CEO Strauss Zelnick explained to publication Protocol the reason for making the leap to a $70 price point on the next-generation version of their 2K basketball game.
Duh.. of course hes gonna justify it...
He justified why I won't buy any Take Two game at launch.
All next gen AAA games should be $69.99
@mikeslemonade - "All next gen AAA games should be $69.99" why, so CEO like Blizzard and Gearbox have higher bonuses? Cause they're not paying their grunts any of those bonuses to begin with.
You'll avoid Rockstar too?
Take-Two CEO justifiably can take a hike.
I wonder how many of the people who left comments here about this article have been working for the past 15 years and would be happy with thier employers if they weren't given a payrise within the same time frame? What they do with the money is up to them, but the GDP goes up every year. Here in Australia we average a 3% increase in all costs yearly. 3% x 15 years = 45% and yet they are increasing it by basically the same amount but instead of yearly have done it after 15 years. I couldn't run my business down 3% consecutively year after year. Games are getting bigger, longer, more graphical, processing etc etc and then we hear complaints about games taking up too much room or too big of a patch etc. I know fluff all about sports games so can't comment on what they are offering but seriously.... prices of just about everything in the world go up over time, why not games too? P.s. this is not aimed at shuvam09 at all, I was just making a point about the article in general.
@redgum But the gaming audience is growing, and publishers are selling more and more base games. Add in to that they are all adding microtransactions and loot boxes then there is absolutely no justification for charging more for a base game.
If Nintendo can charge $60 for 3 emulated games with the newer with more than 10 years, it becomes easy to justify $70 on GTA VI or Red Dead Redemption III.
Agreed. Old ports for $60 that millions buy without question. Why not brand new games for $70? Not saying I'm pleased to have to pay more, but it makes sense.
except Nintendo is the only company you named not to include microtransactions
Title should have "fails to".
Then I want all that "launch day DLC" Included in the price. We don't need more games that you "own" that also have 700 dollars of day one DLC just waiting for your idiot kid to use your CC to buy all of. This industry is becoming nothing but greed. To be fair that is the standard so why change. I will get WAY more play hours out of three Mario games for 60 dollars than their new 8 hour campaign games they want you to buy for 70. If they were like "look this price is to help us pay the artist and programmers more and help improve the lives of all who are working so hard in our industry. I would be like... cool I can get behind that. It's not. The Board at the top wants more yachts.
If your kid has your credit card number then the idiot is you. Who the hell gives their cc to their kid anyway, that's just asking for trouble. As a parent myself I have parent control's setup and passwords that only I know so only I can actually purchase games and dlc on my kids console.
Kinda big douchebaggery when the game with very low effort yearly rehash and full of MT in NBA 2K is among the first to justify the price hike. What a scum!
eventually games will be costing 70 and of course we will buy it
they are 90$ in Canada now
Brazil is much more too
@olivier1 Do you understand how regional pricing work? Clearly no.... And unfortunately a lot of publisher don't get it either.
In Brazil we pay around 48 usd for a launch game.
You can blame EA for that. Your very own screw you over. Canada sucks. Nothing like the great U.S. of A. Freedom and opportunity, we bow to no king or queen. EA are the masters of pocket picking. They nickel and dime to you to death and love it with zero remorse. Their huge supporters of paid DLC and Microtransactions, moreso then any other company, not mention the whole lootbox b.s.
I guarantee that I will never buy a game that costs that much money. I don't even buy them for 60.
Yea i wont pay 70 for a videogame but luckily i gameshare on xbox and ps so im good.
unfortunately, once the medium becomes all digital, we wont have a choice unless they have sales
@v_eno_m Well that's the thing, there will always be sales, and if that is what I have to wait for to buy a game, then so be it. I have been doing that for the past 10 years anyway.
Don't be so sure.
Yea, people here are delusional. The millions upon millions of casual gamers aren't going to suddenly stop buying games because they're $10 more.
