Opportunity Cost Or Why Replay Isn't So Important

by Martin Haller

Increasingly, multiplayer features and replayablity have become hot items in the gaming world. Every new PC roleplaying game touts its addictive and innovating multiplayer system. Every console RPG makes some vague promise of replayability, length and challenge. If you look at most reviews, replay value, under some name or another, creeps in.

I am here to argue that New Game+, TCP/IPX, BattleNet, and Xenogears's 70 hours of playing time are not worth it. In fact, they may even be detriments to the game.

A bit of background first. This editorial's contents struck me as I played (and won) my 1000th recorded game of Brood War. I've had StarCraft since the day it came out, and Brood War as well, so this isn't quite as incredible a feat as it may sound. Nonetheless, with the average game weighing in at around 20 minutes, that means I've probably played somewhere in the vicinity of 350 hours of Brood War in the last year or two. And hey, I only paid like 20 bucks for the thing.

In theory, then, it should be a great bargain.
But it's really not.

Two economics concepts come into play here. One is that of opportunity cost. And one is that of diminishing marginal returns. To put it succinctly: the more we play a game, in general, the more it loses something. Usually there is a peak point where we've mastered, or gotten very good at, the system. At that point, the game is fun, exciting, and new. After that, it starts to get older and repetitive. Replayability can keep us playing the game and so can multiplayer. This is largely justified by a desire not to waste money on another game.

Yet opportunity cost tells us that we're somewhat wrong here. I have a standing offer for a $16/hr. teaching job. That means that I have, in real terms, paid around 5600 dollars to play Brood War. It means that each of those 40 hour RPGs I go through, I pay about 640 bucks.

That's kind of depressing when you think about it. Which means when RPGs take fun things out to "hide" as replay features, what they're really doing is stealing my money. People bemoaned the idea of a mere seven hour long Vagrant Story, but if it could've been done well, then I think, in some ways, it would've been a better deal.

Even if you don't have the means of getting gainful employment, studying, reading, writing, and exercising are all available, and are status-improving things. Video games, in all fairness, are a waste of time. They are a pleasurable waste of time - like television, comic books, movies, and really bad pulp fiction. Yet I don't see why people should become excited about the prospect of a game that will waste more of their time with mind-numbingly stupid battles (Diablo II, Final Fantasy VIII, etc.) and loading delays.

Video games should be short, sweet, and enjoyable. This harping for longer games results in a greater diffusion of the "fun" elements, resources being wasted on replayability, rather than on the first time through. To hell with replaying!