Quite an interesting idea. The most common argument I see is that movies get you [x] hours of entertainment at a lower cost-per-hour when compared to a video game. You can play a video game for ten hours and it feels short; a three hour movie feels long.
However, consumers aren't paying per hour for movies. If a movie were four hours longer, and it cost twice as much as a two hour movie, it would do terrible. Nobody sees a double runtime as worth double the cost.
I do think that the big studios, like those that make GTA, have a right to be frustrated. They're pouring years of work into their game that will be enjoyed by many fans for 100s or 1,000s of hours. Meanwhile another studio is able to churn out a "remaster" of their game, and charge the same price. Something needs to change, or these large studios won't be incentivized to put time and energy into new titles.
However, consumers aren't paying per hour for movies. If a movie were four hours longer, and it cost twice as much as a two hour movie, it would do terrible. Nobody sees a double runtime as worth double the cost.
I do think that the big studios, like those that make GTA, have a right to be frustrated. They're pouring years of work into their game that will be enjoyed by many fans for 100s or 1,000s of hours. Meanwhile another studio is able to churn out a "remaster" of their game, and charge the same price. Something needs to change, or these large studios won't be incentivized to put time and energy into new titles.