You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
Thank you
Yarr harr fiddle de Dee,being a pirate is alright to be
Microsoft will send the bills for Solitaire and Minesweeper next week.
Speedrunners be like, “oh a discount!”
And I think we should pay in punches to the face to this CEO, but hey, opinions, opinions
Why? Because he said a $60-70 game should have nearly that amount of content?
Filler quests. Filler quests everywhere.
Mandatory filler quests on opposite sides of the map with limited to no fast travel.
Or lots of escort missions.
Honestly tho. If I a game has 300 hours of content, multiplayer, mod support, and is overall good I’ll pay more for that game. Not $300 but maybe like $80-$90. That game doesn’t and will never exist, at least not from a triple A studio
Does that mean the developers will be paid more or the C level executives?
You know the answer in your heart.
I mean some games do have monthly subscriptions. That’s basically paying for so many hours at a time.
This guy’s gonna hate speedrunners.
Might as well just release it in an arcade and charge quarters.
quarters
Oh you, you don’t make semi-transparent, delicately clouded business cards with that income.
Modern version: you tap your CC to start playing and it just keeps charging you until you close the app.
Joke’s on anyone who actually thinks GTA 5 isn’t already predatory as fuck, and to those excited for anything Rockstar Games has to offer going forward.
The genie’s out of that lamp, indie devs can make great games now so i can safely ignore what the rich assholes want from me.
Depending on how exactly this is meant, this might not be controversial.
Games like GTA or RDR offer literally hundreds of hours of entertainment, while other titles like all those yearly sports games or something like CoD probably get less playtime per release. So it makes sense to price the “long plays” higher than the “short plays”.
No. Seriously, just fucking no.
Games that are played for many hours are already rewarded by being more popular, meaning more people buy them, meaning more revenue. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. It’d be like charging people based on how many times they read a book. I must have read LOTR a hundred times by now, and the Tolkien estate has benefitted not only from me buying the books multiple times (softcover, hardcover, kindle, audiobook) and giving them as gifts, but also from every other person on the planet doing the same.
Make a better product, and people will use it more, and more people will buy it. This is just drink verification can bullshit.
Honestly, I sorta hope they try it, just so they can blow millions of dollars on something that was absolutely doomed and I would hope it craters the company, or at least some careers.
It’d be like charging people based on how many times they read a book.
No, it’s like paying more for a thicker book.
Also, you just admitted to paying more for the same thing by buying it multiple times. So you’re obviously already willing to continue paying for the same entertainment.
You’re so close.
Imagine for me a world where executives want to maximize extraction of funds out of consumers. Now imagine “filler” in video games. Finally, imagine games psychology and how to keep the player running after that carrot on a stick.
I’m sure you see where this is going.
(I realise this is even better under your comment here).
No, it like being charged hourly to read a book, and the book has a bunch of copied and pasted paragraphs saying “protagonist killed 10 chickens.” And the ending to the book costs extra.
And you still have to buy the whole book before doing any of that.
No, and no.
You don’t pay more for a thicker book. That’s an absolutely ridiculous notion and it’s not how the industry works. At all. The value of a book is the quality of the writing, not its length.
Second, I could have read each of those individual books as many times as I wanted. I was buying different products each time. I’mnot paying for the same entertainment at all. It’s more like buying the same e game on Xbox and on switch, if that makes it easier for you.
It’s a stupid fucking idea, and it’s exactly what got Unity rightfully smacked down just a week or so ago.
Games like GTA or RDR offer literally hundreds of hours of entertainment, while other titles like all those yearly sports games or something like CoD probably get less playtime per release. So it makes sense to price the “long plays” higher than the “short plays”.
So how would live-service games fit into that dynamic? Couldn’t Activision argue that CoD is a live-service game, and therefore, should be priced differently somehow?
Not ragging on you or anything, this is an actual question for discussion.
De facto that already happened - see WoW, it has been running that model for years.
At the end of the day, publishers can charge however they want, and there have been many different attempts already.
Not everyone uses every product for the same amount of time. That’s the first problem with this way of thinking. But let’s pretend that isn’t the case and apply this thinking to other forms of entertainment.
If I enjoy playing basketball should I have to pay by the hour to own a basketball?
Chess is one of the oldest games and it has way more hours played than all GTA games combined. Should we have to pay by the hour for a chess set?
Why stop at entertainment? I use my bed more than any game I’ve ever played. Does that mean I should pay by the hour to own a bed?
Seems pretty clear what motivated this CEO to say this… greed
