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

[–] KrokanteBamischijf@feddit.nl 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This only works if you spin this with a product leadership strategy:

Shovelware games that don't offer a solid chunk of hours or any kind of replayability should be priced lower, and proper games should be priced normally.

The thing is, this is not at all how pricing works if you're building a business model. Prices are always heavily influenced by what the consumer is willing to pay, or in this case what they've been used to for years. For as long as I can remember "full price" has always been $50 or $60.

Special editions with marginal bonus content, $10 price increases on the base game and shitty DLC (horse armor comes to mind) are all examples of corporate shit tests, designed to see how far they can take it.

History has proven though, that changing consumer expectations is among the more difficult things to do in a market where alternatives are rampant. Though the whole franchise loyalty thing kinda ruins that, but I'll be damned if I have to pay $200 for a game. That will promt me to just play something else instead.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. This is absolutely wrong. If a game is short but does something unique and engaging it's worth more than the next open world game that wastes your time. The amount of time a game takes to complete has next to nothing to do with the value a consumer gets from the game.

A "proper game" isn't one that takes 60+ hours to complete. A proper game is one that takes an idea and does something interesting with it, or at least tries to create the most enjoyable experience for a player as possible.

I don't want to trudge through an open world collecting bullshit they put in just to make me spend more time. I want an interesting experience that maximizes my enjoyment per hour. If it's low enjoyment per hour there's a million other things I could be doing instead.

[–] KrokanteBamischijf@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago

Which is exactly why my first sentence explicitly states "product leadership".

I agree, we don't need any more games that prolong a shitty experience just to use collective playtime as a metric of success.

The correct metric could be play time AND experience rating: If I manage to put 300 hours into a game, none of it feels repetitive and I'm still having fun I'd be willing to spend more than if I get a couple hours of amazing gameplay and a giant "collect all these flags" middle finger for 100% completion.

Ultimately we need publishers to stop their short-term value strategies and start investing in long-term value from reputation, popular IPs and games that will be remembered.