Length should not be the measure of how much a game is worth. If you want to know my personal stats though, around 55 hours. By comparison, I paid 200 dollars for a lifetime membership to Star Trek Online and played it for over 2,000 hours. I also paid about 3000 dollars in subscription fees and expansions for WoW and played it for over 15,000 hours.
People are free to hate on the game all they want. But it means a less if you say "This game is the worst, most unplayable garbage I've ever touched and I would not recommend it to anyone and it gave me cancer" while still having 800+ hours in it and a solid amount of hours played within the last 2 weeks. At that point, it's flat-out hypocrisy. Clearly, they are getting some kind of enjoyment that they are not mentioning.
As Washington said above me, you're free to gripe but really...even 55 hours is quite a bit of time in a game. Average single player games are lucky to give you 8-10 hours anymore and cost 50-60 bucks top end. I was responding to a guy who go this for 40 bucks, saying it should cost 20 bucks. Do you know how crappy most 20 dollar Steam games are? Like...really crappy. By no means is EC in that category. For Comparison, I preordered Overwatch the day it was available. I have maybe 20 hours played in that game. Game left me flaccid as hell.
Cost/Time Enjoyed is a pretty direct metric for determining the worth of a leisure time activity. What do you use instead?