Eh im pretty sure I remember spending 90 on iron sword for nes more than 30 years ago
Speak for yourself. "We" is editorial.
It's how darn expensive they've gotten. I remember when studios were asked why games cost $50 / £50, about 10 years ago. They justified price hikes then because there was the cost of: - packaging - the medium (optical disc) - translation of manuals / artwork - distribution - duplicated assets taking extra development time and space on blu-rays Now that games are distributed online without most of this stuff... and with assets being theoretically less because of the fast SSDs... I don't know how they can justify this cost. It's basically capitalism 101 😏
Eventually games will go on sale and as a cheapassgamer I always wait til theyre $30 and below.
Only if your stupid, or not paying for the game with your own money, everyone just has to wait till the price drops, and voila, you don't pay 70.00 US.
They're called "Take-Two" because they're gonna Take Two extra fives.
That was so dumb, but I laughed anyway.
Hah. Thanks, buddy.
That's the best one I've heard 🤣🤣🤣
It's going to take two price drops before I pick up any of their games now
Literally the best comment I've ever seen on N4G.
Are they actually gonna charge $70 for GTA5 ReRemaster?
That game should be flat $100 why stop at $70 S/
EA wanted those prices for 360 n PS3 games
GTFO Take Two CEO
Don't think they understand the meaning of justifying. It has to be actually justified to begin with...they tried...they failed You can try to excuse your actions but you don't determine justification. It isn't just simply because you say so
The Onion Headline: Man in-Charge Justifies Decision Made by Man in-Charge
CNN Headline: Man Robs a bank justifies decision by saying he can't find a job.
@battletrax, What...what are you talking about? Why did you go political? Isn't there something better for you and the proud boys to go do?
@TheOtherMoon Clearly you watch too much cnn. I'll give you a tip. Whenever any feckless far left media establishment calls a group 'far right', it's a lie.
You and CaptainObvious878 need to get off the internet, like what are you two even saying? What are you trying to accomplish here? Did you own the lib snowflakes with that one?
Of course a CEO would justify to making more money.
This is really odd to because you almost never hear of a CEO justifying a price hike that increases his wealth.
Actually I'm all in favour of a price increase for games because Devs work hard and budgets are only increasing and games haven't gone up in decades. But Take 2 is the last Dev that should be championing it. Cut the MT crap out of you games if you're going to preach price increase.
I would be for a price increase if almost every single game hadn't been infested with useless MTs this generation. I would/will gladly pay $70 (or $115 Australian) for cyberpunk.
Just looking at the prices at JBHIFI. Damn. I might have to rethink what I said.
Yeah, I saw DS remake for $120... After seeing that and the news that horizon and spiderman are cross gen... not sure I'll be getting a day one ps5 anymore. I'm thoroughly disappointed at sony right now.
Price aside This getting way overblown. Take a day, have a deep breath. Watch the trailers again. That's what you'll be playing. Nothing has changed that.
"Price aside This getting way overblown. Take a day, have a deep breath. Watch the trailers again. That's what you'll be playing. Nothing has changed that." You're right of course. I was very angry yesterday. Still am a little today, but I know I need to calm down in order to make a rational purchase decision. Although, every Aussie online outlet is already sold out of PS5s, so maybe the choice has already been made for me. And that might not be such a bad thing, I don't know.
again, 70 euros for a new game has been the norm for years. thats like 82 dollars id say. but of course he would say that, its not like that GTA V has brought them millions in profit ha
I seriously hope people aren't going to stand for this shit, but who am I kidding...of course they will and the rest of the industry will see nothing wrong with it. Every new generation comes with a new set of bs to deal with, last gen with the online pass, this gen was the microtransactions and live service (otherwise incomplete) games and next gen will be overpricing the hell out of everything because "Come on, producing these games at such high fidelity costs money.", meanwhile they come fresh out the oven incomplete and a buggy mess just waiting for the patch in hot fix. I bet season passes will eventually be $39.99 standard.
