Do you agree with this?
Makes sense for a company executive looking for higher profits, maybe. I don't see price changes like that happening anytime soon though. Maybe movies should cost less than $1 since they offer so few hours of entertainment compared to games? Surely the movie execs would be open to that idea!
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh, I see many like to gauge a game's worth by the amount of content it has for the price asked, so I'm not really seeing this as some outragous statment. This is just the other side of this gamer-publisher/dev relationship evaluating their game's worth the same way many of us do regularly when deciding what game to buy.
Comment has been collapsed.
On the other hand, nowadays many AAA publishers cannot even deliver 60$'s worth on their release. Even worse some of them don't care enough to fixing their game. If a book has 300 pages and only 100 of them has some writings, does it justify the 3x price? Of course not. Just because some people like replay value games, doesn't mean every game should be like that. If everyone does that, that would surely drop the quality of games.
Someone wants a gameplay time per price? Congrats, it's a streaming service. When a game becomes a service, it isn't beneficial for the customers. This really isn't different than Unity's greed for download counts. They just prove the importance of DRM-free and open source like GOG and Godot.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that's where we are at. Publishers/devs want to keep players engaged with their product for as long as possible (especially MP games) and then try and sell them crap they don't even need for outrageous prices. And it works, so can't blame them for continuing to do it. At some point, the customers (us) have to take responsibility and stop this, like with paid mods. Just imagine if that became a reality. One of the best things about PC gaming, now being locked behind a paywall. Guess we just didn't care enough to battle these agressive mtx in our games. I don't know if AC3 had mtx, but 4 did. And that's a SP game from 2013. Ubisoft was already then setting the standard for mtx in SP games we see nowadays. And we let them. Why does RE4 Remake have mtx that lets you basically buy cheat codes? It's a SP game. That should be some sort of unlockable, not a paid thing. Same with costumes and even the OG music. Why isn't that in the game and free? Why is that priced?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, especially mobile gaming is like that. Even though most of them are mediocre games, those companies put most of their money into research and development about how can they make their games more addictive. Rest of it poor people who cannot control themselves and buy unnecessary stuff.
I guess something happened in 2013, since Dead Space 3 also had MTX. Most of them are just modern cheat-codes or some FOMO stuff that basically more skins. We here say we'll vote with our wallets and somehow people still buy those crap. I guess people who say that is a minority. Some indie studios use skins as a donation-y way but even that incite the whole MTX thing.
I guess what people don't understand here, what the devs really worked on to deserve a payment in return, like full-fledged expansion packs, not some different coloured skins. Yet people buy more inventory space, different colour skins, anything non-constructive. Some companies like EA even sold the already made parts of games as a DLC. They don't even hide it anymore and we see day 1 season passes and some companies made it further and introduce yearly season passes or just numbered them. There used to be gold editions that cover all expansions, nowadays gold edition means nothing. Even ultimate edition means nothing (Happened with Tekken 7).
We really should vote with our wallets but people sadly don't listen. Most upsetting part in my opinion is, they won't buy a 30$ indie game and somehow spend much more money on mobile games. Weird times.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed. SP games nowadays have mtx in the form of skins and cheat codes, which used to be free. As for MP games, it's all about FOMO baby. That's a powerful drug that can make people sink a ton of money on useless shit. Each Battle Pass and such now has some timer on it. Better get it now before it's gone (maybe forever?!). And yeah, voting with our wallet is thie waiy to go. Sadly, some vote with their wallet by spending dozens of $ on stupid mtx crap, and earning these companies billions. Why would they stop making billions? That just makes no sense. I saw some YT short where a dude was talking about his outfit in CS2... It was 200+$... It's a MP FPS where you don't even see 90% of your character. The only moment you see them is during the death screen. With the excuse of "cosmetics don't affect the gameplay" we're allowing this crap to spread more and more.
