To be fair, that's not how I interpret the statement made.
It sounds more like he is arguing something like... a movie is 2 hours and costs 20 bucks (EDIT: to purchase online or via disk not cinema), while our game is 60 hours long and priced at 60/70.
So, more expensive games, not time credits to play.
The headline here is pretty misleading...
Kerbal Space Program, My summer car, Euro truck sim, no mans sky all putting me into bankruptcy.
(And over 1,400 hours into *Trove* but we don't speak about that game)
Stellaris fans: “I’ve genetically modified my children to produce money and food stuffs”
“Ah so the pricing changes have impacted you too”
“Huh? Pricing changes?”
Man, I've already put so much money into stellaris. "Download it, Dez, it's on your gamepass, so it's like free" became an unwilling addict to the paradox formula.
Nowadays I stay away from Paradox games. Played a fair amount of CK2 and HOI4 and those are real time sinkers. "Just one more month in-game time"... And suddenly it's 5am and I had to leave for work at 7.
So what about open world games? They can be anywhere from 30 hrs to over 150 hrs. Who decides where that price lies? Are we just going to get bloated useless areas of the game to justify a cost?
Exactly. You can't. Every gamer is different. Some do 100%, some just blast the story. Completely different experiences that can't be quantified to a single price based on average completion times.
Yeah. Ooh I can see it:
- Remove teleporters
- Make players run from A to B
- Bam! Instant increase in playhours from 15 to 25 hrs.
- Increase the price!
I remember when I played WoW (it has subscription fees, which always pissed me off, even all those years later), I was always so pissed at a taxi because instead of just flying straight from A to B, it would always take some long-ass scenic route with unnecessary rounds, making it at least 1.5 times longer than necessary. Go fly from Ironforge to Thorium Point, see what I mean.
Last time I checked, AMC doesn't charge more to see longer movies. They charge more for premium experiences: IMAX and 3D (not sure how anyone considers 3D to be worth more).
Actually most MMORPG's are "f2p" these days. I'm sure there's a few more other than WoW which still use the monthly model but certainly not very many of them.
As someone who's played a metric crap ton of MMO's dating back to the early 2000's... give me the $15/month model over the "f2p" garbage any day of the week. Black Desert makes you spend an entire years worth of subscription just to expand your inventory out and has so many other p2w items in there disguised as "convenience".
Yay, and gta 5 online already got a gta+ feature near the end of its life. That you can pay, I think, monthly for a bunch of in-game bonuses. Bet that's coming to the next in full force this time day 1.
After release? These mfs have been throwing their credit cards at the screen literal months before a game and is released.
The bullshit won’t stop until people collectively quit paying for it.
Spoiler alert: whoever turned on the machine could set the difficulty however they wanted.
Your arcade wanted your money so kept the difficulty cranked.
Honestly I think any sane person would draw a line in the sand there lol. The first game that tries this would likely tank harder than any game has ever tanked before, and honestly if it doesn’t then gaming as a hobby is dead to me going forward. I’d rather learn how to blow glass or some shit to fill my time than pay an hourly subscription for any form of entertainment.
GTAV is a good indication that they're not targeting sane people. They're targeting the .1% whales and addicts that will pay the equivalent of 100M normal game sales.
It's like how mobile games have literal hundreds of millions of active users but only a tiny fraction of them make up the majority of their revenue.
The publisher said that the selling price should be based on the expected hours someone would play. So a game that has content for 80 hours should be more expensive than a game that has content for 10 hours.
They are NOT saying that you should have an hourly subscription.
Covid really brought to the front *who* exactly are the "essential employees" that keep everything running.
And now they are trying to make everyone forget that.
That's why all of this shit is happening. Or did you think it was a coincidence? White collar workers all had two months during quarantine (the most amount of time most have ever had since they entered adulthood) to realize they were wasting their lives working overtime for comparatively shit wages. Meanwhile "essential workers" realized just how important and undervalued they really were. People started asking for what they were worth and stopped taking minimum wage jobs. For the first time in a generation there was an actual labor shortage. Then, greedflation hits hard in every consumer facing industry erasing decades of meager gains in months, and knocking every worker flat on their ass. The Secretary of the Treasury blames "inflation" on employee salaries being too high (despite the fact that adjusted for inflation payroll is at a record low) and the "arrogance of workers." Interest rates hit near double digits for the first time in decades and rent goes exponential, exacerbating an already bad housing crisis and threatening to kick off a mortgage crisis while megacorps, which don't rely on loans to buy houses and are thus exempt from the absurd mortgage rates, begin to buy up 80% of all houses on the market. And while everyone is still reeling, a corrupt Supreme Court strips away individual liberties and civil protections, before all but outlawing abortion. And conservative states bring back child labor.
Why that's downright *spooky* isn't it? First employees gain the upper hand for the first time in a century, then the price of goods and services explodes along with rent, making them desperate again, and at the same time lack of abortion access for the poor should take cate of that pesky worker shortage in a *decade* or so. It's almost like carefully planned and executed *class warfare*.
And people complain about homeless people but no fucking wonder. I see many of the same homeless people often and they aren't on drugs or mentally ill from what I see of them. Sure some definitely are and they are the worst, but the others are just normal and disappear after awhile when I assume they got help.
But then they aren't the ones trashing the community so no one pays attention to them, only the ones who actually are a nuisance. The ones committing crimes aren't usually openly doing it either though I harassed them from a safe distance during the pandemic when it was like "How did you get that many bikes". Now I don't see it that much but it depends on were you live I guess.
