That really only could be considered even remotely plausible if everyone played online, but most people quickly discovered it was a trash money grab. Otherwise it’s no better value than any other story driven single player game.
Comment on GTA 6’s Publisher Says Video Games Should Theoretically Be Priced At Dollars Per Hour
echo64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Because everyone here is just reacting to the terrible Forbes headline because that’s all people do. Here’s the actual content that you can pick apart, instead of picking apart the headline that some Forbes editor wrote.
he thinks GTA is one of the best values on the market. Here’s what he said:
“In terms of our pricing for any entertainment property, basically the algorithm is the 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.”
So he was just saying that gta is good value for money given their metrics
TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world 1 year ago
echo64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
gta games are typically pretty competitive with everyone else in terms of value for money on the base game. it’s been a while since there has been a new GTA game, and the other game they have produced - red dead redemption - was incredible value for money given the content and length.
we can complain about a lot, I’ll be the first to say their online is a money sucking low effort playground. But the quality of their single-player experiences is at worst “very very competitive”.
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Ah but see, that may only be due to GTA V actually releasing as a single player game because Online wasn’t near being ready when the game launched. Now that Online is out and that’s where their focus has been, we will most likely see the base single player game quality suffer dramatically. Look at games like Call of Duty. They used to have phenomenal single player experiences, and now you’re lucky if you get something worth playing at all.
echo64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So I would point at rdr2. That came out long after gta v online made mountains of money. Large single-player experience. Online existed, didn’t detract.
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That may be true for many, but I’m willing to bet most of those “hours” they count are for GTA Online. Have they ever mentioned what percentage of players play Online versus all sales? Because that is something many of us have never and will never touch so it isn’t included at all in my value consideration other than a negative for the company to focus on INSTEAD of additional single player content.
If they want to turn GTA into an always online Game as a Service, that is their prerogative, but don’t try and hide it stuffed alongside a single player game they’ll ignore after release, and don’t be surprised when some people stop buying and playing when the only option is online multiplayer.
WindyRebel@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Cool, so could the makers of the software they use to make these games do the same to them? They should pay them all for the per hour value times the expected hours of development plus the terminal value perceived by expected income from sales! Yes, good business model. Maximize them profits!!!
echo64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
the makers of the software they use also have their own algorithms for determining pricing yes.
WindyRebel@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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 1 year ago
They aren’t proposing increasing the price
ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 1 year ago
He can still go fuck himself. I was promised single player DLC and instead they put their entire focus on GTA online which I’m sure will continue with 6. I’ll probably pirate it because, as much as I hate to admit it I’m still a fan, but I’m not giving them another cent.
verysoft@kbin.social 1 year ago
"I will pirate because you didnt give me sp dlc" is one of the craziest reasons ahaha. GTA 5 was good value all things considered, was a great game.
GarrettBird@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah, I’m going to have to agree. It had plenty of content to make up for its price tag.
echo64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I agree with the general sentiment of boo for not making dlc. but if your proposition is “i’m going to pirate your next game” then you’re probably just pushing them further into a direction you don’t want them to go.
VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s rockstar, they’ve enough money to not give a fuck no matter what.
wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 1 year ago
They were not going to shift course on game design based on a single sale turned pirate
echo64@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If you think that giant companies don’t look at social media responses to their games in order to make future decisions, I have a bridge to sell you.
verysoft@kbin.social 1 year ago
"I will pirate because you didnt give me sp dlc" is one of the craziest reasons ahaha. GTA 5 was good value all things considered, was a great game.