With reference to your post and hopefully coming from an informed client viewpoint I believe that is better to measure a game in terms of objects, tasks, interactions that have to be created. The more of these variables that are included, the game play time naturally increases, however, this is highly dependent on the learner. This is not only in terms of intellectual / learning ability but as I have seen can be as simple as familiarity with standard keyboard controls let alone other interface methods.

An experienced developer should be able to give the client an idea of how long their ‘wish list’ should take to play out in a game environment or 2D e-learning for that matter.

interesting discussion on a serious games forum about how they are struggling to get across to clients and developers that its not always possible to measure a game in terms of hours.

For clients, I’d imagine that the one hour means how long the e-learning ‘runs’ for if the learner reads, listens, watches, interacts with the all of the content, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that learners will remember anything.

For producers, I guess it’s some kind of formula like: number of screens/2D v. 3D/ stock photo based v. original photo based v. illustration based/page turner v. branching scenario/ hi-end game/developed in-house v. developed offshore/original graphics v. clip art and so on.

Given today’s economic climate, I think that clients have a budget in mind and won’t budge on price no matter what metrics producers apply to the costing. Personally, I’ve never really got the price per hour debate and very few clients/prospects seem to ask the question these days.

As producers we would, of course, be crazy if we didn’t undertake some kind of needs/scoping exercise - paid or unpaid before we offered up a costing.