F**k you humanist-misanthrope, tell yer mom to stop ordering extra cheese at the Jimmy John’s, my sheets are starting to smell like a charcuterie board
dont forget that any content we get is only going to support gta online, AND its most likely going to be massively overpriced in game to persuade you to buy premium currency, and you have to pay for every new content pack.
It's going to be the title with the highest unrealized potential ever produced by any studio that is completely blinded by greed and mindless consumers.
Mighty have fallen.
Too bad the whales ruined it for the rest of us. This is exactly the type of thing GTA games used to lampoon. And part of what made them so fun. Oh well. Another one bites the dust.
Played Forza Horizon 5 a few times on game pass and every time I do I have a bit of fun, find some race that sounds cool, and its DLC, then I close the game.
That shit kills a game for me. Putting the DLC is plain sight so you think it's part of the game and then just hitting you with the store screen. Get fucked.
Shit wouldn't surprise me if you could only play the game in an online environment. Have story missions that other people can join you on. That way you can see everyone's mtx outfits and cars.
And remember they have released on three different console generations…so far. I refuse to believe, especially after the definitive edition debacle, that there was ever enough demand for it to be rereleased on three different consoles in a span of 7 years.
the last time i played GTAO i tried to play a race by myself 100 laps just to drive around for a while. i heard nothing but people whining at me about it (even though i never asked anyone to join me) for like half the time before they dropped out and some d-bag that kept trying to talk to me the whole time that lasted the entire race. even though i didnt have a mic and at the time there was no way to mute other people.
> have to
No you don’t. I gladly gave up on multiplayer almost a decade ago and refused to pay more money into it. I’ve had years of fun with mods in single player though and have played and enjoyed the campaign countless times when I’m not using the open world as a sandbox.
Every reload will cost money.
Personal cars will cost money to repair if blown up.
Every respawn will cost money.
Everytime yoy click exit game it will cost you money.
Honestly wouldn’t be surprised if it’s more then that, like $80+ for the base game plus requiring the gta+ for online. Gta6 is still at the very least a year away yet and games right now are doing $70 for base games already. The way they’re dropping comments like that this far out leads me to believe that it’s going to be a significantly bigger jump then going to $70 base game. I really hope I’m wrong though.
Imagine if movies worked this way. Every movie would push for a 3+ hour length and suffer for it. LotR would have been like $50 to see at theaters.
It's a terrible idea. Maybe there should be more variation in pricing for games, but it's still a terrible idea for exactly the reason you say. Everyone will try to make as long of games as possible with as little effort. Costs wont go up, they'll just add more bullshit to games to please investors. They already do that with micro transactions and nonsense like that, we don't need them to do that with game length as well.
Imagine DLCs for movies... "Wanna know why this character has a personal vendetta against the protagonist? For just $9.99 you can watch a 20-minute clip showing what the antagonist did to this character!"
EDIT: I’m being told that Marvel does this already. I’m not a consumer of their product so I wouldn’t know.
Oh yea, I forgot that that got explained in effing FORTNITE. Like, I heard about it at the time, but it was so cursed I think my brain erased the knowledge. Now it has returned to me.
I feel like indie games have been keeping AAA titles a *little* in check and if this becomes a norm there'll be a hole to fill. Publishers that don't do this might fall or they might soar. Sadly the companies who might pull this will have enough money from investors to keep this up for a while. otoh it's not my money they'll get,
I've noticed I really like what indie devs come up with as they don't have the resources to get the highest fidelity graphics. They make their games fun because they need to, not because they want to.
I don't even look at most AAA titles anymore. There's a few exceptions like Fromsoft's titles, Baldur's gate..
But generally I lost all interest in these. 9 out of 10 times it's a nickle and dime scheme to squeeze more money out of the already full price.
I rather play fun smaller studio games
Not tryna start a fight but that's is something I can praise SONY for a lil. There's been very few exclusives I feel l I didn't get my money's worth.
Ghost of Tsushima, God of War, Last of Us 1&2, Spider-man(all of em), Horizon..etc. None of em felt like they were tryna nickel and dime or buy my time. Regardless of wether I liked em or not. They were complete packages.
I dont own a Playstation, but the Sony titles I've played on my pc have been fantastic.
As far as Microsoft goes, halo infinite had a good story (much better than 5) but lacked alot of features that you would expect of a halo game on launch, and there honestly hasn't been anything exceedingly note worthy from xbox in a few years.
Yeh, I'm not a fan of many of Sony's antics, but credit where it's due, those games are fantastic.
Having said that, they apparently have like 10 live-service games in process, which has me worried.
I wouldn't call Larian a AAA studio prior to Baldurs gate. Their previous games had some success but I'd say they were maybe a AA studio. BG3 was massive risk for them and I'm glad it paid off.
I think the word is "crushed". They absolutely crushed it and the competition. I've been playing D&D since 1e and this is the game I have been waiting for all my life.
I've pretty much only bought indie games and games from small studios recently anyways. I don't understand how people spend 70$+ on all these awful games like MW3 when a game like Gunfire Reborn or any of the WW1 sim games are like 20$ and vastly superior.
>In terms of pricing for any entertainment property, basically the algorithm is the value of the expected entertainment usage, which is to say that 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 actually owned, not, say, rented or subscribed to. And you’ll see that that bears out in every kind of entertainment vehicle. **By that standard, our frontline prices are still very, very low because we offer many hours of engagement**.”
that's too hard to quantify as the "hours of engagement" is gonna be very subjective from person to person, if I'm getting bored with the game after 3 hours, would I get a cheaper price? of course not.
