• @abysmalpoptart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • @TheBlue22
      link
      English
      17 months ago

      He’s an exec. It’s safe to say he meant the subscription

      • @abysmalpoptart@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.”

        https://www.gamingbible.com/news/gta-6-priced-by-per-hour-value-171196-20231116#:~:text=Take-Two’s CEO Strauss,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?