In a recent game review, PC Gamer mentioned that Quake IV, which was released recently, can be completed in about ten hours. Ten hours.
This made me think.
I must have spent easily that much in my first week of World of Warcraft. And probably just as much in all the weeks following, for a period of several months. Which led me to wonder about the cost of entertainment, and how each type compares to each other.
Let’s start with Quake IV. Ten hours to complete it, maybe another ten hours to do it a second time (some people seem to do that) and maybe twenty hours playing on the multiplayer version, for a total of forty hours of fun.
World of Warcraft… well, it’s actually fairly easy to quantify since the game keeps track of this for you. Over a course of nine months, I built two character up to level 60 and each of them clocked in at over twenty days of playing. That’s twenty days of effective play — 480 hours — and let’s add a few hours spent on a few other characters to round it up to about 1000 hours total.
Here is a quick breakdown:
| Name | Upfront cost | Cost per hour | Explanation |
| World of Warcraft | $50 + $15 / month = $185 | 18.5 cents per hour | $185 / 1000 |
| Quake IV | $50 | $1.02 per hour | $50 / 40 hours |
| TV Show | $30 per month (basic cable subscription) | $2.70 per hour | $30 / 12, assuming you watch 3 series, each showing 4 episodes per month |
| Movie (rental) | $5 | $1.7 per hour | $5 / 3 hours (movie + extras) |
| Movie (theater) | $10 | $5 per hour | $10 / 2 hours |
Of course, there are plenty of other activities we could add, such as sport (mostly free: basket, volleyball, etc… and not so free: golf, scuba diving, horse riding. etc…) and other ways to pass the time (hiking, walking, running, reading, etc…).
Another factor that we should probably add is the "intensity" of these activities. Not all of them will enrapture you and isolate you from the real world with the same intensity, and you could probably say that World of Warcraft would score very high on that scale while hiking would not.
But the general idea is this: World of Warcraft, and massively online games in general, have often been chastised for not only the monthly fee they charge but also for charging for the game in the first place. In light of these numbers, one might actually wonder why they don’t charge more…
#1 by Robert Konigsberg on November 20, 2005 - 9:00 am
An analysis that helps you select an activity requires, of course, many more dimensions to review, and this includes the value of the game outside your gameplay time. There’s the soft, subjective and unqiantifiable costs of a game: the relief you feel afterwards, talking about it with your friends, writing about it on your blog (for instance), the new friends and relationships you make, and so on.
#2 by Andrew GJ Fung on November 20, 2005 - 9:22 am
That’s a pretty interesting way to look at it, although it does make some assumptions about a person’s interests.
e.g. Quake IV is played for 40 hours then tossed, or that people watch 3 t.v. episodes per week.
I played Starcraft for many, many hours, because the variability of different opponents changed the nature of each game. Then there are the mods (maps)…
Perhaps I’ll use your chart the next time I feel the call for WoW again. 🙂
#3 by Thierry Janaudy on November 20, 2005 - 11:21 am
… or if you have a family (wife + children), it is pretty c h e a p: no games, 0$ or 0
#4 by Da Bourz on November 20, 2005 - 11:43 am
Not to mention DiabloII, that i’m still playing with, YEARS after i’ve bought it !!
#5 by Rob Sanheim on November 20, 2005 - 2:57 pm
I think the cost/hour for some of the classic pc games, like Civilization and Simcity, must be very near zero for how much I used to play them.
Ah, it was nice having free time for that sort of thing.
#6 by Sony Mathew on November 20, 2005 - 4:27 pm
Games like Quake and Halo (my weakness) are about competition – i.e. multiplayer (e.g online). People who enjoy competition play multiplayer for a long-long time after finishing the game itself – and a few like myself don’t even bother with the game but go straight to multiplayer. The hours you have allocated for these are way too small.