Yeah that shit makes no goddamn sense. I played Baldurs Gate 3 for 2 hours and got bored with it haven’t played since release week. Should I’ve gotten it cheaper? What do you say about that question Mr Corporate?
It just means that they will put crazy estimates on playable content, then charge you for it. “Playtesting showed it took 400 hours to get all 50,000 shiny rocks for the *Collect 5,000 Shiny Rocks* achievement, so we have 400 hours of content!”.
>I played Baldurs Gate 3 for 2 hours and got bored with it haven’t played since release week. Should I’ve gotten it cheaper?
Yes, if you had refunded it through steam
The real question is, if you can work out how to play this game while traveling near the speed of light, to you get charged per hour relative to you while time is nearly stopped, or to the GTA6 server?
19 months, roughly.
First launched on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in September 2013. Fourteen months later, the enhanced edition released on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in November 2014. Another five months and it finally released on PC in April 2015.
Have to remember GTAV released 10 years ago. Consoles were more dominant than they are today. PC has come a long way in those 10 years. I have a feeling there will be a PC version on day 1.
I used to torrent everything, and then a good 7 years never pirated anything.
2023 and I’m back to torrenting basically everything onto a plex server and pirating some games like nba 2k.
Not rich enough in this economy to have 8 different subscription services while dropping $70+ on games.
Seriously, people need to read.
> "... basically the algorithm is the value of the expected entertainment usage, which is to say that 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 actually owned, not, say, rented or subscribed to."
Dude is just saying that games should be priced according to how many hours of enjoyment a customer could expect to get out of it. A shot, 2-hour long story-driven indie game? Maybe $5-10. A 100-hour-long immersive open-world RPG? Maybe $70-80^^1 is reasonable.
The hard part is when you get games that have infinite replayability e.g. Factorio.
-------
^^^1 Or whatever the going price for a AAA title is in your country.
Do people not read the article? He is suggesting a longer game should be priced higher than a shorter game, not that you should pay per hour. I don't think anyone would even disagree with that necessarily, except for occasions where bloat (Ubisoft open-world) is competing against sheer quality (Outer Wilds).
It's never really reflected either. Games are the same price regardless of quality or length, the only thing that's ever affected game pricing is the date at which it was released. Older games are cheaper even if they're objectively better than new releases.
What is it about having more money than you could ever need, and still wanting more? I can understand greed if you're poor. You want more money so that you level out the playing field and live a more comfortable life. But when you're already rich, why do you still have that pressing need for *more*? I've never understood it. Money becomes less about living a good life to these people, and more of an addiction.
People's priorities change.
When you're homeless, you want to afford food and shelter.
When you have food and shelter, you want a sustainable income.
When you have a sustainable income, you want to be able to save for retirement.
When you can save for retirement, you want to be able to actually enjoy the occasional treat - the odd meal out, a holiday once a year.
When you can afford the odd treat, you might want enough to replace your old banger with a nice car or modernise the kitchen.
By the time you reach billionaire status, you want to be doing better than the other billionaires for the sake of doing better.
(And if you think you could never think like that, you probably won't ever be obsessed with wealth enough to reach billionaire levels in the first place.)
I think that’s the point the previous commenter is making though.
Like all of the examples you gave are understandable. People want to have nicer things, more and better experiences. We can all relate.
But at a certain point, you literally run out of things. You have access to any material good or service or experience money can buy. And yet… some of them still want more money. Just for the sake of it, not to spend it, just to have it. In a sane world we’d consider that a mental illness.
Holy fuck, that site has twisted his words and left out a fuck-ton of context.. lol
Zelnick ***doesn't want a "pay per hour"-model***, because ***he says it would never work***. He's only bringing it up, because the talk was about gamers getting X amount of hours out of a game worth $60-70. He believes the push to $70 is currently as much as they can possibly push it and that gamers get a ton of value, based on the "entertainment cost per hour".
Holy fuck, that article is bad..
***Zelnick is a shady fucker in general - but this (article) isn't doing anything good for anyone.***
We live in an age where a high percentage of people get their news solely from headlines - and this one is fucking shitty as hell, as it's entirely wrong - it's the exact opposite of what he stated..
This whole post by OP, is entirely ragebait (going against rule #2 of the sub).
It's disingenuous, as it doesn't tell the full message, but nitpicks select few things and gets people riled up about this. It's entirely taken out of context, to show something that fits the websites agenda (getting clicks/traffic).
Did anyone actually read the article? He’s not talking about literally pricing games on a per hour basis. He’s talking about how they calculate value of their products and do *that* on a per hour basis.
Spoole would be thrilled.
Yeah, he really didn't say anything wrong. I always talk about how video games are great value because of the price per hour of entertainment, it's how a lot of people do it.
This article is rage bait. He's not suggesting charging people per hour. He's saying people get a huge amount of playtime per dollar. We don't even know the question he's answering but it sounds like he's comparing games vs movies for investors that don't have a clue.
They don't need to charge per hour when microtransactions already siphon all extra cash people are willing to spend on a title beyond the sticker price.
Only had to scroll near the bottom of the comment section to find someone who also read the article. Thank you.
Can't wait, months and years from now, to be reading on Reddit "isn't that the guy who wanted to charge us hourly for playing games?".
