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

[–] 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.