Also, don't get me started on the Year 1, Year 2, and other exapnsion pass crap. Ubisoft loves to do this with their Rainbow Six games. Like just give me the damn price for all future content. There was a game I was interested in (still am), Mudrunner and it's cousin SnowRunner. The second game has Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 season passes. I truly hate this model, but since it means they can split chunks of the game into more pieces and sell it at a premium, it will become the new standard (if it already hasn't) for SP games. Look at how Ubisoft sold Valhalla. The game has three editions. Deluxe Edition, Raganarok Edition and Complete Edition. Only the Complete Edition gives you the season pass. And since they don't sell it as a complete your bundle on Steam, you'll end up paying more later if you don't buy the Complete Edition now and buy the DLC and expansions separately. I'm ok with base game + expansion pass that covers all content they want to produce after. Like Witcher 3 did. It's expansion pass was like 20$. We were robbing CDPR for that price given what they provided us with in return.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's funny because I've been valuing my money spent with games based on how much time I spend with the game. So if I am to pay £50 on a game, I expect to get 50+ hours of gameplay from it.
A good example is Scorn, which costs £31.99 and offers 4-6 hours of gameplay, which barely satisfies and justifies the price. I don't like the idea of paying £100+ for a game I have to spend 100+ hours to complete though, but neither pay a tremendous amount of money for a game that is 2-5 hours.
What worries me is that if they would implement such BS in the industry, AAA companies would just bloat games to larger proportions to just milk more money without providing actual value of content.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm valuing like this myself. Indie games with less than 2 hours of gameplay basically are ripoffs if they are not free
But this BS what you say is already implemented. Ubisoft open world games are full of fillers and the rest of the newest open world AAA games too. Just see Starfield for example. I hope BG3 starts a new trend instead
Comment has been collapsed.
I am aware, but what happens with Ubisoft is that a year or so later the game comes to such a discount it's hard to pass. The game at launch costs $100+, but it drops by 90%. I've seen Far Cry 6 for just $15. It's a good offer. I don't expect other companies to do what Ubisoft does.
Not trying to defend them by any milage, but I saw the pattern.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't said I don't buy ubisoft games. I'm actually a sucker for AC and FC series. I love the stories fo AC. And there is an easily reachable 20% off bonus code for ubistore or it was in the past, that can be useable for games that are on sale too. They changed it so it cannot be used for the newest games in their first 3 months or so. But still nice. This said Ubisoft games are mostly full of filler stuff and there are not many new things in them except the visuals and the story. They just copy-paste each other.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also a big fan of AC franchise. I''ve played FC 1-3 only most recently, so I can't call myself a fan, but definitely enjoyed them. I like AC franchise a lot. I've played all of them, even the 2D ones including the PSP one, and DLC's from Black Flag. I don't see them as the worst gaming company, but they sure made some big fails and poor decisions with the franchises we both love all for the money.
Rockstar on the other hand delivers on a high-quality immersive experience. I loved GTA and am a big fan of the franchise too. Red Dead Redemption 1 was excellent, I've beaten it this year on an Emulator and RDR 2 is by far the best-detailed video game that there is. Having them to charge $100 for a game I'm more likely to accept it than from Ubisoft.
At the end of the day, no matter how much less or more they charge, companies like this take big risks but also make a lot of money. Money that some devs don't get to see.
Rockstar could pull it off and start charging premium quality prices for their single-player games and people would buy it, because, despite the flaws they have, they are extremely well-detailed worlds that have no comparison at the moment.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rockstar could pull it off and start charging premium quality prices for their single-player games and people would buy it, because, despite the flaws they have,
they are extremely well-detailed worlds that have no comparison at the moment.
Ahem
Baldur's Gate 3 would like to have a word.
Comment has been collapsed.
Baldur's Gate 3 and Larian is the only company I respect. I'd buy another game from them knowing what they do for their community.
Comment has been collapsed.
You want devs to focus on making good content, but then say stuff like, "This game isn't worth X price becuase it's only Y hours long", never taking into account if the game's content is good or not. So, you're kinda contradicting yourself, no?
