427

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] echo64@lemmy.world 57 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 53 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 5 points 2 years 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 -4 points 2 years ago

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

[-] TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years 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 2 points 2 years 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 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 0 points 2 years 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 2 points 2 years 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 -1 points 2 years 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 0 points 2 years ago

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

[-] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
427 points (92.8% liked)

Games

39570 readers
1327 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS