But that's no different than me just replaying Metal Gear Solid or setting an arbitrary goal for myself in any other game. That's just you enjoying that game and wanting to replay it in some different way, which is fine. You can replay Super Mario RPG as many times as you like too. The arbitrary grind is more of a modern thing that developers derived from systems like Chrono Trigger's that have been around for decades that they weren't thinking of in Chrono Trigger, but they didn't add tons of content to Chrono Trigger by having a high level cap. You just chose to power level against the same content over and over again.
To each their own, but if you see an arbitrary grind to max level as offering more value, it's exactly why people like me find more value in games that don't have one, as that's the way that games can be arbitrarily made to be "longer" that I was talking about. I've played Metal Gear Solid so many times that I've easily gotten over 100 hours out of it, but that doesn't make it a 100 hour game. It's just a quality short game.
I think I'd say, in a world where games that used to be 10-15 hours are now 30-60 hours and much worse off for it, that dollars per hour is just not a metric I'm interested in using or setting thresholds for. So no, I don't think $6/hour is an insane amount to pay. I paid that for Resident Evil 2, and it was very good.
The person above you in this comment chain said 1/5. 24 hours to 17 hours isn't that huge of a difference, and you responded with "lol what" as though I indicated Viewfinder was comparable in length to Baldur's Gate 3.
Replaying large swaths of the game over again in order to get each permutation of how the ending can be different isn't adding as much value as you're letting on. That's not to say that Chrono Trigger did something wrong, but it doesn't turn a 20 hour game into 40 hours of value just because replaying the previous 20 hours can have a different ending. That's exactly the way that it's easy to make games "longer" and why I don't think a ten hour game should be some kind of pejorative, and we're still a long ways off from a 1:5 ratio in game length.
HowLongToBeat has a median playthrough for Super Mario RPG at 17 hours and 24 hours for Chrono Trigger (rushed comes in at 12 and 16, respectively). Completionist times are coming in at about 25 to Chrono Trigger's 43. That's not 1/5th the length any way you slice it.
Chrono Trigger isn't much longer. Whatever; I'm not going to say this game in particular is worth $60, but 10 hour games are like an oasis in the modern games market.
Interesting. I've got an 18 year old account with somewhere north of 1000 games. There's a bit of selection bias, since I've been on Linux for the past 5 years, but my verified or playable percentage is closer to 2/3. When you say Steam Deck ready, are you only referring to verified? Because if you've got a very old game with small text or poor controller support, it's unlikely you'll ever see it switch to verified, but it may still be a good experience on the Deck.
If you check out The Final Hours of Half-Life: Alyx, you can see a timeline of all the stuff Valve worked on since they started with hardware. Work on Proton started basically immediately after Steam Machines launched, in response to its library problem. So in a way, this is still that same commitment.
Decompressing an asset so that it can be used is an operation that takes processor cycles as well. It's why Titanfall 1 came in so high on storage requirements at the time, because in order to meet CPU performance targets, they had to leave audio uncompressed. In this case, huge texture asset files are often LODs, high detail versions for when you're up close and low detail versions for when you're far away, so that the machine is always loading the right size version of the asset rather than just always using the best quality one in a worst case like you seem to be implying. This takes up a lot of storage space, but it means they aren't wastefully using high detail assets for a mountain a mile and a half away.
Far too reductive of an assessment. We simultaneously had a massive leap in resolution (higher quality textures needed) and a massive step back in dollar per gigabyte for storage, as we could no longer get acceptable read speeds from hard drive technology. At the same time, for better or worse, open world games are what a lot of these developers are making, which compounds that texture problem. Massive file sizes are what you get when games are optimized; they're just optimizing for performance and not storage space.
The awards are voted on by journalists, not fans, so the games favored to win are the ones that woo the most outlets, not the ones that sell the most copies. They're correlated, but if a staff of game reviewers is holding the game that sold a third as many copies in higher esteem, it can still win in this show.