Games vs. Movies. Which has more bang for the buck?
Category: Industry, Posted: 02/20/2008 at 01:41PM CST by Demetri Kouvalis, Features EditorSo it's Friday and you just got off of work or school, and your friends call you up to see if you want to go to watch a movie tonight. You agree because you don't have any other big plans so you meet up with your pals a few hours later.
Depending on your tastes you'll go watch the action-packed sometimes over the top Rambo. Or instead you might go see a Oscar nominated movie such as There Will Be Blood to quench that urge to finally see a brilliant piece of modern moviemaking. No matter which movie you choose to go to, you'll end up paying between $9 and $10 per ticket in most places. With the average movie being about one hour and forty five minutes, you are spending about $5.15 with the average ticket price being $9.50.
But that can't be all--you'll most likely spend another $5 to $10 dollars on a drink, some popcorn, candy or a combination of all three. (Not to mention possible parking fees too.) So now you are spending about $9.71 an hour. The point I'm trying to get to is that going out to watch a movie becomes an expensive endeavor. So is it that big of a surprise that video games are getting a leg up on movies as the prefered choice of entertainment?
Let's look at the value of a video game in today's market. We'll take the standard $60 price--give or take a few bucks, for a brand new video game. Let's add about 10 hours of gameplay to the game--an average that it takes gamers to complete a title without going back for extra content. That's an hourly rate of $6 an hour of gaming goodness. That's a pretty good deal especially if you're playing it on an HDTV or with a kickass graphics card that you just installed in your PC. Hell, you can even bring along your friends to play with you too! Better for them because they are getting this sweet deal for free! But what about those games that gamers spend hours and hours upon?
It took me 80 hours to beat Final Fantasy XII. Take the $55 I had to pay the day it came out (yeah I was in line) and divide that by 80 hours. The outcome is .69 cents per hour of epic entertainment. My friend must've played well over 300 hours of Super Smash Bros Melee, and my cousin over 30 hours with Mass Effect.
How about MMOs? Not only does the developer make tons of money, but the majority of gamers essentially save more money playing MMOs than if they bought a new non-MMO game every other week.
Now by no means am I to suggest that movies be extended to 30 plus hours of content (that's what 24 and Lost are for), but I just wanted to make clear the value of movies as compared to that of video games. More and more people are being introduced into the high definition experience and interactive controls in gaming--it's becoming hard to resist the Siren's call.
The movie industry is declining due to high ticket and concession prices, poor content and bootlegs popping all over the internet, but in saying this, movies will never vanish. Since the popularity of films started in the late 1800's, it has become a medium of escapism from reality. However, through the increased development of technology and production value, video games are now offering a satisfying alternative to movies for everyone of every age and background.
- PixelJunk Eden 08/21/2008
- Civilization Revolution 08/21/2008
- Civilization Revolution 08/21/2008
- MLB Power Pros 2008 08/18/2008
- 1942: Joint Strike 08/15/2008
- Braid 08/11/2008
- View More
- Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe ... 07/31/2008
- Hands-On: N+ 07/29/2008
- E3 2008: Resident Evil 5 hands... 07/25/2008
- E3 2008: Too Human hands-on 07/23/2008
- E3 2008: The Agency developer ... 07/22/2008
- E3 2008: Left 4 Dead direct fe... 07/21/2008
- View More
Kyle Stallock
Updated June 4th, 2008
Indie Games Journalism
Brendon Lindsey
Updated August 5th, 2008
Blu-Ray Review: The Sum
Frank Ling
Updated: Aug. 1th, 2008 Are you a game snob?
Eddie Inzauto
Updated Sun, August 10th
Lessons of Braid
GamerNode needs your help. Register
now and join thousands of gamers in a
crusade to spread the word of
GamerNode!
Join the Node Army!
