Archived from groups: alt.games.video.xbox,microsoft.public.xbox (
More info?)
Doug Jacobs wrote:
> In alt.games.video.xbox xTenn <xTennRemovePart@tds.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, the N64 games did contain less information per dollar, which makes the
>>newer multi-gig game disc at the same price an even better deal. But I had
>>hoped prices would hover under the $50 range for a bit longer.
>
>
> I think his point was that carts require more material per copy, whereas
> it only costs pennies to press a DVD.
>
> Anyways, the price to GB of data measurement isn't as interesting as the
> price to playtime one. For instance, one of my favorite games that I've
> bought is still the original Masters Of Orion. It came on 4 floppy
> disks. Yet I've played it for 100s of hours. Compare this to, say,
> Onimusha, which has many times more graphics but after I finished it in
> about 20 hours, I never played it again. I paid the same amount for both
> games, yet, I consider Orion to be the better bargin...
>
> This is why I consider the "cost per hour", calculated by taking the cost
> of the item, divided by the amount of time you'll spend enjoying it. For
> example: If a movie ticket costs $9, and the average movie length is 90
> minutes, then you're paying about $6/hr.
>
> If a game costs $50 and you complete the game in about 15 hours, then
> you've paid about $3.30/hr.
>
> But if that game now costs $60, then your price goes up to $4/hr.
>
> Personally, I try to buy games at prices such at their cost/hr is $1 or
> less, with $2/hr being a hard maximum.
>
> Obviously this isn't a perfect system... I'm not about to play a horrible
> game for 100s of hours just because it was cheap. And at the same time, I
> recognize if that when I go to a concert of something, I'm paying much
> much more than what I'd pay to go see a movie. Still, it's an interesting
> measure.
Damn, you have it all worked out Doug. You're geekified!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram