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
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
forbes.com
Najnowsze