this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
428 points (92.8% liked)
Games
32946 readers
975 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because everyone here is just reacting to the terrible Forbes headline because that's all people do. Here's the actual content that you can pick apart, instead of picking apart the headline that some Forbes editor wrote.
So he was just saying that gta is good value for money given their metrics
He can still go fuck himself. I was promised single player DLC in GTA 5 and instead they put their entire focus on GTA online which I'm sure will continue with 6. I'll probably pirate it because, as much as I hate to admit it I'm still a fan, but I'm not giving them another cent.
"I will pirate because you didnt give me sp dlc" is one of the craziest reasons ahaha. GTA 5 was good value all things considered, was a great game.
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree. It had plenty of content to make up for its price tag.
I agree with the general sentiment of boo for not making dlc. but if your proposition is "i'm going to pirate your next game" then you're probably just pushing them further into a direction you don't want them to go.
It's rockstar, they've enough money to not give a fuck no matter what.
They were not going to shift course on game design based on a single sale turned pirate
If you think that giant companies don't look at social media responses to their games in order to make future decisions, I have a bridge to sell you.
If you think that companies look at social media more than their own sales metrics, then Ive probably already sold you a bridge and have a loyalty program for you to sign up for, to get 15% off your next purchase
I've been part of Community Management at a major studio, and I was told to stop 'wasting their time' with customer feedback, so which bridge is it?
Odds that you can name the studio?
I can deflect the doxxing slightly by saying it's more than one. The first rhymes with Wicrosoft and the other is too small and would definitely doxx me. However I have friends all over the industry, and can confirm identical reactions from places with names similar to Acti... mizion, Sledge..wammer Ztudios, 434... endustries, Pioware.. Grames?
That really only could be considered even remotely plausible if everyone played online, but most people quickly discovered it was a trash money grab. Otherwise it's no better value than any other story driven single player game.
gta games are typically pretty competitive with everyone else in terms of value for money on the base game. it's been a while since there has been a new GTA game, and the other game they have produced - red dead redemption - was incredible value for money given the content and length.
we can complain about a lot, I'll be the first to say their online is a money sucking low effort playground. But the quality of their single-player experiences is at worst "very very competitive".
Ah but see, that may only be due to GTA V actually having the development time and releasing as a single player game because Online wasn't near being ready when the game launched. Now that Online is out and that's where their focus has been, we will most likely see the base single player game quality suffer dramatically. Look at games like Call of Duty. They used to have phenomenal single player experiences, and now you're lucky if you get something worth playing at all.
So I would point at rdr2. That came out long after gta v online made mountains of money. Large single-player experience. Online existed, didn't detract.
That may be true for many, but I'm willing to bet most of those "hours" they count are for GTA Online. Have they ever mentioned what percentage of players play Online versus all sales? Because that is something many of us have never and will never touch so it isn't included at all in my value consideration other than a negative for the company to focus on INSTEAD of additional single player content.
If they want to turn GTA into an always online Game as a Service, that is their prerogative, but don't try and hide it stuffed alongside a single player game they'll ignore after release, and don't be surprised when some people stop buying and playing when the only option is online multiplayer.
Cool, so could the makers of the software they use to make these games do the same to them? They should pay them all for the per hour value times the expected hours of development plus the terminal value perceived by expected income from sales! Yes, good business model. Maximize them profits!!!
the makers of the software they use also have their own algorithms for determining pricing yes.
Yeah, and I bet they’re affordable. What Strauss is proposing is a massive increase in initial purchase price for those that aren’t paying subscriptions. $70 is borderline affordable for a lot of people as is and that will now be a higher entry price. I’m not in that boat, personally, but I can see how it would be detrimental to the gaming industry as a whole.
Then again, there is the flip side where people are now forced to choose the games they can afford that year even more carefully (1-2 vs 6-7 or more as an example) and if a game fails expectations and someone misses out on something else, then maybe it’ll start putting some shitty developers out of business.
They aren't proposing increasing the price. Did you read the article or my initial comment about how people just read the bad headline and argue against it at all?
Of course I read the article. It specifically says, “… value of the expected entertainment usage, which is to say 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 owned rather than rented or subscribed to…”
I’m beginning to wonder if you read the article. They want to charge off of one value and add it to an initial base value. If you think this idea has nothing to do with increasing profits then I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.
Nothing in that is about raising the price, the whole thing is about him showing off what great value the series is by their metrics.
Here's where you say "of course it is! I've imagined that this leads to the next thing which is raised prices". Cool, go make these comments on the thread about them raising prices, or proposing raising prices. That isn't what is happening here.