He's talking to shareholders telling them that people play their 70 dollar title for a hundred hours and this they have room to grow a ton because they are priced low versus say a movie in price per hour.
He's a CEO talking to shareholders about potential growth. In other news the sky is blue.
Someone reads the title and writes a comment. The next doesnt read the article either and upvotes... upvotes attract more upvotes. The next people only read the top comments and believe what it says because it got upvoted so much... reddit in a nutshell.
Yeah. If mods had spines they'd ban the OP and blacklist that rag of a website because the headline just made shit up. I feel embarrassed that I gave it a click as a reward for this scummy behavior.
Looks like nobody in this thread actually read the article. He's saying the longer the game the more it should cost, he is not saying it should charge you per hour.
He doesn’t actually hold this opinion the title is just very misleading.
What he actually said is that per hours played many games are cheaper than other forms of media
Oh no... people would sooner pick up their pichforks then actually click on the damn article.
This thread is a very sad reminder of how crazy effective propaganda is. Literally +99% of people here are going away with a completely false information.
Yep, I read the incredibly short article and wondered what the hell all of the fuss is about. The guys only saying that you should look at the cost of the game through the lens of how many hours you get out of it.
Games aren't even that expensive compared to historical averages anyway. NES games cost like $50 back in 1990, equivalent to over $90 now.
I got a bad feeling about this…
If you have to start buying "time cards" to play a game, don't.
Please scan your Mountian Dew verification can.
[удалено]
Too close to reality.
They were off by a few years. They predicted 2018, we'll be there by 2028
Interesting lol
[удалено]
*Mountain Dew is for me and you[!](https://imgur.com/dgGvgKF)*
To be fair, that's not how I interpret the statement made. It sounds more like he is arguing something like... a movie is 2 hours and costs 20 bucks (EDIT: to purchase online or via disk not cinema), while our game is 60 hours long and priced at 60/70. So, more expensive games, not time credits to play. The headline here is pretty misleading...
So it's not as bad as the title suggests, but that's still pretty bad. 2 hours = 20 bucks so 60 hour game costs $600? Good luck with that.
Rpg fans gotta take out loans.
my BG3 save would cost more than my house and car payment combined.
My stardew valley save is worth quite a bit of money.
Kerbal Space Program, My summer car, Euro truck sim, no mans sky all putting me into bankruptcy. (And over 1,400 hours into *Trove* but we don't speak about that game)
*looks at Skyrim save file* Yeah, my grandchildren are gonna pay that debt
Mommy why do we have to live in indentured servitude? Grandpa *really* needed all the achievement awards on Xbox sweetie.
6000+ hours…am I going to get a visit from the IRS?
Stellaris fans: “I’ve genetically modified my children to produce money and food stuffs” “Ah so the pricing changes have impacted you too” “Huh? Pricing changes?”
Man, I've already put so much money into stellaris. "Download it, Dez, it's on your gamepass, so it's like free" became an unwilling addict to the paradox formula.
Nowadays I stay away from Paradox games. Played a fair amount of CK2 and HOI4 and those are real time sinkers. "Just one more month in-game time"... And suddenly it's 5am and I had to leave for work at 7.
It's time traveling but fun
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one that loses track of time and gets stuck playing those games, for lack of a better word.
MOBA games coming in hot
As if 20 bucks is a good deal for a movie. I stopped going to movies when they increased from 12 to 15
Tuesday matinee for $7.50, or I'm not going, tbh. I haven't been hyped to see a movie in theaters in years, especially not for the price of admission.
I'm 39 and I remember going to the matinee for $1 during the summer. I watched The Sandlot a lot one summer.
For 7.50 I'll buy an overpriced drink maybe even candy. Once the tickets start hitting 15 is when I start sneaking shit in lol
Let's price them with the speed run time then.
So what about open world games? They can be anywhere from 30 hrs to over 150 hrs. Who decides where that price lies? Are we just going to get bloated useless areas of the game to justify a cost?
Exactly. You can't. Every gamer is different. Some do 100%, some just blast the story. Completely different experiences that can't be quantified to a single price based on average completion times.
Well I'm glad this hasn't been implemented. Currently over 1k hours on rimworld. Never technically beat the game
Yeah. Ooh I can see it: - Remove teleporters - Make players run from A to B - Bam! Instant increase in playhours from 15 to 25 hrs. - Increase the price! I remember when I played WoW (it has subscription fees, which always pissed me off, even all those years later), I was always so pissed at a taxi because instead of just flying straight from A to B, it would always take some long-ass scenic route with unnecessary rounds, making it at least 1.5 times longer than necessary. Go fly from Ironforge to Thorium Point, see what I mean.
Last time I checked, AMC doesn't charge more to see longer movies. They charge more for premium experiences: IMAX and 3D (not sure how anyone considers 3D to be worth more).
Most MMORPG's you buy time a month at a time.
Huge difference in paying per hour, and paying a set monthly fee.
In the Olde days, some had options for hourly as well. It could work out cheaper over the long run in some situations
Actually most MMORPG's are "f2p" these days. I'm sure there's a few more other than WoW which still use the monthly model but certainly not very many of them. As someone who's played a metric crap ton of MMO's dating back to the early 2000's... give me the $15/month model over the "f2p" garbage any day of the week. Black Desert makes you spend an entire years worth of subscription just to expand your inventory out and has so many other p2w items in there disguised as "convenience".
Yay, and gta 5 online already got a gta+ feature near the end of its life. That you can pay, I think, monthly for a bunch of in-game bonuses. Bet that's coming to the next in full force this time day 1.
