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

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

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

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 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.