- You laugh, you lose. 08/21/2008
- World's Longest Thread 08/21/2008
- My version of Two-Face in Batman... 08/21/2008
- What are you listening to? 08/21/2008
- Node Folding 08/21/2008
- Hey There, It's Psi Phi Ty 08/21/2008
- Post Sept 11 "lyrically question... 08/21/2008
- Vista won't install updates 08/21/2008
- Wii Friend Codes/Brawl Codes 08/21/2008
- Annual Fantasy Football League U... 08/21/2008
- View More
If movie theaters eased up on concession prices, I would watch more movies in the theater.
There's a certain charm about the giant screen and the shared gasps and guffaws of the audience that no home theater can match.
It is just too damn expensive!
This isn't even considering DVD prices. Even at Wal Mart you're unlikely to find a new release DVD under $19.99. With most movies, that's about $12 or $13 an hour for entertainment, and a huge majority of movies you won't watch more than once every couple of years. If you're comparing a brand new DVD to a brand new game, there's no question that you get more bang for the buck with games. The only downside is you need to invest a lot more time for that to become evident. I have plenty of time to watch a few movies a week after work and between doing stuff; I don't have time to beat Final Fantasy XII.
Come on now. Movies may have low points, but especially with the example of FF, you've got to agree that a lot of time in games is spent just running from point A to point B, or grinding random battles, or shooting another mindless, soulless Nazi/zombie/alien. Sometimes only a half dozen of the 60 hours you've spent on a game felt like actual progress.
Of course this isn't true for all games. For fighting games, or other highly-replayable titles, you don't expect any real progression, but that just makes it more obvious that the whole movies versus games debate is apples to oranges. Some games only run six hours or so, but it's all action-packed, wildly entertaining, and mostly relevant to the storyline (Max Payne 2 was a highlight for me in this vein). Some games (like Mass Effect) can take away days, but the majority of it will be only gameplay, and not much story or "deeper" entertainment.
Luckily we don't really have to worry about it too much, because as we all know, games are not art like movies are art.
I would play a gamer more than I would watch a movie. So as far replay value my money goes to games.
I used to go to movies at least once a week but as everyone else has pointed out, it's just too expensive a proposition to do just any old time. I still like going to movies, but I have to be really selective now. With a game, I'm not just watching the action/ plot/ whatever, I'm actually involved in the experience. With that said, that doesn't mean that movies aren't any good as entertainment...what I am saying is that value for the buck gets the thumbs up with video games.
I think it comes down to the experience of media you are witnessing. We can never declare a "super-media" that is "better" than anything else- it all boils down to the quality of the experience. I've listened to radio programs that were better (in my opinion) than some video games, but at the same time I have played games that were far better than any movie or play that I've seen. If the game/movie/play/etc is good- it will be worth as much time as you decide to spend on it.
I haven't been to a theatre in ages, games are better in my opinion as they can be played as many times as you like. The movie industry has been getting more and more expensive and video games cheaper, when my uncle was a kid he payed for one movie and stayed in there and watched it another 3 times, you wouldn't get away with that now days.
"Sometimes only a half dozen of the 60 hours you've spent on a game felt like actual progress."
So? Making progress isn't all a game's about. My most fun in games comes from the simple act of dicking around, not even worrying about moving forward or completing a quest or what have you.
If making forward progress is what you need for a game to be fun or worth the money, good for you. It's not a requirement for everyone.
Addendum--
"Luckily we don't really have to worry about it too much, because as we all know, games are not art like movies are art."
What does this mean? I could argue for hours on that. You might as well have said "Painting is not art like achitecture is art."
Both have their artistic merits, one is meant to be watched, and explored for deeper meaning, the building can actually be used and explored, but is of no less creative merit than the painting that's seen, and not used.
I think what he was trying to say is that despite games having the upper hand in actually involving the audience in the story (RPG's), movies still do a great job of living up to the task of keeping the audience interested, especially since games offer a bit more motivation for involvement given that the player is in control.
While some games may be successful without any story, movies die without them. I can see where you're coming from; we can argue this for hours, but he was just trying to make a simple point.
by the way Demetri, i'll have to check my play time on Melee and tell you how many hours i've clocked in. i'll have a $/hour number for you soon :)