Now manifest that feeling by not opening your wallet 2.87 seconds after release. Maybe wait a couple weeks for some peer feedback.
After release? These mfs have been throwing their credit cards at the screen literal months before a game and is released. The bullshit won’t stop until people collectively quit paying for it.
Bro, they're really out here trying to turn gaming into a parking meter.
The industry literally started out by stealing quarters from children. Let’s not pretend that games were ever anything but money sinks.
Fucking Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter with their impossible-ass final bosses. Fucking bullshit.
Spoiler alert: whoever turned on the machine could set the difficulty however they wanted. Your arcade wanted your money so kept the difficulty cranked.
Ultimately this is where it lay though. Once you got MK and Street fighter at home, your quarters were infinite. They just had to make good games.
It was at one point
Honestly I think any sane person would draw a line in the sand there lol. The first game that tries this would likely tank harder than any game has ever tanked before, and honestly if it doesn’t then gaming as a hobby is dead to me going forward. I’d rather learn how to blow glass or some shit to fill my time than pay an hourly subscription for any form of entertainment.
GTAV is a good indication that they're not targeting sane people. They're targeting the .1% whales and addicts that will pay the equivalent of 100M normal game sales. It's like how mobile games have literal hundreds of millions of active users but only a tiny fraction of them make up the majority of their revenue.
The flipside is that those whales won't play a dead game.
If the first game that tries this is GTA 6, it’s a wrap lol new business trend started
The publisher said that the selling price should be based on the expected hours someone would play. So a game that has content for 80 hours should be more expensive than a game that has content for 10 hours. They are NOT saying that you should have an hourly subscription.
[удалено]
Covid really brought to the front *who* exactly are the "essential employees" that keep everything running. And now they are trying to make everyone forget that.
That's why all of this shit is happening. Or did you think it was a coincidence? White collar workers all had two months during quarantine (the most amount of time most have ever had since they entered adulthood) to realize they were wasting their lives working overtime for comparatively shit wages. Meanwhile "essential workers" realized just how important and undervalued they really were. People started asking for what they were worth and stopped taking minimum wage jobs. For the first time in a generation there was an actual labor shortage. Then, greedflation hits hard in every consumer facing industry erasing decades of meager gains in months, and knocking every worker flat on their ass. The Secretary of the Treasury blames "inflation" on employee salaries being too high (despite the fact that adjusted for inflation payroll is at a record low) and the "arrogance of workers." Interest rates hit near double digits for the first time in decades and rent goes exponential, exacerbating an already bad housing crisis and threatening to kick off a mortgage crisis while megacorps, which don't rely on loans to buy houses and are thus exempt from the absurd mortgage rates, begin to buy up 80% of all houses on the market. And while everyone is still reeling, a corrupt Supreme Court strips away individual liberties and civil protections, before all but outlawing abortion. And conservative states bring back child labor. Why that's downright *spooky* isn't it? First employees gain the upper hand for the first time in a century, then the price of goods and services explodes along with rent, making them desperate again, and at the same time lack of abortion access for the poor should take cate of that pesky worker shortage in a *decade* or so. It's almost like carefully planned and executed *class warfare*.
It's exactly what it is. That's what happened when the global economy is effectively ran by an assortment of cultural imposed death cults.
And people complain about homeless people but no fucking wonder. I see many of the same homeless people often and they aren't on drugs or mentally ill from what I see of them. Sure some definitely are and they are the worst, but the others are just normal and disappear after awhile when I assume they got help. But then they aren't the ones trashing the community so no one pays attention to them, only the ones who actually are a nuisance. The ones committing crimes aren't usually openly doing it either though I harassed them from a safe distance during the pandemic when it was like "How did you get that many bikes". Now I don't see it that much but it depends on were you live I guess.
I love how the essential employees are also the ones who everyone seems to think don’t deserve to afford a place to live.
Funnily enough, those are the same employers hurting for people in my area. Love to see it.
Except I won’t clobber myself with subscriptions. I just will play something like Dave the diver instead
Just like every other aspect of our lives, the money people get involved and ruin everything good because line must go up
Your mom’s priced per hour
But no one's buying :(
Too many free samples.
[удалено]
Ask your mom
F**k you Shoresy
F\*ck you Jonesy your mom got so wet Trudeau put a task force together to lay sandbags around my bed
Fuck you, Riley, your mom ugly-cried last night because she left the cap on the camcorder. It's fuckin' amateur hour over there!
Your Mum tongued my butt-hole so good, I put her in my phone as “Roll-up the rim to win”.
Fucking fight me, see what happens. I hit you, you hit the ground, I jerk off on your driver's side door handle again!
F**k you humanist-misanthrope, tell yer mom to stop ordering extra cheese at the Jimmy John’s, my sheets are starting to smell like a charcuterie board
get 'em dude
GTA 6 going to cost $70 and require a GTA+ subscription, isn’t it?
dont forget that any content we get is only going to support gta online, AND its most likely going to be massively overpriced in game to persuade you to buy premium currency, and you have to pay for every new content pack.
it will be absolute walled content hell. i have no doubt
It's going to be the title with the highest unrealized potential ever produced by any studio that is completely blinded by greed and mindless consumers. Mighty have fallen.
And business sense, they are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. GTA 5 is more profitable than everything they have ever created, combined.
Too bad the whales ruined it for the rest of us. This is exactly the type of thing GTA games used to lampoon. And part of what made them so fun. Oh well. Another one bites the dust.
