THQ Boss Challenges $60 Price Point

[Nouw]

Hey maybe if they lower the prices for games, NZ could get games without the added bullshit!

I suppourt THQ. They better do it for Space Marine.

 

[Traun]

I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

They either can make DLC or the publisher can fire a chunk of the studio after the game reaches content complete.

Or they could redirect them to work on another project...like they did for decades and are still doing so.

That would require the game they just worked on to be a success. Which is something thats not easily predictable.

Usually a work on an expansion starts somewhere around 1-2 weeks to a month before release. Not to mention that a lot of work is done by outside studios hired for specific task, so they work on part-by-part basis. Not to mention that they don't have to work on a sequal...or with the same studio (part of the CoD team may be redirected to work on Guitar Hero).

They've been doing it for decades, believe it or not there was a time when studios did fine without DLC.

Yes, there was a time when developers did fine without DLC. But that was before budgets ballooned into the $20,000,000 to $50,000,000 range, where one flop could mean the end of a developer.

It was also before selling a million copies was a standard. Budget have gone up, yes, but the market has expanded as well.

 

[mjc0961]

Well I just hope that shorter games get cheaper instead of longer games getting more expensive.

 

[night_chrono]

Sounds good on paper. We will have to wait and see how it pans out though.

Also make new releases go digital download same day on PSN and XBL for $10 or $15 less. You have the convenience of never leaving home to help fight piracy (plus the lower price point), and it can never be traded in.

 

[GeorgW]

Finally! I love it, some games just aren't worth $60. Especially if I only want one part of it.

 

[Art Axiv]

*snip*

We reached agreement then! : )

 

[delanofilms]

What I posted on Facebook about this 3 months ago:
"Apparently, THQ thinks that "the future of gaming" is releasing a deliberately unfinished game at a lower price point and completing it through DLC. That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. If I buy a game, it better well be a FULL game."
Pretty much my opinion now.

Why on earth would you have something against a reputable publisher not REQUIRING the consumer to pay for something they don't want, while still delivering an entire game? On top of that, it means a higher percentage of the profit from the game goes directly to the game's devs and publisher. I still agree with the above proposed model for FPS's, the "sell single and multi-player seperately", since some people (myself included) don't give a damn about multiplayer.

Also, ... is...
is that Naoto Shirogane?

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

All I want from Starcraft 2 is the multiplayer. Why can't I pay half-price for half the game?

I think I like this idea.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

What I posted on Facebook about this 3 months ago:
"Apparently, THQ thinks that "the future of gaming" is releasing a deliberately unfinished game at a lower price point and completing it through DLC. That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. If I buy a game, it better well be a FULL game."
Pretty much my opinion now.

Why on earth would you have something against a reputable publisher not REQUIRING the consumer to pay for something they don't want, while still delivering an entire game? On top of that, it means a higher percentage of the profit from the game goes directly to the game's devs and publisher. I still agree with the above proposed model for FPS's, the "sell single and multi-player seperately", since some people (myself included) don't give a damn about multiplayer.

Also, ... is...
is that Naoto Shirogane?

I've already explained it. I play RPGs almost exclusively. There is no "second part" of a game that I play. So cutting content for DLC would be pointless and greedy. And yes, it is (Shadow Naoto, really). Thanks for noticing.

 

[XT inc]

It all doesn't make sense though, I mean if you have a lower price point they will abuse the hell out of dlc and you'll end up paying more to play with friends or get screwed because they won't have what you have.

Hard drive space is at a premium and Id rather get all my content for 60 than pay 40 with 30 dollars worth of dlc, see if you can figure out why.

 

[Justanothergamer300]

Even if I didn't but the DLC I'm behind the cheaper game price.
I'm behind it 100%.

Hope it's successful in some regard so other companies can have cheaper prices on games

 

[Marik Bentusi]

There's always more than black and white to everything, but I don't like DLC because it makes the game you buy feel less complete and sometimes developers even develop with DLC in mind so much they leave (story) hooks everywhere that make it obvious there's be something in the future.

Call me an old guy that tells those youngsters to get off his damn lawn, but I like my games as a complete package. A beginning, a middle part, the end, all in one neat little game, everything gets resolved, no more questions, but maybe room for interpretation and pondering about details after the game, ideally.

Sequels *can* be just as bad, but most of the time they leave you with a somewhat complete original game overall and when you re-install the game you don't need to download a million patches and DLCs and wait for a month till everything is finally on your HDD. I just want to pay one, get my CD, and then stop worrying about money and immerse myself/have a fun time. That's the ideal.

I prefer it nice and simple: Pay once, get the full content. Fix bugs when bugs are due, please. Not even free content is always a good thing like TF2 likes to reminds me (tho it also reminded me how a good optional item store could work - if they left out the rarities).

Spoiler: TL;DR

 

[sethusmaximus]

In theory, this sounds... okay. It all depends on the type of DLC released. If it is Bethesda's horse armor, I would rather have the game at $60 with more content, but if it is ME2's Shadowbroker, then I think it'd be worth it.

Personally, for lots of games, I think $60 is too much.

But, it is better than some gimmicky micro-transaction based experience...

 

[Vrach]

I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

So you want continual updates for free? Not going to happen.

When was there ever a DLC that could be considered a genuine update? They're always just cash-ins. And I mean that for games I loved that had (in comparison to the rest of DLC content) decent DLC content (say, ME2). Not one of them felt like an actual update, they just felt like "oh here, go do a few more quests for 15$". I wish they scrapped the idea entirely and went back to expansions, several DLCs as a whole can at best hope to be AS good as an expansion and sadly, we view them as things that the developers are FAR less accountable for.

What I especially hate above and beyond all is knowing companies develop DLC that's ready to hit the shelves along with the game. So basically you're getting a part of your game cut out and sold to you for an additional fee and they don't even give you the courtesy of trying to hide it.

 

[Iron Lightning]

I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

So you want continual updates for free? Not going to happen.

Why not? Nexon's line of free-to-play games have been getting new content on a near monthly basis for no money at all.

Because Nexon works on micro transaction, and will drop a game if it is not making money.

Well, yeah, just like any other company (see: the APB fiasco.) They still continually update their games. What's your point?

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

I wish the DLC came with the game and nothing more and then we wouldn't have to keep paying little by little until a game you bought for £40 ends up at around £80's worth.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Instead of $60 for a game, offer the single player for $30 and the multiplayer for $30. $60 if you want both.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

i would support DLC more if the games couldnt fit what they wanted on one disc (aka mulitplayer on one disc that was packed so full that they have no choice)

 

[Snooder]

I'd never buy a game to "customize" it with DLC. I find the idea atrociously frustrating.

Oddly that's the one useful thing I actually like about DLC. The ability to decide what parts of the game you enjoy and pay for those, while not having to pay for the parts you don't like.

Think of it economically. With the traditional model, you buy a $60 game. This game has parts A, B and C. With the example of a driving game, lets call A the singleplayer career mode, B the split-screen multiplayer mode and C the online mode. Personally, I don't give a hoot about the online mode. I'd never play it. It's better and more efficient for me to buy a $30 game with A in it and then pay $15 for B so that I don't have to buy C.

Other people would of course care more about C. Those people wouldn't bother buying B and thus also save 15 bucks. Some people care about C and B. They end up spending the exact same amount they would have otherwise.

In short, this is economically and logically a win for everyone. Consumers save money and the publisher gains some sales that he might not have gotten otherwise.

 

[Fusioncode9]

THQ has earned some serious cool points with this, hopefully if they make it work than more companies can embrace it.