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.

(page 6) 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I don't actually disagree with moving from the 60/70 USD standard, but instead I think big budget blockbuster studios should die off, and focus on making optimized, shorter, and more creative games.

[–] adam@doomscroll.n8e.dev -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I enjoy low priced games as much as the next person but I'm inclined to agree. At least a little.

In terms of currency per hour some games are outright bargains when you compare to a cinema trip and yet the triple A's cost more to produce than your average film.

[–] olosta@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well you have to take the price of the system you run the game on into account. If you spent hundreds of dollars to buy a game and a console (pc gaming is even worse), you need a lot of content to reach parity with something like a cinema ticket or a Netflix subscription.

This hobby is expensive, particularly because it's main demographics is children or cash strapped young adults. Maybe it's good value if you spend hundreds of hours on a few games, maybe take-two is feeling that it doesn't get its fair share from these hundreds of dollars, but they should not be deluded into thinking it's cheap for the customer.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Honestly, if I get a 30 minutes to an hour of quality play time per dollar, it's worth the cost to me.

That seems fair. People pay way more per hour for movies in the theater and other entertainment all the time.

load more comments