Video Games and Value

[Diokatsu]

While this might not be of any relevance to anyone on here, it's something I was impressed with. My friend wrote it in response, I would assume, to one of my Facebook statuses and the ensuing comments. It's really a wonderful piece of work.

Note: CAD is the Canadian dollar.

Video Games and Value
by Danny Tran

I am no mathematician. By no means do I claim to be. I am in fact, horrible at math. However, I don't know how many times I have been ridiculed or chastised for being a gamer, and supporting the video gaming industry by spilling my money into purchasing games. Before anybody asks, yes:



I know you can download games.



I like to own legitimate copies of games I like (in a show of good faith to the developers and the industry itself). Nothing is quite like owning a real copy. Sure, it's just a piece of plastic etched into billions of notches by a laser. It's legitimate though. Made by the company itself, sold straight through an outlet to the end consumer: me. I've pirated things before, naturally. It's the only way to get some games these days anyway, but that is contrary to the point of this note.



The premise is simple. I take a popular form of entertainment. I then take the amount of money it takes to access said entertainment, and look at how long one is subjected to it for. My favourite benchmark is a movie ticket. I'll start with that.



At the local theatre, a movie ticket is $9.32CAD after taxes. I'll assume the average runtime is 120 minutes. An hour of entertainment therefore costs $4.66CAD. This is the base "entertainment value," as purely as I can assume it is excluding subjective measures such as whether you liked the movie or not.



A new copy of a video game is generally $59.99CAD, $67.79CAD after taxes. For a new release to be more cost efficient than a movie, it must run longer than 14.5 hours. The standard minimum competion time for a single-player game is 20 hours ($3.38CAD/hr). Usual completion times range from 40 to 60 ($1.65CAD/hr - $1.13CAD/hr) hours, meaning on average a new release is already more cost efficient than seeing a movie on average.



I pirated TES4:Oblivion (to my shame), but when I got it it was retailing for $39.99CAD, which would be $45.19CAD. A single playthrough netted me 140 hours of game time, meaning I would have paid for 32 cents/hr had I bought it. Phenomenal game; I'd play it again. Where else will you get entertainment that immersive for that price? Never mind the hundreds of mods you could get for the game to extend your playtime further.



That's not to say there aren't games that are short and not cost efficient. However for the most part they are, and I'm sick of people telling me that I should spend my money going out to see movies, going for lunch/dinner, shopping for clothes, whatever.

I could go on to compare and endless list of items vs. video games, how multiplayer prolongs the lifespan of any given game, revisiting and replaying a game, etc. etc. but I'm sure this illustrates my point well. Massively multiplayer games are another story of their own which I won't even try to get into.



Video games are, for me, one of the most cost effective forms of self-entertainment next to sitting around doing nothing or riding a bike.




Source: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=435446399854&ref=notif&notif_t=note_tag

Most of you probably can't see the source, but whatever.

[winkio]

Good point, but you have to add in the cost of the console, controllers, and any peripherals.  There is a certain minimum purchase requirement before you have enough games to justify buying the console and controllers in the first place.  Still, he is pretty much right in what he said.

[Blizzard]

I agree there.

I just find it sad that usually 90% or more goes to the publishers and not the developers. I'd rather pirate a game and send the developers the money myself. That way they would get the full amount they deserve. :/ Sure, publishers do the mass production and all the stuff like marketing, but charging $50 for a DVD that literally has a production cost of $0.50 is just plain criminal. :/ If they wouldn't be taking way more than they actually need, the shareholders of publishing companies wouldn't be earning millions. That alone is proof that they are ripping off developers.

[Diokatsu]

Good point, but you have to add in the cost of the console, controllers, and any peripherals.  There is a certain minimum purchase requirement before you have enough games to justify buying the console and controllers in the first place.  Still, he is pretty much right in what he said.

True, but then again, you have to factor in for movies: drinks, food, and transportation as well. Sure, the price is on a different scale, but the investment with worth the price.

