Depending on how exactly this is meant, this might not be controversial.
Games like GTA or RDR offer literally hundreds of hours of entertainment, while other titles like all those yearly sports games or something like CoD probably get less playtime per release. So it makes sense to price the “long plays” higher than the “short plays”.
Games like GTA or RDR offer literally hundreds of hours of entertainment, while other titles like all those yearly sports games or something like CoD probably get less playtime per release. So it makes sense to price the “long plays” higher than the “short plays”.
So how would live-service games fit into that dynamic? Couldn’t Activision argue that CoD is a live-service game, and therefore, should be priced differently somehow?
Not ragging on you or anything, this is an actual question for discussion.
Games that are played for many hours are already rewarded by being more popular, meaning more people buy them, meaning more revenue. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. It’d be like charging people based on how many times they read a book. I must have read LOTR a hundred times by now, and the Tolkien estate has benefitted not only from me buying the books multiple times (softcover, hardcover, kindle, audiobook) and giving them as gifts, but also from every other person on the planet doing the same.
Make a better product, and people will use it more, and more people will buy it. This is just drink verification can bullshit.
Honestly, I sorta hope they try it, just so they can blow millions of dollars on something that was absolutely doomed and I would hope it craters the company, or at least some careers.
It’d be like charging people based on how many times they read a book.
No, it’s like paying more for a thicker book.
Also, you just admitted to paying more for the same thing by buying it multiple times. So you’re obviously already willing to continue paying for the same entertainment.
You don’t pay more for a thicker book. That’s an absolutely ridiculous notion and it’s not how the industry works. At all. The value of a book is the quality of the writing, not its length.
Second, I could have read each of those individual books as many times as I wanted. I was buying different products each time. I’mnot paying for the same entertainment at all. It’s more like buying the same e game on Xbox and on switch, if that makes it easier for you.
It’s a stupid fucking idea, and it’s exactly what got Unity rightfully smacked down just a week or so ago.
Imagine for me a world where executives want to maximize extraction of funds out of consumers. Now imagine “filler” in video games. Finally, imagine games psychology and how to keep the player running after that carrot on a stick.
No, it like being charged hourly to read a book, and the book has a bunch of copied and pasted paragraphs saying “protagonist killed 10 chickens.” And the ending to the book costs extra.
And you still have to buy the whole book before doing any of that.
Not everyone uses every product for the same amount of time. That’s the first problem with this way of thinking. But let’s pretend that isn’t the case and apply this thinking to other forms of entertainment.
If I enjoy playing basketball should I have to pay by the hour to own a basketball?
Chess is one of the oldest games and it has way more hours played than all GTA games combined. Should we have to pay by the hour for a chess set?
Why stop at entertainment? I use my bed more than any game I’ve ever played. Does that mean I should pay by the hour to own a bed?
Seems pretty clear what motivated this CEO to say this… greed
Depending on how exactly this is meant, this might not be controversial.
Games like GTA or RDR offer literally hundreds of hours of entertainment, while other titles like all those yearly sports games or something like CoD probably get less playtime per release. So it makes sense to price the “long plays” higher than the “short plays”.
So how would live-service games fit into that dynamic? Couldn’t Activision argue that CoD is a live-service game, and therefore, should be priced differently somehow?
Not ragging on you or anything, this is an actual question for discussion.
De facto that already happened - see WoW, it has been running that model for years.
At the end of the day, publishers can charge however they want, and there have been many different attempts already.
No. Seriously, just fucking no.
Games that are played for many hours are already rewarded by being more popular, meaning more people buy them, meaning more revenue. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. It’d be like charging people based on how many times they read a book. I must have read LOTR a hundred times by now, and the Tolkien estate has benefitted not only from me buying the books multiple times (softcover, hardcover, kindle, audiobook) and giving them as gifts, but also from every other person on the planet doing the same.
Make a better product, and people will use it more, and more people will buy it. This is just drink verification can bullshit.
Honestly, I sorta hope they try it, just so they can blow millions of dollars on something that was absolutely doomed and I would hope it craters the company, or at least some careers.
No, it’s like paying more for a thicker book.
Also, you just admitted to paying more for the same thing by buying it multiple times. So you’re obviously already willing to continue paying for the same entertainment.
No, and no.
You don’t pay more for a thicker book. That’s an absolutely ridiculous notion and it’s not how the industry works. At all. The value of a book is the quality of the writing, not its length.
Second, I could have read each of those individual books as many times as I wanted. I was buying different products each time. I’mnot paying for the same entertainment at all. It’s more like buying the same e game on Xbox and on switch, if that makes it easier for you.
It’s a stupid fucking idea, and it’s exactly what got Unity rightfully smacked down just a week or so ago.
You’re so close.
Imagine for me a world where executives want to maximize extraction of funds out of consumers. Now imagine “filler” in video games. Finally, imagine games psychology and how to keep the player running after that carrot on a stick.
I’m sure you see where this is going.
(I realise this is even better under your comment here).
No, it like being charged hourly to read a book, and the book has a bunch of copied and pasted paragraphs saying “protagonist killed 10 chickens.” And the ending to the book costs extra.
And you still have to buy the whole book before doing any of that.
Not everyone uses every product for the same amount of time. That’s the first problem with this way of thinking. But let’s pretend that isn’t the case and apply this thinking to other forms of entertainment.
If I enjoy playing basketball should I have to pay by the hour to own a basketball?
Chess is one of the oldest games and it has way more hours played than all GTA games combined. Should we have to pay by the hour for a chess set?
Why stop at entertainment? I use my bed more than any game I’ve ever played. Does that mean I should pay by the hour to own a bed?
Seems pretty clear what motivated this CEO to say this… greed