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

[–] filister@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I also have less time to game, but I sure as hell don't want to play shorter games. I like to play games with good stories, who are engaging and with fun play. Witcher 3 is a prime example of how even the majority of the side quests can be meaningful and not feeling too generic. I also enjoyed the last of us part 2. And I usually feel sorry when I finish a good game.

And shorter games should naturally command a lower price which isn't always the case.

[–] wim@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know if shorter games should command a lower price. It depends on the value you get out of it.

[–] filister@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It is debatable, but would you pay 70$ for a 2-hours game and another 10x70$ for DLCs and expansions that would extend the original content?

But this also doesn't mean that you should feel your game with generic content in order to make it longer either. It is a fine line but I know that I would have a real problem justifying 70€ for 2 hours of game content without replayability, even if the game is amazing.

[–] sirdorius@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And shorter games should naturally command a lower price

This is exactly the thing that doesn't make any sense. Should The Last of Us be priced at a fraction of The Witcher 3 because it is shorter? What about Bioshock? It's half the length of The Last of Us 2