Value is an interesting proposition when it comes to games. Before we get into the meat of the article, here are a few quick questions:

You have 12 hours to kill. Someone locks you in a room and you have the option of playing Call of Duty 4, Gears of War 2, or Bioshock. You probably have enough time to play both COD4 and Gears, or Bioshock on its own. Which do you choose? Now take that option and for each game that you choose to play, you have to pay full retail price. How does that affect your decision? What if Jericho was also included but that was free, would you choose that instead of the other options?

There are of course no right or wrong answers as to which games you enjoy, or for how long they are enjoyable to you before you would prefer to either be playing another game, or doing something else entirely. The above example is loaded with my own perception of those games and the value they represent to me. How often do we hear friends or blog/forum posts saying 'It looks decent but it's not worth full price' or '1200 points/$15 is too much for that game'. I've found it interesting how we value games, as my own perception has changed somewhat in the last year. I used to own a video store, and besides a game being rented by a customer, they were all available to me whenever I wanted, and did not cost me any money. I haven't owned the store for a year, and now I have to purchase my own games. So how has that changed how I perceive the value of games?

I see two main values of any individual game; the intensity of the enjoyment, and the length of time that it is enjoyable. Which one is more important to you? Are you looking for the very best experience? Or do you prefer to stretch your dollar further and make sure your games last a long time before you have to go and buy another one? As I play primarily single player, Call of Duty 4 was a short experience for me. However, the intensity of that enjoyment was incredible, I thoroughly enjoyed the 6 or so hours that it lasted. I tend not to replay many games, so that is where the enjoyment ended for me (though it was great enough that I probably will replay it at some stage). Fallout 3 was a great game. I've yet to finish it, but I've put in over 30 hours and that time was enjoyable. Not at the intensity I enjoyed Call of Duty 4, but that's a decent period of time to be enjoying a game.

I imagine most of us don't sit in the equilibrium; we are either time poor or just plain poor. If you just plain don't have much money to spend on games on a regular basis but you find yourself with plenty of time, you may be more inclined to go for a game that offers longer playability at the expense of intensity (of course finding a game that you enjoy immensely and lasts a long time is possible and that becomes the obvious choice). Those of us who are time poor may be able to afford all of the games we have a desire to play, but simply don't have time to play them all; when we finish a game, there are a bunch more that we are interested in. So while there might be 5 games released a month worth taking note of, if you've only got so many hours to play games you might want to buy the 3 games that offer you the highest enjoyment possible instead of the other 2 that might be longer but be less enjoyable. Sure, you've spent more, but you are having a better time.

Of course, games do go down in price as well. This never used to be an issue for me, as all the highest profile games were usually available to me. Now that I have to spend money on my games, I tend to wait til games go down in price. This is not a primary concern of mine when purchasing games, but the list of games I want to play is pretty large, so games released a year ago are still as desirable to me to play as those released today. If I perceive that an older game is going to provide as much intensity and longevity as a current game for half the price, that's a pretty good incentive to go for the older game, and use that extra money on other interests.

I'm also surprised at some of the flak that has been sent towards the downloadable services when a 'premium' game sells for 1200 points or more. To me it still comes down to those two main issues; how much am I going to enjoy the game, and for how long? Castle Crashers was a great game that was more enjoyable to me than a number of full retail games I've played, and is one of the few games I've replayed so provided me a longer experience than some other games as well. Would I have purchased this game if it was a full retail product? Yes (although like usual I probably would have waited until it came down in price or purchased it second hand). Would many other people? I'm guessing not. And probably not because they perceived they wouldn't enjoy it; which brings me to another stigma.

Games can be enjoyable without developers having to invest millions. Yet even those smaller games do cost the developers time and money to produce. It is not my own perception, but I get the impression that there are some people out there who perceive that if a game costs less to make, then it should sell for less. But at the end of the day, you aren't paying because you want to invest in their development tools; you are paying because you want an experience you can enjoy.What if game A offers 8 hours of enjoyment at an intensity level of 7 out of 10 which cost $10million to make, while game B offers 10 hours of enjoyment at an intensity level of 9 out of 10 but only cost $100,000 to make with a small development team? Maybe game B has lower production values, but if the game itself is still great and both these games were offered at the same price, why would you choose game A? Clearly the choice for you, the gamer, is to spend the same money on a game you are going to enjoy more.

I've certainly not covered every aspect of how we perceive value in gaming, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Remember that the games I've listed above are just my personal opinion on their value to me, and they don't need to be shared by everybody. And to poke the bear a little, how much should longevity factor into a gaming review score? Or should they only focus on how enjoyable the game is for as long as it does last? What if the best game in the world lasted 15 minutes?