#7 by Kevin on November 20, 2005 - 8:17 pm
I’d agree with Sony Mathew. 20 hours of online play? I suck at Quake IV and I’ve easily put in that many in my very littel spare time. People play FPS games mostly to play online these days. Halo and a very few others are the exception due to very good story lines that keep the game moving in the single player mode. It helps to have great graphics and sound, but still, most people play the FPS online for hundreds of hours, even years later. I am not sure but it would not surprise me if there are still 1000’s that play the original halo on gamespy and such. I’d still paly Unreal Tournament, the original to this day, if I had time and a copy and someone else to play with. 😀
#8 by Romain Guy on November 20, 2005 - 10:56 pm
I prefer to spend $50 for a good game that last 8 hours rather than getting bored to death with any other game. I don’t like online game and prefer solo games because they usually provide a better story and this is what I’m looking for. To me, World of Warcraft is way too expensive for what I get out of it. On the other hand, Chronicles of Riddick was worth every penny (it took me 6 hours to finish it and I spent 60 euros for it, that’s about $70).
The price per hour argument is invalid IMHO.
#9 by Anonymous on November 21, 2005 - 12:21 am
This is a technicality, but you kinda forgot to mention how much time you spend (lose) in WoW to go from one location to another, especially in the early game. I doubt that you ever lose that much time in a single player game.
#10 by Patrick Schriner on November 21, 2005 - 5:42 am
You leave out an important cost factor: You cannot enjoy World of Warcraft if you don
#11 by Anonymous on November 21, 2005 - 7:06 am
That seems pretty presumptuous to assume that if you have cable TV, you’ll only watch 12 hours a month? And yet, you’ll spend *1000* hours online?
#12 by Gargamello on November 21, 2005 - 8:19 am
Where would alcohol and live entertainment fit on this model? 😉
#13 by Ed on November 21, 2005 - 12:30 pm
I like your analysis, it’s an interesting way of looking at things.
You indirectly touch on the “problem” with Cable TV: to get the most efficient utilization, one needs to watch it all the time, to the exclusion of other entertainment. We have chosen to forgo Cable, leaving more $$ in my pocket (the initial reason to cancel), and more time for games. Also, there’s much less “crap” in our house now too 🙂
#14 by Joe on November 22, 2005 - 9:42 am
If you are using the monthly price of cable service to calculate cost of television you should also add in the cost of a high speed connection for World Of Warcraft. That said it is interesting to see how videogames give you the most “bang for you buck” in terms of entertainment.
#15 by Brian Slesinsky on November 22, 2005 - 7:39 pm
How valuable is your time? When you see a bad movie, which do you regret more, the time wasted or the money spent?
Of course, sometimes time has negative value and you’re trying to get rid of it, such as time on an airplane…
#16 by jm on November 23, 2005 - 1:10 pm
if fun/cost was the only driving factor, no guy should ever get married.
#17 by rv on November 23, 2005 - 6:02 pm
Thierry wrote,
>
hmmmm….children cost a lot: park, zoo, toys, clothes, daycare…and so on. And for the wife…I prefer not to mention…:-).
But for the above list…Bittorent can give all for free 😉
#18 by MetalHedDrummer on March 24, 2006 - 7:54 pm
i think thats total crap that you have to pay fees to play WoW online.
#19 by thinks-your-an-ass-hole on March 26, 2006 - 1:57 am
F.Y.I It only cost $15 and $10 up-front! So you should back off the sassyness, o.k! Also you don’t have to play on-line witch takes away that $50 you said you had to pay!
#20 by Anonymous on April 28, 2006 - 5:48 pm
Quake don’t take as long as you say you probly have a slow computer becuase it only took me an hour to install becuase the good graphics and charecters and they need the money for more and better game add ons
for your entertainment so it’s worth the cost!
#21 by Omega on July 4, 2006 - 11:46 pm
Its only a good model if you like grinding and putting in hundreds of hours in one online game which doesnt Really benefit your character, but makes you a LITTLE bit better in the long run (getting full epics for your characters on WoW) lol
#22 by MAson on November 29, 2006 - 4:31 pm
Well if WOW coast 18.5 cents every hour you play I would get it.
But I cant play 24-7 so…
It would also be 18.5 cents every hour you DONT play
#23 by Xbot on January 20, 2007 - 7:20 pm
It’d be cool to be able to go back to this list and check off a few things – ie, game reviews and such. Maybe slip in the average time one plays WoW in a period of a few weeks or so, and add the other games.
Quantifying the pleasurableness of activities would be pretty awesome, though sex would top every list.