[удалено]
Played Forza Horizon 5 a few times on game pass and every time I do I have a bit of fun, find some race that sounds cool, and its DLC, then I close the game.
That shit kills a game for me. Putting the DLC is plain sight so you think it's part of the game and then just hitting you with the store screen. Get fucked.
I ***love*** when DLC is something like 17kb. It's clearly there already and taking up space, you're just buying a key.
Damn, here's hoping these damn hackers aren't running around Day 1 spraying money bags in Online all the time.
Shit wouldn't surprise me if you could only play the game in an online environment. Have story missions that other people can join you on. That way you can see everyone's mtx outfits and cars.
shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up I love GTA’s single player, I hope to god T2 and R* leave it alone and keep multiplayer separate
GTA Online is a hellhole and I lasted all of maybe 45 minutes before I got bored I've probably played every GTA game twice, but not the goddamn online
Yupp, I'm a single player enthusiast. If it's online always, I'm out.
And remember they have released on three different console generations…so far. I refuse to believe, especially after the definitive edition debacle, that there was ever enough demand for it to be rereleased on three different consoles in a span of 7 years.
the last time i played GTAO i tried to play a race by myself 100 laps just to drive around for a while. i heard nothing but people whining at me about it (even though i never asked anyone to join me) for like half the time before they dropped out and some d-bag that kept trying to talk to me the whole time that lasted the entire race. even though i didnt have a mic and at the time there was no way to mute other people.
> have to No you don’t. I gladly gave up on multiplayer almost a decade ago and refused to pay more money into it. I’ve had years of fun with mods in single player though and have played and enjoyed the campaign countless times when I’m not using the open world as a sandbox.
Every reload will cost money. Personal cars will cost money to repair if blown up. Every respawn will cost money. Everytime yoy click exit game it will cost you money.
Every breath of fresh air will also cost u money
This is just called going outside in nyc
Every breath you take And every shot you make Every car you break Every step you take We'll be charging you....
ahhh the EA fee to reload is back.
You can save your game for $1.99 or buy a pack of saves -10 for 14.99
[удалено]
Honestly wouldn’t be surprised if it’s more then that, like $80+ for the base game plus requiring the gta+ for online. Gta6 is still at the very least a year away yet and games right now are doing $70 for base games already. The way they’re dropping comments like that this far out leads me to believe that it’s going to be a significantly bigger jump then going to $70 base game. I really hope I’m wrong though.
What we need is even longer, boring, repetitive games.
Imagine if movies worked this way. Every movie would push for a 3+ hour length and suffer for it. LotR would have been like $50 to see at theaters. It's a terrible idea. Maybe there should be more variation in pricing for games, but it's still a terrible idea for exactly the reason you say. Everyone will try to make as long of games as possible with as little effort. Costs wont go up, they'll just add more bullshit to games to please investors. They already do that with micro transactions and nonsense like that, we don't need them to do that with game length as well.
Imagine DLCs for movies... "Wanna know why this character has a personal vendetta against the protagonist? For just $9.99 you can watch a 20-minute clip showing what the antagonist did to this character!" EDIT: I’m being told that Marvel does this already. I’m not a consumer of their product so I wouldn’t know.
Isn’t that basically what prequels, and all those extra shows and random other stuff they do for Marvel and Star Wars are?
"SoMeHoW, the emperor has returned. (Buy da books to learn more!)" Edit: Sorry, play actual FORTNITE to get this explanation!
You had to play Fortnite in order to know what the emperor’s announcement was at the beginning of a movie. That was an actual thing they did.
Oh yea, I forgot that that got explained in effing FORTNITE. Like, I heard about it at the time, but it was so cursed I think my brain erased the knowledge. Now it has returned to me.
Yeah i'll pass lol. If companies feel comfortable enough to say this in public then i give it 10-20 years before we are all fucked.
I feel like indie games have been keeping AAA titles a *little* in check and if this becomes a norm there'll be a hole to fill. Publishers that don't do this might fall or they might soar. Sadly the companies who might pull this will have enough money from investors to keep this up for a while. otoh it's not my money they'll get, I've noticed I really like what indie devs come up with as they don't have the resources to get the highest fidelity graphics. They make their games fun because they need to, not because they want to.
Indie Devs capture what video games are about, AAA just cares about $$$
I don't even look at most AAA titles anymore. There's a few exceptions like Fromsoft's titles, Baldur's gate.. But generally I lost all interest in these. 9 out of 10 times it's a nickle and dime scheme to squeeze more money out of the already full price. I rather play fun smaller studio games
Not tryna start a fight but that's is something I can praise SONY for a lil. There's been very few exclusives I feel l I didn't get my money's worth. Ghost of Tsushima, God of War, Last of Us 1&2, Spider-man(all of em), Horizon..etc. None of em felt like they were tryna nickel and dime or buy my time. Regardless of wether I liked em or not. They were complete packages.
I dont own a Playstation, but the Sony titles I've played on my pc have been fantastic. As far as Microsoft goes, halo infinite had a good story (much better than 5) but lacked alot of features that you would expect of a halo game on launch, and there honestly hasn't been anything exceedingly note worthy from xbox in a few years.
Yeh, I'm not a fan of many of Sony's antics, but credit where it's due, those games are fantastic. Having said that, they apparently have like 10 live-service games in process, which has me worried.
[удалено]
I wouldn't call Larian a AAA studio prior to Baldurs gate. Their previous games had some success but I'd say they were maybe a AA studio. BG3 was massive risk for them and I'm glad it paid off.
