While Take-Two is riding high on their announcement that a GTA 6 trailer is coming, its CEO has some…interesting ideas on how much video games could cost, part of a contingent of executives that believe games are underpriced, given their cost, length or some combination of the two.

  • Princeali311@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Man, did any of you read the article?

    “Zelnick is admitting that even though maybe this should be the case, that because of the nature of the market, there simply cannot be a pricing model like that, and the move to $70 recently is sort of the maximum they can hope for.”

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      There absolutely can be a market like that. We’re in a digital utopia where we don’t actually own anything. You could even have a cutoff, where playing more doesn’t charge you more. Gamers might even accept that, in a weird way. You rent it per hour up to 70 hours, and then you just “own” it.

      But I suspect most of his stats show that there’s a huge number of people out there who will spend $70 on a game on day one, play it for 10 hours and never touch it again. RDR2 for example has a 30% completion rate on PSN. 31% didn’t even finish the first chapter. And he certainly doesn’t want to say goodbye to that money.

      I don’t want a market like that because it will lead to even more time-wasting and busywork in games than there already is. But maybe that would backfire. If you played 10 hours of a game and it was mostly trudging about doing nothing, would you pay to play more of it?

    • people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      there simply cannot be a pricing model like that

      Microtransactions? Battle passes? Episodic releases? Is the guy purposefully playing dumb?

  • Adam@doomscroll.n8e.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I enjoy low priced games as much as the next person but I’m inclined to agree. At least a little.

    In terms of currency per hour some games are outright bargains when you compare to a cinema trip and yet the triple A’s cost more to produce than your average film.

  • Jay@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Theoretically he can go fuck himself. All that is going to do is make games drag out mindless crap with no actual value entertainment-wise.

  • guyrocket@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    He didn’t say it but he wants you to RENT software not OWN it. Make no mistake, this would be BAD for consumers.

  • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well, fuck them, at this point indie games are often better than AAA titles anyway.

  • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Sure thing! GTA 5 average game time was 52h (main+extras), so its price is then about $1 per hour at launch. Looking at my Steam library, I’d probably have saved hundreds if not thousands over the last 20 years if all the games were billed like this…

    Have fun implementing the payment system that reliably measures and bills this with zero downtime, internationally! And even more fun when nobody mysteriously chooses to subscribe to this shit.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      The fun in gta starts after the story is done though. Thats when you can spend thousands of more hours in it

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, but dollars per hour is stupid. I care more about enjoyment per hour. Just maximizing play time is what has cause open world games to be boring as hell. I’d rather spend less time with a game that’s more enjoyable over a shorter period than more time doing the same few activities over and over and getting nothing out of it.

      • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        To be fair, for most games which you actually choose to continue playing, enjoyment per hour must be at or above a certain threshold otherwise you’d stop playing.

  • KrokanteBamischijf@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    This only works if you spin this with a product leadership strategy:

    Shovelware games that don’t offer a solid chunk of hours or any kind of replayability should be priced lower, and proper games should be priced normally.

    The thing is, this is not at all how pricing works if you’re building a business model. Prices are always heavily influenced by what the consumer is willing to pay, or in this case what they’ve been used to for years. For as long as I can remember “full price” has always been $50 or $60.

    Special editions with marginal bonus content, $10 price increases on the base game and shitty DLC (horse armor comes to mind) are all examples of corporate shit tests, designed to see how far they can take it.

    History has proven though, that changing consumer expectations is among the more difficult things to do in a market where alternatives are rampant. Though the whole franchise loyalty thing kinda ruins that, but I’ll be damned if I have to pay $200 for a game. That will promt me to just play something else instead.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      No. This is absolutely wrong. If a game is short but does something unique and engaging it’s worth more than the next open world game that wastes your time. The amount of time a game takes to complete has next to nothing to do with the value a consumer gets from the game.

      A “proper game” isn’t one that takes 60+ hours to complete. A proper game is one that takes an idea and does something interesting with it, or at least tries to create the most enjoyable experience for a player as possible.

      I don’t want to trudge through an open world collecting bullshit they put in just to make me spend more time. I want an interesting experience that maximizes my enjoyment per hour. If it’s low enjoyment per hour there’s a million other things I could be doing instead.

      • KrokanteBamischijf@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Which is exactly why my first sentence explicitly states “product leadership”.

        I agree, we don’t need any more games that prolong a shitty experience just to use collective playtime as a metric of success.

        The correct metric could be play time AND experience rating: If I manage to put 300 hours into a game, none of it feels repetitive and I’m still having fun I’d be willing to spend more than if I get a couple hours of amazing gameplay and a giant “collect all these flags” middle finger for 100% completion.

        Ultimately we need publishers to stop their short-term value strategies and start investing in long-term value from reputation, popular IPs and games that will be remembered.