LogFAQs > #968115075

It's a balance between cost, length and engagement nowadays. A game could be a great, well-polished 80 hour game, but I have to know that I'll be engaged in it for that long. Otherwise I'm wasting money on a game I'm not going to play.

For example, I bought Atelier Escha & Logy a while back for around $30. I loved Ayesha, I was expecting to love Escha & Logy - it was a game I had to put time aside to play. It had a significant time commitment.

Unfortunately, I stopped at a certain point and I haven't picked it up again. It has a lot of content for a fair price - a bit steeper than I like to spend, but fair for what the game offers - but I just wasn't engaged and the time requirement needed to properly enjoy the game didn't gel with me at the time.

Now, A Robot Named Fight was something like $10 when I got it. I've played 100 hours of that game and unlocked everything. The price was fantastic, there was zero time commitment necessary but I was engaged the whole time.

And then there's World of Final Fantasy, which had a high-ish time commitment and a high cost. I loved it - the game was a very polished and in-depth 40 hour experience, and it was worth the $30 price tag. My engagement was proportional to the pricetag and the amount of content in that game.

If I pay $30+ for a game that I'm invested in, but which only has 15 hours of gameplay? Yeah fuck that. I'll consider it at around $20, and for $15 and lower it'll be on my shortlist. But the price has to be proportional to my engagement and the amount of content it offers. It's a balance.