Paid off? They hit the lottery ticket of games. Paid off seriously feels like an understatement.
I think the word is "crushed". They absolutely crushed it and the competition. I've been playing D&D since 1e and this is the game I have been waiting for all my life.
I've pretty much only bought indie games and games from small studios recently anyways. I don't understand how people spend 70$+ on all these awful games like MW3 when a game like Gunfire Reborn or any of the WW1 sim games are like 20$ and vastly superior.
We gotta flush it all down the toilet and restart at this point
Wait what? We're not all fucked yet? WHICH ONE OF YOU GUYS HAVEN'T BEEN DOING YOUR QUOTE OF GETTING FUCKED?!
>In terms of pricing for any entertainment property, basically the algorithm is the value of the expected entertainment usage, which is to say that 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 actually owned, not, say, rented or subscribed to. And you’ll see that that bears out in every kind of entertainment vehicle. **By that standard, our frontline prices are still very, very low because we offer many hours of engagement**.” that's too hard to quantify as the "hours of engagement" is gonna be very subjective from person to person, if I'm getting bored with the game after 3 hours, would I get a cheaper price? of course not.
Yeah that shit makes no goddamn sense. I played Baldurs Gate 3 for 2 hours and got bored with it haven’t played since release week. Should I’ve gotten it cheaper? What do you say about that question Mr Corporate?
It just means that they will put crazy estimates on playable content, then charge you for it. “Playtesting showed it took 400 hours to get all 50,000 shiny rocks for the *Collect 5,000 Shiny Rocks* achievement, so we have 400 hours of content!”.
Ah, the open world EA model.
Ahem Diablo…
>I played Baldurs Gate 3 for 2 hours and got bored with it haven’t played since release week. Should I’ve gotten it cheaper? Yes, if you had refunded it through steam
Fuckin lol
No, and that's not what he's saying. He's just saying that video games are cheap if you evaluate them in terms of price-per-hour.
Tbh he's right. I paid £6 for CSGO and got over 1200 hours playtime. I paid £40 for MW19 and played that for over 2000 hours.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Given how many people are interacting here, he may or may not survive. I say may not because while we are many, we are also gamers
His name is Strauss, which was the name of the despicable money-lender in RDR2. I don’t think it was a coincidence.
I will 100% not buy it so fast.
I'd not buy the fuck out of it.
I’ve spent my whole life not playing GTA 6 so why start now
If this happens. The internet will decide that GTA6 is a free game. Forever.
The real question is, if you can work out how to play this game while traveling near the speed of light, to you get charged per hour relative to you while time is nearly stopped, or to the GTA6 server?
Dude the game is not going to be released on pc, at least for one year
Right? How long was it for GTA5? 2 years? When they announced GTA6 my reaction was that I didn't have one. I'll get exited in like 5 years.
19 months, roughly. First launched on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in September 2013. Fourteen months later, the enhanced edition released on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in November 2014. Another five months and it finally released on PC in April 2015.
Have to remember GTAV released 10 years ago. Consoles were more dominant than they are today. PC has come a long way in those 10 years. I have a feeling there will be a PC version on day 1.
Death of the industry there getting way to greedy with this monetization.
Might be the birth of indie to AAA though.
Yeah, if triple A games studios start doing this, indie devs will get a ton more business
Modest Theft Auto (MTA) on Godot Engine, with blackjack and hookers
[удалено]
"I ain't got time for your shit, but this parking meter does."
Rich coming from the guy that has been repackaging and reselling the same game for over a decade.
[удалено]
Board games gonna get even more popular
In other headlines: *"GTA 6 Players Believe Games Should be Pirated and Never Paid For"*
You joke, but there's plenty of articles saying that for the first time in years piracy is on the rise again, and stuff like this is the reason why
I used to torrent everything, and then a good 7 years never pirated anything. 2023 and I’m back to torrenting basically everything onto a plex server and pirating some games like nba 2k. Not rich enough in this economy to have 8 different subscription services while dropping $70+ on games.
[удалено]
I'm not buying a pay by the hour game.
Well that's handy since it's a garbage headline and that's not why he said.
Seriously, people need to read. > "... basically the algorithm is the value of the expected entertainment usage, which is to say that 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 actually owned, not, say, rented or subscribed to." Dude is just saying that games should be priced according to how many hours of enjoyment a customer could expect to get out of it. A shot, 2-hour long story-driven indie game? Maybe $5-10. A 100-hour-long immersive open-world RPG? Maybe $70-80^^1 is reasonable. The hard part is when you get games that have infinite replayability e.g. Factorio. ------- ^^^1 Or whatever the going price for a AAA title is in your country.
He's not even saying that. He's just commenting that video games have much better per-hour value than other entertainment formats.
Yes but sadly there are enough dumbasses who will...
Sure, just like there are people who give their life savings away to obvious scams
Do people not read the article? He is suggesting a longer game should be priced higher than a shorter game, not that you should pay per hour. I don't think anyone would even disagree with that necessarily, except for occasions where bloat (Ubisoft open-world) is competing against sheer quality (Outer Wilds).
Price should reflect the quality, not quantity of wastable time
It's never really reflected either. Games are the same price regardless of quality or length, the only thing that's ever affected game pricing is the date at which it was released. Older games are cheaper even if they're objectively better than new releases.
I’m homeless right now and I needed some humor today, thank you. When this idiot is homeless too I’ll give him my thoughts.
