Take two dollars for every hour you play
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
341 points (92.5% liked)
Games
32459 readers
1694 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
High quantity, low quality?
Maybe video games should be priced at value per hour
load more comments
(1 replies)
Any company that attacks modders can die in a fire. I for one won't be buying this crap.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Interesting. I wonder how they’d feel if the hardware and software they all used to make these games were charged the same way? Or how about the cars/public transit and roads they take to get to work?
Good idea Strauss.
Coming from a franchise who rakes in mountains of cash from GTA Online… The problem with pricing per hour is that there’s no measure of quality. You can create a junk game that took 200 million to develop and has hundreds of hours of gameplay. I also thought the point about movies was a good one. An excellent movie with big actors and a gigantic budget is usually priced the same
Please insert Shark Card to continue.
Take Two, are you fuckig high?
Take 2 is playing a dangerous game betting the farm on a single property and then trying to come up with new ways to milk it. When it falls out of favor it is going to sink them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
One Dollar One Hour? Did Take Two hire Spoole?
Thank you for bringing up some happy memories
Did John 'charge for ammo' Riccitello end up at take two this quickly!?
If it was a dollar an hour, then GTAV would be $1208...
But of course, TV AFKing took up a solid chunk of this time... because of forced waiting periods. Sooooo combine a pay-to-play per hour model and forced waiting periods then you've got MTX "Shark cards" with extra annoying steps.
Oh yeah, make me hate this rotten company even more dude. Keep it coming.
They should pay me for testing their beta software
They should pay me for testing their beta software
By your own admission you buy the games anyway. You could just not. Companies only listen when it hurts their bottom line.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Man, did any of you read the article?
"Zelnick is admitting that even though maybe this should be the case, that because of the nature of the market, there simply cannot be a pricing model like that, and the move to $70 recently is sort of the maximum they can hope for."
There absolutely can be a market like that. We're in a digital utopia where we don't actually own anything. You could even have a cutoff, where playing more doesn't charge you more. Gamers might even accept that, in a weird way. You rent it per hour up to 70 hours, and then you just "own" it.
But I suspect most of his stats show that there's a huge number of people out there who will spend $70 on a game on day one, play it for 10 hours and never touch it again. RDR2 for example has a 30% completion rate on PSN. 31% didn't even finish the first chapter. And he certainly doesn't want to say goodbye to that money.
I don't want a market like that because it will lead to even more time-wasting and busywork in games than there already is. But maybe that would backfire. If you played 10 hours of a game and it was mostly trudging about doing nothing, would you pay to play more of it?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Ima sell my watered down soup in dollars per deciliter.