Instead of $60 for a game, offer the single player for $30 and the multiplayer for $30. $60 if you want both.
THQ Boss Challenges $60 Price Point
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
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)Art Axiv said:
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.Art Axiv said:
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.
THQ has earned some serious cool points with this, hopefully if they make it work than more companies can embrace it.
This is my worry. If done right, this would Be awesome. If I could pay $40 for acomplete, good game, with $20 optionally available, but not needed, yes yes yes.Fronzel said:
If I get a half a game that ends abruptly with no value, then no. I suspect which I'd get.
For rpgs, it could still work. Consider Dragon Age 2. For $40 you get Hawke, Varric, Anders, and Aveline as companions, plus their stories and quests. Each additional companion is $3 for their questline and playable version. Or you Can buy the compleat version for $60 and get them all. Or the signature edition to get more.
Hell I'd sell Fenris in a heartbeat.
Shit, I don't even usually like these kind of games and I'll probably buy it just to support this.
Sorry for my language, but F*$k the In Game Store. Having to pay real money for extras in a game that I've already payed for seems like a crime. I know they are completely optional but still. DLC is a tricky slope. If the content is actually worth the money then I'm all for it. Like getting a good couple extra hours in a single player campaign, or a completely new mode for a game. But if the content is extra characters/maps/weapons/etc that could of easily been put in the game if they just pushed the release date back then that's where I draw the line.
I honestly think that acknowledging the sort of 'indie' model on console is going to be necessary, given the current cost of developing games.
Basically, an AAA title cost obscene amounts of money to produce, so they need to cost a lot - fair enough. But at the same times, titles like the original Deus Ex, Serious Sam, Silent Hill 2, and so on still hold up - they're more or less living proof that you don't need the most expensive top tier graphics in order to be good. Taking a stance that allows for games at 40, 30, or even 20 dollars frees companies up to start making games that don't have as much visual fidelity - xbox/ps2 era graphics - but could still have excellent gameplay. In terms of what this means for a company, it means that instead of gambling $20 million on a game intended to launch a new franchise, they can only put in, say, half or a quarter of that, launch it at a lower price point, and then once they know whether or not the game's basic thesis is going to work, they can choose to either cut their losses while they're still low, or balloon the game into a full franchise.
Basically, an AAA title cost obscene amounts of money to produce, so they need to cost a lot - fair enough. But at the same times, titles like the original Deus Ex, Serious Sam, Silent Hill 2, and so on still hold up - they're more or less living proof that you don't need the most expensive top tier graphics in order to be good. Taking a stance that allows for games at 40, 30, or even 20 dollars frees companies up to start making games that don't have as much visual fidelity - xbox/ps2 era graphics - but could still have excellent gameplay. In terms of what this means for a company, it means that instead of gambling $20 million on a game intended to launch a new franchise, they can only put in, say, half or a quarter of that, launch it at a lower price point, and then once they know whether or not the game's basic thesis is going to work, they can choose to either cut their losses while they're still low, or balloon the game into a full franchise.
Not a fan. Whilst it has potential, I can just companies pushing out incomplete and unpolished games, then by the time you have downloaded enoug to make it work, you have spent 20-25.
Usually not so much of a pessimist, but would you buy a book that wasn't edited and was missing chapters with a promise they would fix it later? What if it doesn't sell well, and they decide it's not worth making DLC for?
Usually not so much of a pessimist, but would you buy a book that wasn't edited and was missing chapters with a promise they would fix it later? What if it doesn't sell well, and they decide it's not worth making DLC for?
While I like the idea of making the game cheaper, this does carry with it the possiblity of abuse. If the extra content is largely optional, than it would not be a problem. But if developers just take most of the conetent and make it DLC... like Capcom... than it doesnt matter iof its cheaper, they will gouge money out of gamers.Greg Tito said:
Actually... this was basically what I was saying... so ninja'd... damn...DonJavo said:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,014
- 3,879
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
dlc annoys me in general and I almost never buy it on the console since Im stuck with the crappy 20 gig hd and a 100gig one costs a hundred bucks which is so over priced it make my head spin
This was almost exactly what the Extra Credits team suggested the industry ought to do in future. Make games more accessible with a lower price point and use add on income to supplement things like DLC addon content, MP gaming and custom content. This also allows gaming developers to stretch the period a game can generate revenue from that critical opening week or month to a multi month income strategy.
Video Games spent most of the 3 previous generations at a price point of 50 bucks, which is a bit more standard than most mediums.
Price of everything is supposed to go up.
Now, of course, I also hold the 50$ (an the 60$ game for that matter) as a game that I will be playing 5 years later.
Price of everything is supposed to go up.
Now, of course, I also hold the 50$ (an the 60$ game for that matter) as a game that I will be playing 5 years later.