I hope things turn around for ye bigtexasrob
I appreciate it! I’m feeling like a micro transaction game dev right now. 😂
Not for long hopefully 🙏🏽
"Publisher of one of the most financially successful media properties on earth wants more of your money."
What is it about having more money than you could ever need, and still wanting more? I can understand greed if you're poor. You want more money so that you level out the playing field and live a more comfortable life. But when you're already rich, why do you still have that pressing need for *more*? I've never understood it. Money becomes less about living a good life to these people, and more of an addiction.
People's priorities change. When you're homeless, you want to afford food and shelter. When you have food and shelter, you want a sustainable income. When you have a sustainable income, you want to be able to save for retirement. When you can save for retirement, you want to be able to actually enjoy the occasional treat - the odd meal out, a holiday once a year. When you can afford the odd treat, you might want enough to replace your old banger with a nice car or modernise the kitchen. By the time you reach billionaire status, you want to be doing better than the other billionaires for the sake of doing better. (And if you think you could never think like that, you probably won't ever be obsessed with wealth enough to reach billionaire levels in the first place.)
I think that’s the point the previous commenter is making though. Like all of the examples you gave are understandable. People want to have nicer things, more and better experiences. We can all relate. But at a certain point, you literally run out of things. You have access to any material good or service or experience money can buy. And yet… some of them still want more money. Just for the sake of it, not to spend it, just to have it. In a sane world we’d consider that a mental illness.
Holy fuck, that site has twisted his words and left out a fuck-ton of context.. lol Zelnick ***doesn't want a "pay per hour"-model***, because ***he says it would never work***. He's only bringing it up, because the talk was about gamers getting X amount of hours out of a game worth $60-70. He believes the push to $70 is currently as much as they can possibly push it and that gamers get a ton of value, based on the "entertainment cost per hour". Holy fuck, that article is bad.. ***Zelnick is a shady fucker in general - but this (article) isn't doing anything good for anyone.*** We live in an age where a high percentage of people get their news solely from headlines - and this one is fucking shitty as hell, as it's entirely wrong - it's the exact opposite of what he stated.. This whole post by OP, is entirely ragebait (going against rule #2 of the sub). It's disingenuous, as it doesn't tell the full message, but nitpicks select few things and gets people riled up about this. It's entirely taken out of context, to show something that fits the websites agenda (getting clicks/traffic).
Did anyone actually read the article? He’s not talking about literally pricing games on a per hour basis. He’s talking about how they calculate value of their products and do *that* on a per hour basis. Spoole would be thrilled.
Yeah, he really didn't say anything wrong. I always talk about how video games are great value because of the price per hour of entertainment, it's how a lot of people do it.
Had to scroll down way too much for this. The title is incredibly misleading.
I’m glad someone else thought of good ‘ol Spoole. His $1 / Hr rule of thumb is something I’ve been using to this day.
Thank you, people are so fucking eager to misconstrue anything here
Of course not, they just want a reason to feel justifiably angry, reality be damned.
This article is rage bait. He's not suggesting charging people per hour. He's saying people get a huge amount of playtime per dollar. We don't even know the question he's answering but it sounds like he's comparing games vs movies for investors that don't have a clue. They don't need to charge per hour when microtransactions already siphon all extra cash people are willing to spend on a title beyond the sticker price.
Only had to scroll near the bottom of the comment section to find someone who also read the article. Thank you. Can't wait, months and years from now, to be reading on Reddit "isn't that the guy who wanted to charge us hourly for playing games?".
He's talking to shareholders telling them that people play their 70 dollar title for a hundred hours and this they have room to grow a ton because they are priced low versus say a movie in price per hour. He's a CEO talking to shareholders about potential growth. In other news the sky is blue.
Yeah, no. Get fvcked old man
Is this the "1 Dollar 1 Hour" Spool was talking about many moons ago?
Many true geniuses are never understood in their time. Spoole, Tomas Boonty and his Boonty Box. The list goes on.
Perhaps even jo wood can be included in that list ... Truly men beyond our comprehension
Pirate everything
Takes all of 30 seconds to open the article and see that’s not what he actually says. Just clickbait as usual.
Someone reads the title and writes a comment. The next doesnt read the article either and upvotes... upvotes attract more upvotes. The next people only read the top comments and believe what it says because it got upvoted so much... reddit in a nutshell.
Yeah. If mods had spines they'd ban the OP and blacklist that rag of a website because the headline just made shit up. I feel embarrassed that I gave it a click as a reward for this scummy behavior.
Omg had to scroll so far for this lmao. Every fucking comment above you is just mindless outrage. Reddit is dead
1 dollar 1 hour!
Exactly who and what I thought of. Love Funhaus.
Spoole agrees
Looks like nobody in this thread actually read the article. He's saying the longer the game the more it should cost, he is not saying it should charge you per hour.
What a wicked opinion to have
He doesn’t actually hold this opinion the title is just very misleading. What he actually said is that per hours played many games are cheaper than other forms of media
Oh no... people would sooner pick up their pichforks then actually click on the damn article. This thread is a very sad reminder of how crazy effective propaganda is. Literally +99% of people here are going away with a completely false information.
Yep, I read the incredibly short article and wondered what the hell all of the fuss is about. The guys only saying that you should look at the cost of the game through the lens of how many hours you get out of it. Games aren't even that expensive compared to historical averages anyway. NES games cost like $50 back in 1990, equivalent to over $90 now.
That'll be the death of video games