I won't, and neither will a lot of people.
70 for a incomplete game with beta features, no thanks. Let's be honest they will also squeeze out more content for much more as a complete package.
And you're and idiot. Ya know what the sad thing is though? They're going to find some way to retaliate against gamers and pout over consumers not buying in the price hike. You're going to see more Digital Deluxe b.s. going on and they're going to Microtransaction the crap out of things and use digital items as they have where they should be including all of that as part of the game experience anyway. Case and point, Ghost of Tsushima, I love Sucker Punch. If there's something new, it comes along as a software update for everyone to enjoy. Sucker Punch says, "they paid their $60 for a game, so we're going to give them what they paid for." I love this. Sucker Punch does it right and they take care of their customers. Businesses are just greedy. It's tough times Take 2, people are losing work, they're getting laid off and locked away in their homes and they have to make do, and the one thing they can do to try and feel better about things or take their mind off of things and live in a different world, and you wanna just pick their pocket, huh? You have two or three different houses and your own private jet, and your complaining your games can't be $70 while people are losing their jobs and a 56 year-old woman is living in a van (I'm dead serious) and others have lost their homes and living in tiny overpriced cramped apartments. This guy's a greedy anti-consumer asshole.
Funny thing about retaliation is that CEOs ultimately have far more to lose since videogames are quite often their main business... videogame players tend to have huge backlogs, it's rather easy to not buy games with a price hike.
Not happening not for that yearly dribble anyway
If all of their games are going to have microtansactions or any other form of money grubbing bs, then I don't think their games should be $70. I might be willing to pay $70 more, if most of these companies weren't trying to make all of their games come with some kind of live service trash.
To be fair, he's actually right. NES games in 1990 cost $50. That's $99 today. N64 games cost $70 in 1998, that's $111 today. We actually are in the cheapest time, right now, for the cost of games, as that $60 price point we've had for a few generations now is worth less and less compared to older game prices. Source: https://www.ign.com/article...
But at the same tim that because of the hardware they come with, they were cartridges. Playstation 1 games didn't cost that because they came on cds. So he isn't right specifically when you take into account that games came fully complete working right no need. Now days they are buggy as f lots of games and they want to sale you $100 of dlc characters etc which is ridiculous. Most of the time content that is already created and lock behind a paywall is ridiculous
Man who knows nothing continues to speak, more at 6. If you think games games weren't buggy before this generation, then I'm willing to bet you weren't actually around during those times. Games have always been buggy, and while I can sympathize that it's annoying modern games are also an order of magnitude more complex than something like Contra 3. The rest of your meaningless dribble can be summed up pretty simply, Day one DLC is terrible but to say that most of the time the content is already created is an outright falsehood that only someone as simple minded as yourself could perpetuate. Artists aren't making art for the base game right up to the end of a project, it's the same with writers and designers there comes a point where you can splinter off people and work on post release content. If you had even the slightest inkling of what project management was you would understand this, but you don't. You don't understand anything and you continue to speak and if I had the power to shut your ignorant flapping mouth, I would in a heartbeat.
Games DEFINITELY weren't "complete working right". Was there DLC? No, definitely not. What you got was the complete game, as-is. Was it bug-free? Rarely, if ever. Nintendo, however, was better than most with having bugs hammered out, as is still the case today. And yes, carts cost more than CDs. Still, I think graphically, there is a lot more work on games today than previously, and game engines are much more complex, requiring a lot more bug fixing. Also, I think if internet-connected consoles were a thing in the 80's, game companies would've released more content for those games back then. He is right that game prices have been the same for over a decade, and are ready for an update.
Due to COVID 19 (coronavirus) there's actually been a trend of deflation meaning money in general is worth more not less in the year 2020 because people are not buying as much... your article is from 2013. https://www.theguardian.com...