Comment has been collapsed.
I have nothing against short games and having a quality experience from it, but I'm not willing to pay $200 for a GTA 6 or some open-world game that milks your hours spent. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
I also don't feel okay spending $100 for a 6 hours game, no matter how good that game was. I earn that money in a single day of work, so I'm not willing to trade for such a short experience that much money.
I am very much aware that games are now harder to make and cost more, especially since AAA companies try so hard to hit higher and higher expectations, but really, the resources are going in areas that don't justify the AAA'ness of games if all efforts are placed in a cinematic game filled with pretty visuals. I would rather see that time and effort put in gameplay, mechanics so that my time is spent gaming and not watching a movie. We really don't need games to look better. They already do as they are. I would rather have devs focus on creative freedom on the gameplay aspects, branching story and quality of life. Baldur's Gate 3 is a great example of a game that raises the bar and shows that AAA games can look amazing and play amazing.
That being said, my favorite games are narrative-driven, but I am careful how much I spend on a game when 6-12 months later I can get it in a bundle or at a massive discount. Everybody has a different way of valuing their time spent with a game, you might value quality 2-6 hours for a game that was $80-$100. I'd rather spend more time in that game for that money.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get all of that and agree. I don't buy do day 1 much, as I can't financially and many have tons of mtx that make them billions. But my point isn't really about the AAA games, but about small indie games. I think that this mindset prevalent in online gaming communities, where a game's value is somehow linked to the amount of content it has, used to either justify the price or complain about it, will hurt them. There was a post (now closed) where the person wanted to make fun of the dev and call them out for banning them from the Steam forums of that game. What did they do to get banned? They went to the forum to complain to the dev about the price of the game (the game is 10$) bc the length of the game is 2-3 hours. If I can I will pay full price for a game day 1. For me, it has nothing to do with me thinking the game is or isn't worth the money bc of how long it is. The amount I pay depends on my financial situation and nothing else. I just don't see playtime as something that can determine a game's quality or value for me. To me, the content of that game is what matters most.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get all of that and agree. I don't buy do day 1 much, as I can't financially and many have tons of mtx that make them billions. But my point isn't really about the AAA games, but about small indie games.
Actually, Indies are the ones that are saving the gaming industry. Not only they respect gamer's time, they offer creative gameplay and take a swing while AAA companies are afraid to make. Also, most Indies that I played have offered me beyond what I paid for even at full price. I've played Indies that cost roughly about $20 and got hundreds of hours of fun and interesting experiences.
My beef isn't with Indies to be honest, but with AAA companies that have the audacity to charge $100 and give you a broken game without having the dignity to at least launch their game in Early Access to at leat let people know their game might have some issues.
They went to the forum to complain to the dev about the price of the game (the game is 10$) bc the length of the game is 2-3 hours.
I see that being an issue, but $10 for 2-3 hours game is nothing to $50-$60 game that is 2-5 hours game. It doesn't have to be an exact 1 to 1 dollar ratio to mean something and as I said before, this doesn't apply the same for a solo or an indie dev. I don't treat the games and value the same. I often prefer to pay full price for an Indie game even if I can find it super cheap on a grey market, because I understand how much damage that causes for them. I probably needed to specify that this might be more inclined towards AAA companies.
I just don't see playtime as something that can determine a game's quality or value for me.
Neither do I. Despite maybe sounding like that. I don't mind short games. In fact, I go for them quite often because I don't want always long bloated games. I'm just more careful how much I wanna spend on a game that offers too little for me to even feel I got my money's worth the game. Content matters just as much, but I can't help but value how much money I spend on a game either. If I spend $60 on a game and I complete it in a few hours, that means I've got to spend another $60 on another game the next day. That becomes a problem and that's why I wanna feel I get my money's worth. Hopefully, that makes sense.
