https://www.gamespot.com/articles/take-two-ceo-says-70-ps5-and-xbox-series-x-game-pr/1100-6480492/
Thoughts, SW? Are you surprised? One of the most successful gaming companies wants more of your money. Enough said lol.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/take-two-ceo-says-70-ps5-and-xbox-series-x-game-pr/1100-6480492/
Thoughts, SW? Are you surprised? One of the most successful gaming companies wants more of your money. Enough said lol.
I understand the increase in expenditure for these companies. However, Take-Two blows shit out of the water with their GTA/RDR online revenue. If you wanna come in without these consistent money-maker MTs for online games, and charge $70, then fine... Otherwise, do one.
Wait wasn't Take 2 the ones who original started this with NBA 2k?
We knew they were doing this and IM not buying NBA 2k (don't like sports games anymore) or GTA5 remasters (cuz I own this on PC)
I don't get how they are going to make anymore money off this NBA2k was like in bargain bin weeks after release and even went free on ps+ a few times. People are sick of GTA5 that won't sell at 70.
So yeah if other people try this crap I'll skip there game an just play my WoW Classic and retro library.
I could see paying for 70 for like a big hitter like cyberpunk or resident evil 2 remake or a known big hitter but crap like nba 2k na man im good.
I understand the increase in expenditure for these companies. However, Take-Two blows shit out of the water with their GTA/RDR online revenue. If you wanna come in without these consistent money-maker MTs for online games, and charge $70, then fine... Otherwise, do one.
I interviewed at Take-Two once. The people who I spoke weren't even real gamers. They just care about $$$.
I interviewed at Take-Two once. The people who I spoke weren't even real gamers. They just care about $$$.
Brad McQuaid once told us in an EQ beta chat that Sony was cold to the game until the subscription was mentioned, then they were all in.
That's business, I guess.
I understand the increase in expenditure for these companies. However, Take-Two blows shit out of the water with their GTA/RDR online revenue. If you wanna come in without these consistent money-maker MTs for online games, and charge $70, then fine... Otherwise, do one.
I interviewed at Take-Two once. The people who I spoke weren't even real gamers. They just care about $$$.
To be fair, any company that involves entertainment and creative people need non-enthusiasts on the financial side of it. If it was up to the creative types, development would never end, they'd add everything and the kitchen sink, and developers would go bankrupt. If it was only up to the CEOs and financial folks, we'd get..... well..... Electronic Arts.
What great companies do is find that perfect balance between giving people creative freedom, while also keeping them wrangled in to the point where their products are still profitable.
As evidenced by all the fuckery out there, it is a very, very difficult thing to balance, correctly.
Those greedy POS already lost a quarter of their fanbase this gen with all the micro transactions in NBA 2k and of course the actual games being terrible
You know we've been paying 60 bucks for games for a long time, and hell the time before games were 50 bucks and that was like 1990's prices.
I'd say we are due for a price hike, tbh.
With that said, Take Two is the last company that should be saying this. They've gotten fat and happy on DLC sales alone upwards of billions of dollars, not even including their core game sales. Them saying they need to jack up prices is just greed.
Here's an idea: spend less on game development. AAA games have been spiraling down the drain for years; they're generally not as fun as they used to be, their development budgets and staff requirements are bloated, and their marketing campaigns generally exceed the cost of the game development itself.
If you make a game, then you have to make DLC to make back the money you spent making the game...you're probably spending too much making the game.
Besides, I've had more fun with 10-30 dollar independent games in the last decade than I have with AAA games.
I mean, it's no surprise, these are the scummiest fuckers in existence. They'd throw their mother on a train track if it meant a bonus.
I mean, it's no surprise, these are the scummiest fuckers in existence. They'd throw their mother on a train track if it meant a bonus.
So you hate greed when it affects you personally but you don't mind game developers and creatives being exploited?
I mean, it's no surprise, these are the scummiest fuckers in existence. They'd throw their mother on a train track if it meant a bonus.
So you hate greed when it affects you personally but you don't mind game developers and creatives being exploited?
