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.

  • systemglitch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    295
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Thank fuck for indie devs making the best games right now at an affordable price.

    I have over a thousand games in my steam library and my most played is dominated by indie games.

  • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    155
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem is an hour of what. Me wandering around trying to find something described vaguely and being frustrated, is not the same as an hour of well written and interesting dialogue.

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I read something like this and my immediate thought is “torches, pitchforks, guillotines.”

      • Welt@lazysoci.al
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Returning to a feudal economy is a sensible idea, lighting with renewable materials, making hay while the sun shines and executing traitors is much more productive than playing games

    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously I’m tired of all these gaming CEOs that don’t play games therefore are so out of touch. Guy is just another Kotick clone.

  • Jay@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      The most successful games are already like that, and I hate it. Give me a good story in a compact experience (luckily, still many examples for that).

      • Jay@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        First thing that comes to mind for me is Far Cry 6, where there is a few missions you have to find certain things without the aid of any quest markers.

        Imagine a game like that with absolutely no markers and they take your map as well. At best you’d spend 3 times as long trying to finish the same game, and now they think they can charge you 3 times as much? Fuck that noise.

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup. For every idiot like this, there’s an indie game or even a Larian Studios offering MUCH better bang for your bucks.

      • GreenMario@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was before they started diarrhea shitting themselves since the founders left. GTA Trilogy, GTA+, and removing cars people paid for in Online is just a taste of things to come.

        • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I specifically mean their in-house single player games, so only GTA V and RDR2 for the last decade.

          • GreenMario@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s what I mean, Rockstar was a brand you could trust until after RDR2. Founders left right after and you can see how things changed right after.

            • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, they left and the change was IMMEDIATE. Holy moly the shit show that was RDO. If you were playing that game back then, you could see the crumbling of the company happening in real time, it was wild. RDO being left to rot is my Roman empire, and I wonder if the founders feel regret at all with how their creation was treated by the company they left. Or if they just dry their tears with hundos these days?

              Heck, I don’t even feel like RDR2 lived up to it’s full potential before they left, what with post-game being the most buggy and unfinished-feeling part of the whole game. It felt like it was just waiting for DLC content to be added, since it was a huge patch of map with hardly anything going on. Sigh, who knows.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Too bad it will be at a minimum $70, and i bet with the hype, even $80, while also being chockful of microtransactions.

        • SocialMediaSettler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s Rockstar Games, they love microtransactions and Sharkcards and will more than likely implement more greed tactics into their next big game (GTA 6). I’m still pissed off over the bilking they did with the bunker series in GTA 5. They’re a ruthless, greedy company. And don’t forget those times they went after those fanboys/talented game designers who were revamping their old games like GTA 4. Those kids were super talented and Rockstar busted their asses like the mobsters they are. Fuck Rockstar and their next GTA greed fest.

          • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t call them mobsters, they probably think that sounds cool. More like corporate sell outs.

  • De_Narm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sure, great idea, why wouldn’t I want more low quality padding content in my games? It’s not like they already have too much of it.

      • III@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Apparently not enough of one if he is saying shit like this out loud. I would assume the GTA6 Online efforts will attempt to make their “+” more attractive.

  • otp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    1 year ago

    The less someone actually plays games, the more this idea will make sense to them.

    Gamers, especially older gamers, will know this is a BS metric.

    • Moneo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      “We were going to charge $60 but then we added 40 hours of tailing side quests so now we’re charging $120” - Ubisoft.

      Hours of gameplay is a god awful metric and only a corporate dipshit could utter such a stupid fucking sentence.

  • echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because everyone here is just reacting to the terrible Forbes headline because that’s all people do. Here’s the actual content that you can pick apart, instead of picking apart the headline that some Forbes editor wrote.

    he thinks GTA is one of the best values on the market. Here’s what he said:

    “In terms of our pricing for any entertainment property, basically the algorithm is the value of the expected entertainment usage, which is to say the per hour value times the number of expected hours plus the terminal value that’s perceived by the customer in ownership, if the title is owned rather than rented or subscribed to.”

    So he was just saying that gta is good value for money given their metrics

    • ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      He can still go fuck himself. I was promised single player DLC in GTA 5 and instead they put their entire focus on GTA online which I’m sure will continue with 6. I’ll probably pirate it because, as much as I hate to admit it I’m still a fan, but I’m not giving them another cent.

      • verysoft@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        “I will pirate because you didnt give me sp dlc” is one of the craziest reasons ahaha. GTA 5 was good value all things considered, was a great game.

        • GarrettBird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I’m going to have to agree. It had plenty of content to make up for its price tag.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with the general sentiment of boo for not making dlc. but if your proposition is “i’m going to pirate your next game” then you’re probably just pushing them further into a direction you don’t want them to go.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you think that giant companies don’t look at social media responses to their games in order to make future decisions, I have a bridge to sell you.

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you think that companies look at social media more than their own sales metrics, then Ive probably already sold you a bridge and have a loyalty program for you to sign up for, to get 15% off your next purchase

            • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you think that giant companies don’t look at social media responses to their games in order to make future decisions, I have a bridge to sell you.

              I’ve been part of Community Management at a major studio, and I was told to stop ‘wasting their time’ with customer feedback, so which bridge is it?

                • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I can deflect the doxxing slightly by saying it’s more than one. The first rhymes with Wicrosoft and the other is too small and would definitely doxx me. However I have friends all over the industry, and can confirm identical reactions from places with names similar to Acti… mizion, Sledge…wammer Ztudios, 434… endustries, Pioware… Grames?

    • TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That really only could be considered even remotely plausible if everyone played online, but most people quickly discovered it was a trash money grab. Otherwise it’s no better value than any other story driven single player game.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        gta games are typically pretty competitive with everyone else in terms of value for money on the base game. it’s been a while since there has been a new GTA game, and the other game they have produced - red dead redemption - was incredible value for money given the content and length.

        we can complain about a lot, I’ll be the first to say their online is a money sucking low effort playground. But the quality of their single-player experiences is at worst “very very competitive”.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ah but see, that may only be due to GTA V actually having the development time and releasing as a single player game because Online wasn’t near being ready when the game launched. Now that Online is out and that’s where their focus has been, we will most likely see the base single player game quality suffer dramatically. Look at games like Call of Duty. They used to have phenomenal single player experiences, and now you’re lucky if you get something worth playing at all.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So I would point at rdr2. That came out long after gta v online made mountains of money. Large single-player experience. Online existed, didn’t detract.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That may be true for many, but I’m willing to bet most of those “hours” they count are for GTA Online. Have they ever mentioned what percentage of players play Online versus all sales? Because that is something many of us have never and will never touch so it isn’t included at all in my value consideration other than a negative for the company to focus on INSTEAD of additional single player content.

      If they want to turn GTA into an always online Game as a Service, that is their prerogative, but don’t try and hide it stuffed alongside a single player game they’ll ignore after release, and don’t be surprised when some people stop buying and playing when the only option is online multiplayer.

    • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cool, so could the makers of the software they use to make these games do the same to them? They should pay them all for the per hour value times the expected hours of development plus the terminal value perceived by expected income from sales! Yes, good business model. Maximize them profits!!!

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        the makers of the software they use also have their own algorithms for determining pricing yes.

        • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, and I bet they’re affordable. What Strauss is proposing is a massive increase in initial purchase price for those that aren’t paying subscriptions. $70 is borderline affordable for a lot of people as is and that will now be a higher entry price. I’m not in that boat, personally, but I can see how it would be detrimental to the gaming industry as a whole.

          Then again, there is the flip side where people are now forced to choose the games they can afford that year even more carefully (1-2 vs 6-7 or more as an example) and if a game fails expectations and someone misses out on something else, then maybe it’ll start putting some shitty developers out of business.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They aren’t proposing increasing the price. Did you read the article or my initial comment about how people just read the bad headline and argue against it at all?

            • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Of course I read the article. It specifically says, “… value of the expected entertainment usage, which is to say the per hour value times the number of expected hours plus the terminal value that’s perceived by the customer in ownership, if the title is owned rather than rented or subscribed to…”

              I’m beginning to wonder if you read the article. They want to charge off of one value and add it to an initial base value. If you think this idea has nothing to do with increasing profits then I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.

              • echo64@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Nothing in that is about raising the price, the whole thing is about him showing off what great value the series is by their metrics.

                Here’s where you say “of course it is! I’ve imagined that this leads to the next thing which is raised prices”. Cool, go make these comments on the thread about them raising prices, or proposing raising prices. That isn’t what is happening here.

  • paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t wait for them to try this, it flops, half the staff gets laid off, the CEO steps down with a golden parachute, the CEO trades places with the CEO of another tech company, that new CEO makes an even worse decision, another half of the staff gets laid off, the new CEO gets a raise, Microsoft buys both companies, Google makes a competing game studio that gets killed before their first game release, and Apple releases their first video game for $3000 that only runs on M2 and above.

  • sirdorius@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve often come across this sentiment in Steam reviews and it’s very reductive to judge games based mainly on this metric. Getting older I have less time for videogames and I value shorter games more. There are games that are extremely valuable because of their high quality even if very short, like the first Portal.

    This is why we have companies like Ubisoft trying to game the system constantly with low quality content to pad the game to 100 hours or whatever is fashionable in open world these days. I will take 6 hours of quality single player anytime over 100 hours of AssCreed grinding and ridiculous ‘story’

    • filister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I also have less time to game, but I sure as hell don’t want to play shorter games. I like to play games with good stories, who are engaging and with fun play. Witcher 3 is a prime example of how even the majority of the side quests can be meaningful and not feeling too generic. I also enjoyed the last of us part 2. And I usually feel sorry when I finish a good game.

      And shorter games should naturally command a lower price which isn’t always the case.

      • sirdorius@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And shorter games should naturally command a lower price

        This is exactly the thing that doesn’t make any sense. Should The Last of Us be priced at a fraction of The Witcher 3 because it is shorter? What about Bioshock? It’s half the length of The Last of Us 2

      • wim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if shorter games should command a lower price. It depends on the value you get out of it.

        • filister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is debatable, but would you pay 70$ for a 2-hours game and another 10x70$ for DLCs and expansions that would extend the original content?

          But this also doesn’t mean that you should feel your game with generic content in order to make it longer either. It is a fine line but I know that I would have a real problem justifying 70€ for 2 hours of game content without replayability, even if the game is amazing.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree, that’s why i think Take Two owe me $23 because i finished GTAV in 37 hours.

    Though i hope Wube, Bethesda, and Fromsoft won’t bill me for my playtime…

    • ashok36@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      "breaking news: a czech man known only as kovarex has rocketed to the top of the most wealthy men in the world list. Legislation is currently being drafted to regulate the use of the drug ‘factorio’ with several legislators describing as ‘extremely addictive. Like, so addictive. Really guys.’ "

  • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok so somebody should ask this CEO how he expects gamers to pay potentially $200 per game.

    What an idiot, games are priced at what the market will bear and they’ve pretty much reached that limit now.