Why price per hour is a bad way to judge a game

Dollars per hour feels like the honest way to measure value. Take the price, divide by the hours, lower is better. A twenty-dollar game that runs forty hours is fifty cents an hour, a steal. A twenty-dollar game that runs four hours is five dollars an hour, a ripoff. Clean, obvious, and wrong.

It optimizes for length

Sort games by dollars per hour and what you get back is a ranking of length, with price as a tiebreaker. A four-hour game that is close to perfect lands below an eighty-hour grind that nobody finishes, because the grind has more hours to divide the price into. The metric pays developers to pad. Every filler quest and every slow walk between objectives makes the number look better.

I found this the hard way. An early version of the BANG Score led with dollars per hour, and the result was brutal in the wrong direction. Short, brilliant games scored like scams. Bloated games with a "just one more system" treadmill floated up. The formula was punishing exactly the games I would most want it to find.

Hours you will not play are not value

The deeper problem is that advertised length assumes you finish. Reaching the ending is the exception, and this is measurable. Steam publishes global achievement rates, and on 2026-09-23 this site could read a finish signal from them for 2,868 games. The median is 11.8 percent. For close to half the games it can measure, Steam counts fewer than one in ten of their players at the ending.

Those unplayed hours still count in a dollars-per-hour number, so a game gets credit for content you will never see. A finish rate, the share of players Steam counts at the ending, is a better read on whether the hours are real to you. Dollars per hour rewards exactly the games people abandon.

What to use instead

Let the review quality lead. A game that reviews badly is not a good deal at any price, so quality should set the ceiling on the score and price should only move you down inside it. Then measure price against length with a floor by genre, so a five-hour narrative game is judged against other narrative games instead of against a role-playing epic. A short game built to be short is a different shape of value, and the genre floor is there so the number can see that.

Where the metric still earns its keep

Dollars per hour is still worth glancing at. It is a fine sanity check and a terrible headline. Use it to sniff out a sixty-dollar game with a six-hour campaign and no reason to replay. Use it inside a genre, where the length expectations are honest: comparing two narrative games on price per hour is fair, comparing a narrative game to a survival crafting game is not. Do not use it to tell a tight, great, short game apart from a long slog. On that comparison it will lie to you every time.

That is the shape of the fix this site landed on: reviews set the ceiling, price per hour moves you inside it, the hours come from HowLongToBeat instead of the store page (a game with no match is scored on its genre's typical length where that helps it and on a neutral value where it does not, docked for the guess either way), the genre sets the floor, and the finish rate decides whether the very top of the scale is even reachable. Each piece patches one specific way the raw division lies. How the BANG Score works goes through them one at a time, and the collections show what the scores look like cut by budget and length.