By your own argument, these people complaining are partaking in the attempted exploitation of poor old cup, wanting a bigger piece of that pie.
Signing up for Ubisoft/Activision/EA, is sort of like signing up to become a member of the Nazi party and then complaining they're kind of assholes while simultaneously excusing everything else because it's self-serving.
Worlds smallest violin.
You know we've been paying 60 bucks for games for a long time, and hell the time before games were 50 bucks and that was like 1990's prices.
I'd say we are due for a price hike, tbh.
With that said, Take Two is the last company that should be saying this. They've gotten fat and happy on DLC sales alone upwards of billions of dollars, not even including their core game sales. Them saying they need to jack up prices is just greed.
Here's an idea: spend less on game development. AAA games have been spiraling down the drain for years; they're generally not as fun as they used to be, their development budgets and staff requirements are bloated, and their marketing campaigns generally exceed the cost of the game development itself.
If you make a game, then you have to make DLC to make back the money you spent making the game...you're probably spending too much making the game.
Besides, I've had more fun with 10-30 dollar independent games in the last decade than I have with AAA games.
Hell no!!! these gaming companies already milk the shit out of every game possible a price hike isn't going to stop that at all microstranctions, lootboxes DLC, aren't going anywhere it's just going to get worst.
I agree with Jim this vid is a few years old but still relevant 70 bucks now is just BS 60 bucks was bad enough.
Don't buy their shit anyway, feel for the suckers who will pay up regardless. You will learn that people just don't say no, reason rip off prices exist.
You know we've been paying 60 bucks for games for a long time, and hell the time before games were 50 bucks and that was like 1990's prices.
I'd say we are due for a price hike, tbh.
With that said, Take Two is the last company that should be saying this. They've gotten fat and happy on DLC sales alone upwards of billions of dollars, not even including their core game sales. Them saying they need to jack up prices is just greed.
Here's an idea: spend less on game development. AAA games have been spiraling down the drain for years; they're generally not as fun as they used to be, their development budgets and staff requirements are bloated, and their marketing campaigns generally exceed the cost of the game development itself.
If you make a game, then you have to make DLC to make back the money you spent making the game...you're probably spending too much making the game.
Besides, I've had more fun with 10-30 dollar independent games in the last decade than I have with AAA games.
Hell no!!! these gaming company already milk the shit out of every game possible a price hike isn't going to stop that at all microstranctions, lootboxes DLC, aren't going anywhere it's just going to get worst.
I agree with Jim on this.
To be fair (I agree btw) but Jim Sterlings arguments here are very ill thought out and straight up ignorant in certain regards.
Expansion packs have existed for a long, long time. Guessing him primarily being a console gamer who only jumped the pc bandwagon late, it's probably an alien concept.
The problem with season passes is in that most of the time you aren't actually being told or explicitly told what you're getting, like it's a fun guess-what's-in-the-box game.
Except with your money.
You know we've been paying 60 bucks for games for a long time, and hell the time before games were 50 bucks and that was like 1990's prices.
I'd say we are due for a price hike, tbh.
With that said, Take Two is the last company that should be saying this. They've gotten fat and happy on DLC sales alone upwards of billions of dollars, not even including their core game sales. Them saying they need to jack up prices is just greed.
Here's an idea: spend less on game development. AAA games have been spiraling down the drain for years; they're generally not as fun as they used to be, their development budgets and staff requirements are bloated, and their marketing campaigns generally exceed the cost of the game development itself.
If you make a game, then you have to make DLC to make back the money you spent making the game...you're probably spending too much making the game.
Besides, I've had more fun with 10-30 dollar independent games in the last decade than I have with AAA games.
Hell no!!! these gaming company already milk the shit out of every game possible a price hike isn't going to stop that at all microstranctions, lootboxes DLC, aren't going anywhere it's just going to get worst.
I agree with Jim on this.
To be fair (I agree btw) but Jim Sterlings arguments here are very ill thought out and straight up ignorant in certain regards.
Expansion packs have existed for a long, long time. Guessing him primarily being a console gamer who only jumped the pc bandwagon late, it's probably an alien concept.