All in all, to conclude, I am mainly referring to AAA companies like Rockstar and others that want to charge you per hour. I never heard an Indie dev doing such things because it wouldn't work with them. Rockstar has the audacity to do it because they know people are crazy enough to pay $1000 if it would mean getting a premium car or a prestige horse in their online game. Not only these actions devalue gamer's taste more in gaming, but it also means that AAA companies like Rockstar can abuse their customers.
I just want games to be priced according to a value more people can afford to play. That way everybody wins.
Comment has been collapsed.
And suddenly every company will start creating videogames with hours of boring filler hours to fill their pockets.
Comment has been collapsed.
So they're saying DLC should also "theoretically" be priced at dollars per hour.
GTA 6’s publisher:
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this sounds like a terrible idea. The price of development does not scale linearly with playtime and some genres simply have a higher cost per unit of playtime than others. Imagine a tightly scripted FPS campaign, those will usually be in the 4-10h range, depending on the game, and a AAA game like that can cost as much as one of those massive open world Ubisoft titles, which can take 10 times as long to beat. Thus this would further discourage tightly scripted single player experiences and more open world padding...
Comment has been collapsed.
Ha, Rockstar games are fun but they're never getting £50 out of me let alone £200. GL to the whales, seems like GTA 6 is gonna be brutal for your wallets.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dollars per Hour? more like 2h content and 60h of grind. Sorry but now I have super hard time justify 60$ game
Comment has been collapsed.
I technically feel llike 1€ per hour for a game is good but IF such hour is of quality. If the price was per hour, devs would simply be engaged to streetch the game to be long but not necessarily enjoyable to make it worth.
Also who values such hours? Someone like me that plays slow would have to pay a lot more than a speedrunner.
More so, the development of hours into game isn't equal to the initial development of the game, so the later content is a lot easier to produce/cheaper.
Although I personally use it WHEN there's enjoyment to see if it's worth the price, it would never be viable for real prices.
I rarely ever pay full price for a game, so I definitely wouldn't pay any higher either.
Comment has been collapsed.
Someone like me that plays slow would have to pay a lot more than a speedrunner.
Same.
I take my time when playing my games. It's a leisure activity for me, not a race.
I usually end up w anywhere between 10 to 30% more time than what's listed on HLTB.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly, I usually take time just wandering watching nice parts of the scenery or searching for secret loot, quests and such.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here's another alternate pricing idea: having all the games you want in your library, but paying for them only if you actually play them.
(For all intents and purposes, this is not serious.)
Comment has been collapsed.
This would be absolutely terrible lol, they'd make long games just for the sake of money and not for quality
Comment has been collapsed.
Strauss Zelnick is known for being a d**k, and he will 100% push for this to happen.
Even Rockstar indirectly made fun of him in their games for his bad traits, based Brucie on his juice-head and narcissistic traits in GTA, and Herr Strauss on his greed and scam in RDR2.
No wonder Dan left Rockstar, and the "Letter to a brother Rodolfo" (Sam`s letter) in RDR2 pretty much sums it up:
Thank you for your letter. Sometimes, politics and the ways of "the Church (Take-2)" are not as pure as perhaps you wish they were.............
Perhaps, my weakness is a terrible sin, and the "concessions I granted them will lead me to hell", as you suggest, but equally, it is possible that your pride is also perhaps a little sinful.......
"I beg you to reconsider your plan to leave the mission. We need your energy here, amongst men........"
It is a shame seeing Rockstar in the state it is in the last couple of years.
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting read.
How come they could publicly make fun of the head of the company though? He was okay with it since he's literally making tens of millions a year off these games anyway?
And not that it matters now, but why did Dan leave?
Comment has been collapsed.
It was initially an internal joke (The Rockstar way, just like Statue of Liberty in GTA 4 making fun of the hot coffee incident), then it was spread out sometime when GTA 5 was about to launch, that Brucie is actually based on Zelnick, and then after few years RDR2 (with Herr Strauss character) came out taking another jab, by then the situation in Rockstar got even worse after Leslie Benzies was forced to leave, and after that Take-2`s owner Ryan Brant died, then Zelnick got even more power, and Dan Houser took a long pause before definitely leaving. It was easier to work with someone like Brant, who was a producer himself and understood Houser brothers vision, but Zelnick is a businessman focused on money rather than art and enjoyment.