I agree there.

I just find it sad that usually 90% or more goes to the publishers and not the developers. I'd rather pirate a game and send the developers the money myself. That way they would get the full amount they deserve. :/ Sure, publishers do the mass production and all the stuff like marketing, but charging $50 for a DVD that literally has a production cost of $0.50 is just plain criminal. :/ If they wouldn't be taking way more than they actually need, the shareholders of publishing companies wouldn't be earning millions. That alone is proof that they are ripping off developers.

This is another problem, but it's a good point. A bit off-topic, but still good XD.

[winkio]

Good point, but you have to add in the cost of the console, controllers, and any peripherals.  There is a certain minimum purchase requirement before you have enough games to justify buying the console and controllers in the first place.  Still, he is pretty much right in what he said.

True, but then again, you have to factor in for movies: drinks, food, and transportation as well. Sure, the price is on a different scale, but the investment with worth the price.

Well, we could factor in electricity, strategy guides, transportation/postal fees, etc. for games, but we aren't.  My point was that games are still much more cost effective, they just have a minimum purchase requirement, unlike movies.

[Diokatsu]

Good point, but you have to add in the cost of the console, controllers, and any peripherals.  There is a certain minimum purchase requirement before you have enough games to justify buying the console and controllers in the first place.  Still, he is pretty much right in what he said.

True, but then again, you have to factor in for movies: drinks, food, and transportation as well. Sure, the price is on a different scale, but the investment with worth the price.

Well, we could factor in electricity, strategy guides, transportation/postal fees, etc. for games, but we aren't.  My point was that games are still much more cost effective, they just have a minimum purchase requirement, unlike movies.

Generally, if you use Amazon for example, if you aren't then why aren't you, the shipping is free over $25 or go to your mall in which case, yes you'd have to factor in transportation. Time spent on video games is less electricity running other things though. Most people aren't on their computer, cooking, and vacuuming while they play video games. At most they're running a load of wash. So electricity isn't really a plausible factor. It's certainly not at at in the same level of cost as movie drinks/food.

And why would you purchase a strategy guide? There are plenty of free ones that are both legal and free on the web.

To be honest, your parallels didn't really make much sense. Transportation and shipping are only relevant really, and it's one or the other, not both for the same game. And again, like you said, games are still more cost effective. The reason drinks, transportation, and food are something I'd have to say matter in relation to movies is because their cost is so much higher per hour of entertainment. The cost of those three factors can ad up to about half or more of the ticket itself. Electricity and postage/transportation would never add up to half the price of the game. Electricity might, but the time that would take would mean far more hours of entertainment.

tl;dr: Try thinking that through again.

[winkio]

Good point, but you have to add in the cost of the console, controllers, and any peripherals.  There is a certain minimum purchase requirement before you have enough games to justify buying the console and controllers in the first place.  Still, he is pretty much right in what he said.

True, but then again, you have to factor in for movies: drinks, food, and transportation as well. Sure, the price is on a different scale, but the investment with worth the price.

Well, we could factor in electricity, strategy guides, transportation/postal fees, etc. for games, but we aren't.  My point was that games are still much more cost effective, they just have a minimum purchase requirement, unlike movies.

Generally, if you use Amazon for example, if you aren't then why aren't you, the shipping is free over $25 or go to your mall in which case, yes you'd have to factor in transportation. Time spent on video games is less electricity running other things though. Most people aren't on their computer, cooking, and vacuuming while they play video games. At most they're running a load of wash. So electricity isn't really a plausible factor. It's certainly not at at in the same level of cost as movie drinks/food.

And why would you purchase a strategy guide? There are plenty of free ones that are both legal and free on the web.

To be honest, your parallels didn't really make much sense. Transportation and shipping are only relevant really, and it's one or the other, not both for the same game. And again, like you said, games are still more cost effective. The reason drinks, transportation, and food are something I'd have to say matter in relation to movies is because their cost is so much higher per hour of entertainment. The cost of those three factors can ad up to about half or more of the ticket itself. Electricity and postage/transportation would never add up to half the price of the game. Electricity might, but the time that would take would mean far more hours of entertainment.

tl;dr: Try thinking that through again.

