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

[–] TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 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.