Dan Houser is a writer/creator, it is exhausting when you are forced to delay your work because Online portion of the game is being constantly pushed for profit rather than releasing new work. It was first in doubt because some people thought that he just wanted to retire, but then he formed his own company Absurd Ventures, studio focused on "building narrative worlds, creating characters, and writing stories for a diverse variety of genres (video-games, live-action and animations........etc)
He clearly just wants to write new stuff without being limited and without being forced to post-pone his work.
Rockstar as much as it is a huge company and gets big revenue, it is still just a subsidiary of Take-2, Houser brothers did have a say in decision making, but most of the big decisions are handled by Take-2 as their owner especially after 2019 events, so working with someone like Strauss Zelnick does not help.
Comment has been collapsed.
He can only say this because there is always someone who will buy for bragging rights. No matter how ridiculous the price is.
Idiots like these are the reason why I never preorder and buy their games on a steep sale.
If you are willing to pay full price for a game that does not even exist, why should they not charge per hour?
Comment has been collapsed.
He can only say this because there is always someone who will buy for bragging rights. No matter how ridiculous the price is.
Facts
There's also the segment of the market who are compulsive buyers; they know they're not going to play the game for more than a few hours but they literally cannot help themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem with his ideal algorithm is where he will pull the numbers from. There are no constants in this formula only subjective variables. The price would have to fluctuate for every person playing the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah amazing idea there, all those big strategy games and RPGs would love that.
The funny thing is that a lot of us are already including the length of a game into our internal valuations of what it's worth to us, but it's certainly not a fixed scale. If I'm weighing up a few choices of which games I want to buy and play, the amount of time I'll spend playing it does weight on my decision, if two games are the same price and they both look good, I will probably choose the one that will keep me busy for longer.
But a 4 hour experience with a great story, unique characters that leaves you wanting more is a lot worth more to me in cost per hour than a 200 hour grindfest where I'm doing the same thing over and over just to get a new weapon or an achievement. And 'AAA' doesn't make up for that. Case in point for me, the 4 - 5 hours I spent with Stray and Untitled Goose game were far more enjoyable than the 50 I've ground on Agents of Mayhem and Gotham Knights. Those first two I got on Steam sales for a small discount from the RRP and it didn't feel like a rip-off at all. The two 'AAA' games I got in bundles for a fraction of their retail price, and still feel a bit ripped off.
Comment has been collapsed.
funny enough but many f2p games are where people spent most time on ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that's legit insane and I'm so surprised there's actually people agreeing with this. GTA 5's single player is around 80 hours to 100% and you know they count every one of those hours as "their offered hours". Alan Wake 2, an example they themselves used takes around 28h to 100% and that's a 50€ game, so roughly 2€ per hour. So you know they think they should be able to charge $160 for GTA V and since Online is such a dump of content, who knows what the real price in their eyes is since Online is around 5x the timesink of GTA V's 100% run just to get everything.
So either AAA developers will charge $800 for their game since "it's a lot of hours" or quality releases like Alan Wake have to lower their prices to like around $8 because the shallow and widely spread repetitive content of GTA deem the price of the content hours at, let's say, $60.
Those types of weasel-y statements are made to get people to approve the idea that excessive pricing is okay because they deem it so, instead of having consumer-friendly general maximum prices for products.
Of course, a short game should be cheaper to reflect the length, but to pretend that an "hour of gameplay" has any inherent value is ridiculous.
Comment has been collapsed.
If publishers EVER do this, my backlog would finally meet its maker. Ha!
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/11/11/gta-6s-publisher-says-video-games-should-theoretically-be-priced-at-dollars-per-hour/?sh=3c66267373f7
Comment has been collapsed.