Walk to the movie theater, buy the ticket, go sit down in your seat without buying any drinks/snacks, watch the movie, walk out of the theater and back.  You spent exactly the price of the ticket.

Parallels
electricity and shipping : transportation
drinks and food : strategy guide

And what if, instead of taking time away from being on their computer, they were taking time away from playing outside, or sleeping?  You are applying these weird assumptions to both arguments, and they just don't make any sense.

And to reiterate:

Still, he is pretty much right in what he said.

Which is that video games are a more effective investment than movies.  I don't know why you think you are fighting me.  I am just adding clarity to your argument.

[Diokatsu]

Good point, but you have to add in the cost of the console, controllers, and any peripherals.  There is a certain minimum purchase requirement before you have enough games to justify buying the console and controllers in the first place.  Still, he is pretty much right in what he said.

True, but then again, you have to factor in for movies: drinks, food, and transportation as well. Sure, the price is on a different scale, but the investment with worth the price.

Well, we could factor in electricity, strategy guides, transportation/postal fees, etc. for games, but we aren't.  My point was that games are still much more cost effective, they just have a minimum purchase requirement, unlike movies.

Generally, if you use Amazon for example, if you aren't then why aren't you, the shipping is free over $25 or go to your mall in which case, yes you'd have to factor in transportation. Time spent on video games is less electricity running other things though. Most people aren't on their computer, cooking, and vacuuming while they play video games. At most they're running a load of wash. So electricity isn't really a plausible factor. It's certainly not at at in the same level of cost as movie drinks/food.

And why would you purchase a strategy guide? There are plenty of free ones that are both legal and free on the web.

To be honest, your parallels didn't really make much sense. Transportation and shipping are only relevant really, and it's one or the other, not both for the same game. And again, like you said, games are still more cost effective. The reason drinks, transportation, and food are something I'd have to say matter in relation to movies is because their cost is so much higher per hour of entertainment. The cost of those three factors can ad up to about half or more of the ticket itself. Electricity and postage/transportation would never add up to half the price of the game. Electricity might, but the time that would take would mean far more hours of entertainment.

tl;dr: Try thinking that through again.

Walk to the movie theater, buy the ticket, go sit down in your seat without buying any drinks/snacks, watch the movie, walk out of the theater and back.  You spent exactly the price of the ticket.

Parallels
electricity and shipping : transportation
drinks and food : strategy guide

And what if, instead of taking time away from being on their computer, they were taking time away from playing outside, or sleeping?  You are applying these weird assumptions to both arguments, and they just don't make any sense.

And to reiterate:

Still, he is pretty much right in what he said.

Which is that video games are a more effective investment than movies.  I don't know why you think you are fighting me.  I am just adding clarity to your argument.

I'm fighting you, because I don't like the way you're trying to support my argument. I disagree.

I already explained the parallels and why they don't make sense in detail, so I won't bother doing it again. And buying no snacks/drinks is a strange assumption since most people generally do either or both. You could walk to the movies, but most movies are in malls which have game stores. That eliminates the cost for both.

And at least my assumptions were justified. I don't live within walking distance of the movies and I don't know how many people do, certainly not enough to warrant such a broad generalization.

[winkio]

I don't live within walking distance of the movies and I don't know how many people do, certainly not enough to warrant such a broad generalization.

And buying no snacks/drinks is a strange assumption since most people generally do either or both.

lolwut.  This is the kind of thing I was trying to point out.

You could walk to the movies, but most movies are in malls which have game stores.  That eliminates the cost for both.

So true.  Oh, and look, many people purchase neither strategy guides nor drinks and snacks.  It's almost like we should just consider the base cost of each option instead of adding in all of these extra things...