ;)

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I'm kind of in a different boat with this. I'm paying for quality, not quantity. Especially since I don't have as much free time as I did 20 years ago.

So if I can play through a phenomenal story within a couple months over a 20 hour game (which usually takes me 30 hours) at the height of the hype when people are still talking about it, I love it. Give me efficient storytelling.

In fact, if it's something longer, it kind makes me rethink it whether I want to pay full price. Why rush?

[–] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 3 points 13 hours ago

I am the same. Game could take 60 hours to complete, and 50 of them are dogshit. Then it’s not a fun game. It’s all about the overall quality of the entire experience.

I would gladly pay $100 for Subnautica 2 if they could pull off another amazing adventure. Would do the same for another Larian studio game.