The problem with season passes is in that most of the time you aren't actually being told or explicitly told what you're getting, like it's a fun guess-what's-in-the-box game.
Except with your money.
Man I miss expansion packs those where the days. I would rather go back to that anyday then the horrible price gouging shit we have these days.
Luckily the only two franchise I buy from them is GTA and Red Dead , and those are released once every 100 years
I don't pay that much for any game, but I can see his point for games like GTA and RDR which are massive projects that have few equals. However, with all the micro-transactions, he has no argument. Also, how can you defend games like the 2K Sports games which are just recycled and updated every year? Those games should never be full price in the first place.
Well, they made their intentions known, now they just need to release a game that justifies the price.
@Shmiity: Makes no sense back in the day you didnt have middleware engines everyone had to make their own engine, instead of licensing one, plus consoles werent just x86 pc's like they are now and they're was poorer documentation how to code for those consoles also, it's all a fucking excuse to be greedy nothing more.
In the midst of a global income panic? Right when subs services are taking off? Gee, he sure knows how to time his news. We've got a saturated market. Who's about to pay $70 for one game?
You dont need giant teams to make games either that's a bunch of bullshit also you only need a giant team if people arent very talented game designers lmao, Large teams never make truely great games its all directionless garbage because the teams too large to have a true direction.
the more people=the more opinions conflicting how a games direction is supposed to be taken it doesnt work in anyones favor it's not a good thing.
whats worse 300 people disagreeing or 30?
You dont need giant teams to make games either that's a bunch of bullshit also you only need a giant team if people arent very talented game designers lmao, Large teams never make truely great games its all directionless garbage because the teams too large to have a true direction.
the more people=the more opinions conflicting how a games direction is supposed to be taken it doesnt work in anyones favor it's not a good thing.
whats worse 300 people disagreeing or 30?
That is false. There are plenty of very good AAA blockbuster games. While it is certainly more challenging with large teams and less hands on, there is a hierarchy in place and various team leaders that co-ordinate together with the directors/designers, producers, and project managers. The creation of big games with a lot of high fidelity content is a massive undertaking. So, it can not be done by a small team in a reasonable amount of time.
For GTA or Red Dead? Of course I'll pay it.
For NBA 2K? LMFAO GTFO and stop smoking crack you friggin whackos. Like all sports games, it's literally a rehash/roster update, and even the next-gen version will be crap compared to games developed SPECIFICALLY for the new hardware.
@Shmiity: Makes no sense back in the day you didnt have middleware engines everyone had to make their own engine, instead of licensing one, plus consoles werent just x86 pc's like they are now and they're was poorer documentation how to code for those consoles also, it's all a fucking excuse to be greedy nothing more.
Like I said- I'm not comfortable paying 60, let alone 70. And its hilarious that the first company to announce a price increase was 2k Sports. This honestly might be a good time for games to not have a "set price" and actually gauge value and what consumers will pay for content. The flat, universal 60, to me, was almost always too high. I could maybe see the GIANT budget games be 70. GTA, CyberPunk, etc But I dont see consumers univerally accepting a flat 70.
How much longer untill games are 100 dollars a pop? Gtfo.
Canada is close really close.
This practice will lead more and more to piracy. then these morons complain "my games getting pirated" "lets invest more money to put some shitty DRM that damage a game"
absolute state of industry today.
I understand the increase in expenditure for these companies. However, Take-Two blows shit out of the water with their GTA/RDR online revenue. If you wanna come in without these consistent money-maker MTs for online games, and charge $70, then fine... Otherwise, do one.
I interviewed at Take-Two once. The people who I spoke weren't even real gamers. They just care about $$$.
You expected the corporate executives to be gamers?
I understand the increase in expenditure for these companies. However, Take-Two blows shit out of the water with their GTA/RDR online revenue. If you wanna come in without these consistent money-maker MTs for online games, and charge $70, then fine... Otherwise, do one.
I interviewed at Take-Two once. The people who I spoke weren't even real gamers. They just care about $$$.
You expected the corporate executives to be gamers?
Why not? Phil plays games. Shuhei plays games. Reggie plays games.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment