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.
Without further research, i have to imagine he means charged per hour of gameplay, so a 40 hour game, a 10 hour game, and a 120 hour game should all be priced differently.
Considering replay value I'm not sure how you actually accomplish that pricing method in a reasonable way, but i don't fault him for thinking in that way (assuming it is not actually streaming)
Edit:
I'm not saying i agree with the quote. I don't think it's fair to be angry at an assumption, so be mad at what he actually meant. Also, the actual quote at least has some level of merit, even if i think it's a bad idea (certainly not as awful as a subscription model).
Here's the full quote with source:
"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."
His goal was to point out that it wasn't worth it to mess with him, he's going to fight back hard and take you out. It was about deterring him from wanting to ever pick on him. Right, his goal wasn't to permanently disfigure him, but to establish a permanent idea that it isn't worth it to pick on him
That's fair, though he was trying to permanently end the bullying, which is what i think OP was referencing at least. Since, you know, that would end bullying permanently
I think it's more of a book reference to his fight with bonzo, who was bullying ender. Ender was a few years younger and knew he had to win the fight "permanently," so it's inferred that he knew what he was doing (not intending to kill him but that's obviously a possibility).
Iirc, the officials told ender that bonzo was sent home. In reality, he did actually kill bonzo and was lied to about it.
I tried looking it up and some results suggest she's dressed up as a "maneater" perhaps? Agree though, it didn't really stand out as an obvious costume
The link i provided has that as well, and it says that Rawlinson created the short kilt in Inverness, Scotland, with the help of local highlanders. Might have been a guy from Northwest England but he did it in Scotland with the Scots, and it's an apparently dubious claim at that. The sources i provided also suggest that after the invention, the British army popularized the short kilt as opposed to the traditional long one, but it's still of Scottish origin (not developed by the British army as the linked YouTube video suggests. Conflicting claims. I admittedly skimmed through the video to find the relevant part). Still interesting though.
"The design of the small kilt was adopted by the Highland regiment of the British Army, the military kilt then passed into civilian usage and has remained popular ever since"
This does, however, sound similar to claiming that Italy was the first non Scandinavian Western nation to find the new world because Christopher Columbus was from Italy, even though the whole excursion was wholly financed by, backed by, and launched from Spain.
There's also dispute over the claim altogether from Scottish historians.
"Of course, many Scots dispute the notion that an Englishman invented the kilt. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that the kilt was in use before Rawlinson’s time. For example, the portrait of Kenneth Sutherland, 3rd Lord Duffus, appears to point to earlier use of the walking kilt. However, there are discrepancies concerning this theory among the Historiographical community, with some experts disagreeing as to the origins of the modern-day kilt.
Michael Fry, an eminent Scottish historian, debunked Lord Dacre’s claims about the kilt saying they ‘prove absolutely nothing’. Fry claims there is evidence that Tartan was worn in the Middle Ages—he also labelled Lord Dacre as ‘not a very reliable guide to Scottish history."
I'm curious about this but not really able to find anything. The sources I'm finding online are saying that kilts are predominantly Scottish, they probably were adopted from Scotland by the Irish, they're representative of Celtic identity (so also Welsh, Bretons, and Cornish), and can be found in other places, but not seeing much about an English kilt? Anytime I'm seeing Brits and kilts, they're wearing highland kilts.
Apparently the word kilt is a Scots word (not to be confused with Scottish English) meaning to tuck clothes around the body.
I feel like the post can be interpreted more than one way. The way i took it, the person in question thought they were in a romantic relationship (perhaps socially awkward?), and then meeting the "boyfriend's" whole family led to a shocking revelation - they were not in a relationship. Why else would that person introduce their family? I would imagine the two relationships would be kept separate!
Definitely not questioning your opinion and review of the game (i quite enjoyed it but that's my opinion). However, i do not believe that most people would see 7.5/10 and think "that's a high score."
One variable here is medium bias. Different mediums of entertainment have different "average" scores. It seems (i think) like things that take more time to enjoy (video games, TV) have higher baseline scores that are considered average than say a movie. (As an example, metacritic has different score tiers for movies than it does for video games, for their video games, anything 60-79% or 6.0-7.9/10 is mixed or average, but this score is 40-59% for movies).
I would further say that, across the board, a score of 5/10 would almost certainly be considered well below average for a game (or even a restaurant for that matter). I would be willing to bet that average for a video game would fall into the 7-7.5 range for most people. There are probably other biases at play as well, many of which i believe are impacting the scores in the first place (for example, the way people rate movies may be even more critical, and then perhaps there are so many highly rated games that it brings up the average there).
Something that i know i consider is that video games can absorb 10s, 100s, and even 1000s of hours of time, and i wouldn't want to sink that kind of commitment into a 5/10 game, which probably got such a score due to a combination of bugs, bad story, and poor mechanics. Plus, the lowest ever rated games are 1-2/10, and you'll be hard pressed to find any game rated below that (which further drives up the average).
I know that If i saw a game with aggregate reviews of even 7.5, i would think it had major problems and may not be worth my time investment. 7.5 is almost certainly not a "high" score, though i can appreciate you being very deliberately mathematical with your scoring.
Oh for sure. I mentioned above that i didn't mean to suggest that this idea is the correct one, only that i don't believe it was intended to mean subscription model. It's less of a greedy idea and more of just a bad idea (in my opinion). There is also at least some merit to the statement, i.e. if he's suggesting that triple a titles that are particularly short shouldn't be full price.