Joking aside, length of a game is a terrible metric for price. I always consider how much time I spend playing a game compared to the price for the ROI. But a lot of games just add filler content that is copy and paste missions.
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.
He’s certainly correct, at the purely analytical, quantitative level. But if humans were purely analytical and quantitative, then laissez-faire capitalism would function perfectly.
The problem arises from games having more costs than just monetary though. The cost of a film, asides the ticket price, is a couple hours of sitting on your ass. The cost of a video game, willingly paid by every gamer, is actually hours of practice with hand eye coordination, various video game systems and conventions, time spent learning that specific game, etc etc. You can see, objectively, this is a lot of “investment” required. Which is one of the big reasons not everyone is much of a gamer.
The executives should be factoring this cost in too though, because your subconscious does when it decides how much “fun” you’re having at whatever you’re doing right now.
Well you have to take the price of the system you run the game on into account. If you spent hundreds of dollars to buy a game and a console (pc gaming is even worse), you need a lot of content to reach parity with something like a cinema ticket or a Netflix subscription.
This hobby is expensive, particularly because it’s main demographics is children or cash strapped young adults. Maybe it’s good value if you spend hundreds of hours on a few games, maybe take-two is feeling that it doesn’t get its fair share from these hundreds of dollars, but they should not be deluded into thinking it’s cheap for the customer.
Interesting. I wonder how they’d feel if the hardware and software they all used to make these games were charged the same way? Or how about the cars/public transit and roads they take to get to work?
Coming from a franchise who rakes in mountains of cash from GTA Online… The problem with pricing per hour is that there’s no measure of quality. You can create a junk game that took 200 million to develop and has hundreds of hours of gameplay. I also thought the point about movies was a good one. An excellent movie with big actors and a gigantic budget is usually priced the same
There’s a concept that should be familiar to a business owner called value based pricing where you charge based upon a (usually service) product’s perceived value rather than the cost of producing it. Make a game worth giving time and money to then you’ll have success. Fill it with pointless content to pad out the hours and it is neither worth the time nor the money
I love FromSoft games. I still haven’t gotten around to AC6. It launched at such a bad time with so many other games coming out, especially if you have GamePass. BG3 came out about the same time (not on gamepass, but easy purchase), then Starfield (which was frustrating and bad, but still took time), Payday 3 (which is alright but flawed, and hopefully will be improved like PD2 was), and Cities Skylines 2. Notable mention to Counter Strike 2, while not doing anything that new for CS, it’s still the thing we’ve been waiting for for years. I still haven’t gotten around to it yet either, but patches are improving things so waiting is good.
As someone who almost 100% it with all shrines… Nah. Totk honestly didn’t take enough risks as botw and the new additions were disappointing. The sky islands were copy pasted many times with the same layout, the dungeons were arguably not much better than botw, and the depths all looked the same.
The game is also piss easy once you have enough hearts to tank hits. Still so disappointed I first-tried the final boss.
Still a good game, but 8/10 at best. In a year where much better games came out I wouldn’t even nominate it for Goty
As a fan of the Ocreana and Majora, I was super disappointed with the same dungeon just copy pasted 4 times with basically no story or dialogue. It was a fine enough open world game I guess, but it wasn't a Zelda game.
BotW was great, but not if you were wanting a traditional Zelda.
TotK is hot garbage. They just took BotW and leaned way too hard into the whole “build silly contraptions!!1” thing that some fans were doing with BotW’s physics interactions.
Reject the idea of an absolute GOTY, normalize a Mt. Rushmore style "Best of the Year" selection.
Games can be great in so many different ways, many of which are somewhat exclusive with each other, that I've never understood the concept of saying that one was absolutely better than the rest.
You can tell gaming has been mid for so long that we get a couple of ok titles again and they are like “there is no room for all these GOTY titles!!” lol
I’m about 13 hours in AW2 and it’s not a complication. This is one of the few easy choices to put up there. BG3, this and TotK even if it wasn’t my cup of tea. 3 last 3 have a bunch of choices but I would be very confused if AW was snubbed with some of the issues the other contenders have (RE4 is an exception to this, it’s risk is just that it’s a remake and now there is a concrete horror candidate)
With permission from the family. Not the owner of the voice, who can’t speak for themselves anymore, obviously.
Whilst I think most people feel like this is the one exceptional case where we will be okay with this, I feel like every exec is seeing it, and the community reaction to it, and saying, “So it is possible”.
And we get into why everyone is striking. We’re all okay for normal use cases like this, but execs are like “we’ll pay you for 3 hours of work, then build a model and then do 180 hours of voice from that model. And you’ll say thank you for the opportunity”
I dunno, once you’re dead nothing else really matters anymore, does it? You’re not a person anymore, so why would your opinion matter? If my family can use my legacy to make money for themselves, I would just be happy knowing they’d be a bit better off once I’m gone. And if they choose to protect the right to use my voice/likeness after I’m gone, I’d prefer that they do so because of their own personal beliefs, not because they believe they have to do so for my sake.
I feel like that answer is for you and you alone, and not for actors in general. Personally I don't really see why I would be worried about this after I die (after all, I'm dead ), and if it helps my family a bit then it'd probably just make me rest easier if anything.
I think the plan is to release all the cosmetic stuff after TI, so they don’t have to share the money with the pros. Probably they already know that in that way they just get more money
forbes.com
Aktywne