With both of those examples, you're willingly making the choice to continue playing. The game has 200 hours of content, if you decide to play it for 200 hours. Sure, the game technically has about 10-12 hours of "fresh content" so you could use those other 188-190 hours of your life to do something else instead. Watch the grass grow, watch some paint dry, perfect walking on your hands whatever...you're choosing to spend that time in game with the games content so it must be okay for you however repetitive it may be.

Yeah but who in their right mind would watch the same movie 100 times?! The point of the OP is a perfectly valid one. If you have played 200 hours of Destiny, it's because you wanted to and were having fun doing so. The only way his point doesn't stand is if somebody is being forced to play.

No, the point isn't the hours being played, the point is the activity within those hours. You can love the movie and watch it 100 times, giving you 200 hours of movie, but you are still watching the same 2 hours of content. The same is true of Destiny - you can enjoy the game, but you are still invariably playing the same parts over and over for a slight progression boost. Destiny flat out does not have 200 hours of content, just as the hypothetical movie doesn't - enjoying the content enough to play if for 200 hours does not change that fact. If you take a game that does have 200 hours of content - something by Bethesda for instance - you are experiencing new things for that 200+ hours (or in the case of the movie, it would be like replacing the movie with a box set of Friends). What I think you are mistaking my argument for is its longevity to some. That is not the case - it is the content providing that longevity - in Destiny's case, not all that much content aiming to fill a large time pocket. Now I have played Dragon Age: Origins many times all the way through, providing me with well over the 200 hours worth of game play (especially including the DLC and expansion) - that 200+ hours is basically 30 hours repeated. 30 hours of content expanded at my choice. Thus my saying that DA:O is a game with 200 hours of content is categorically false.

That's all irrelevant. Regardless of whether its new content or not, if you're happy to play it and are enjoying doing so then price of game over hours played is a perfectly legit' way to measure the value of a game to you. Incidentally: 142 / £44.99 = £0.32 per hour, and counting.... bargain. The 500 hours I put in to Skyrim was over numerous characters and involved replaying the same campaign over and over again. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy doing them. The additional, repetitive play-throughs added tangible enjoyment to my life therefore I wouldn't discount them when considering the amount of hours I've put into the game against cost. What about something like Tetris? Does that mean once you've stacked your first set of lines to the limit you're no longer getting value from the game? Nonsense.

[quote]What about something like Tetris? Does that mean once you've stacked your first set of lines to the limit you're no longer getting value from the game? Nonsense.[/quote] Not really. If you can sit down and play Tetris for more than a few hours, you're probably one of a special few. [quote]That's all irrelevant. Regardless of whether its new content or not, if you're happy to play it and are enjoying doing so then price of game over hours played is a perfectly legit' way to measure the value of a game to you. Incidentally: 142 / £44.99 = £0.32 per hour, and counting.... bargain. [/quote] Not at all. Whilst I have acknowledged that if you are willing to play it, then it is worth [I]your[/i] money, I stand by the claim that you can't assert that the amount of hours it is [I]possible[/i] to put in, or indeed the amount of hours you [I]have[/i] put in = value for money. Regardless of the fact you enjoy a game play system designed to repeat itself over and over (which is ultimately a lazy trope designed to elongated the lifespan of a game that lacks content), saying "I can/will/have put in X amount of hours, therefore X/Cost=Y per hour" is cheap. That logic can be put forward to virtually every purchase, and simply your ability to reuse the purchase doesn't equate to value for money. Value is derived from other factors such as comparative strength versus competitors - which Destiny arguably doesn't have; variety of experience and depth - especially in a product that is essentially a means of telling an interactive story. Were Destiny a book the final two thirds would just state "re-read Chapters 1-4" and occasionally be interrupted with a page stating "LEVEL UP!", which, while you could read every page, isn't exactly creating a new experience for you. The fact is that cost per hour is an extremely simplistic and entirely subjective means of valuing a game. I have put in a lot of hours into Destiny - a lot of which are simply being a Raid member for friends who want to do it, but my enjoyment of it, despite the hours: cost, is still rather low. The OPs original argument was that the DLC was not unfairly priced (i.e too expensive, which it is when judged comparatively against competing DLC/Games of an equivalent price) and that if you play through all its content, you have no grounds for complaint. That is introducing a new measurement to video games - 'if you get below a certain £:hour ratio, it must be great', which is simply absurd. The DLC is asking for £20 (or £35 for a season pass). This is more expensive than the US Price. Does that mean that the DLC is better in the US because the £/$:hour ratio is significantly lower (about 1.6:1 UK/US)? No. Of course not.

I once flew from Sydney to Abu Dhabi and spent the entire eight hours playing Tetris. We're disagreeing on the fundamentals here. Reusing a purchase DOES equate to better value. If I spend £20 on a Toasty Maker and use it once, I'm not getting good value for money. If I use that Toasty Maker 1,000 times, I'm getting considerably better value for money. That should be simple for anybody to understand. The same logic CAN be applied to a game. [quote]The DLC is asking for £20 (or £35 for a season pass). This is more expensive than the US Price. Does that mean that the DLC is better in the US because the £/$:hour ratio is significantly lower (about 1.6:1 UK/US)? No. Of course not.[/quote] No, you're quite right, it doesn't. The fact that there is a variation in price doesn't make for a fair comparison. If for some odd reason an £:hour ratio became the norm in benchmarking the quality of a game then you'd need some way to compensate for currency exchange rates. The whole area of value for money is completely subjective anyway, so there's no hard and fast rule to follow. I think it fairly logical though to accept the fact that I've had more value for money from Skyrim (500 or so hours) than say, Destiny (140 ish hours), as they both the cost the same amount of money.

[quote]If for some odd reason an £:hour ratio became the norm in benchmarking the quality of a game then you'd need some way to compensate for currency exchange rates.[/quote] Lets be honest, we wouldn't. They'd still just change $ to £