You're viewing a single thread.
Permanently Deleted
Without further research, i have to imagine he means charged per hour of gameplay, so a 40 hour game, a 10 hour game, and a 120 hour game should all be priced differently.
Considering replay value I'm not sure how you actually accomplish that pricing method in a reasonable way, but i don't fault him for thinking in that way (assuming it is not actually streaming)
Edit:
I'm not saying i agree with the quote. I don't think it's fair to be angry at an assumption, so be mad at what he actually meant. Also, the actual quote at least has some level of merit, even if i think it's a bad idea (certainly not as awful as a subscription model).
Here's the full quote with source:
"Take-Two's CEO Strauss Zelnick isn't concerned with upsetting fandoms, as reinforced by his latest comments that video games should be priced on their “per hour value”, aka based on the hours of gameplay you get."
All that'll lead to is games becoming worse, and being dragged out in tedious ways to justify charging more..
Oh for sure. I mentioned above that i didn't mean to suggest that this idea is the correct one, only that i don't believe it was intended to mean subscription model. It's less of a greedy idea and more of just a bad idea (in my opinion). There is also at least some merit to the statement, i.e. if he's suggesting that triple a titles that are particularly short shouldn't be full price.
"Length" of a game is useless out of context. Games like the later assasins creed are bloated garbage with overinflated playtime. On the other hand you have games with procedural generation, optional endgames, post launch content and the simple fact that a small, but still significant amount of players will play through a short game multiple times, because they enjoyed it so much/wanna get better. (In my case, thats Furi)
What I am trying to say is, you can't really get a proper amount of hours of playtime for any game, unless its like 99% cutscenes.
I agree with you. I didn't mean to suggest that he's correct, only that i don't think he meant to infer a subscription model. In my opinion, that changes it from a particularly greedy idea to simply a poorly thought out one. Unless, of course, he really did mean subscription model.
Edit: Also i can see the logic if this ceo is looking down upon triple a titles that are particularly short but still charge full price.
He's an exec. It's safe to say he meant the subscription
I didn't want to make that assumption because then i run the risk of reacting more based on my own biases and less on the context of that was actually said. I did pursue the source of the quote:
"Take-Two's CEO Strauss Zelnick isn't concerned with upsetting fandoms, as reinforced by his latest comments that video games should be priced on their “per hour value”, aka based on the hours of gameplay you get."
I'll reiterate that i don't necessarily agree with this idea, but i can at least see where he's coming from. I've absolutely played games that were incredibly short (I'm looking at you, Fable 1), and thought wow, fun, but i spent $50 on this?
Yeah, they're going to lose a ton of money if they try this.