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.

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

OSRS about to go for thousands of dollars.

Play times does in no way mean quality or dev time. I could make a game right know, in less than 30 minutes, where you have a single button. You win at a billionen presses. I'll take my thousand dollars, thank you.

Now you might think that nobody would buy it and that's fair. The secret is to continue making games like normal and tack my button at the end of my 5h campaign. If everyone does it you either pay up or stop playing.

I get what you mean and it makes sense. I just still hope it doesn't happen cause we all know the devs won't get paid more