THQ Boss Challenges $60 Price Point

[Art Axiv]

Imagine Guildwars with a cash-shop in it, this is how I see it. Bad, is rather politely said.

There's already an ingame shop in Guild Wars, but most of the content is completely optional, even the expansions. As many mmos, most of the content is frivolous, from changing your name and your character appearance, to the completely optional and unnecessary, but cool, like extra character slots, more space in your Xunlai chest and even the newest mercenaries addition, wich is completely optional and even some may call it frivolous, but really cool if you buy it.

I think that's what they're looking for when they say they want you to "customize" your game. Just like in Guild Wars, you can choose to buy whatever you want, without forcing it to you. I bought the Trilogy edition with the Eye of The North expansion and since then, I haven't spent a single dime buying something from the game and I still don't have the urge (and money) to buy something from the game. The game is massive as it is, but granted, it's an mmo (yes, I call it an mmo, shut up) and not a racing game or an fps.

As you say, I just hope that their games have the amount of quality to justify not buying a single thing from the ingame shop, even without forcing it to you and I, too, hope that the DLC they'll release will have the amount of quality to justify their purchase.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that THQ won't screw with it, as I really like the idea.

Back in the day I played Guildwars there wasn't an in-game shop, or at least to my knowledge. I also join in and hope that the quality of games won't go lower and lower.

 

[Harry Mason]

In the end, we're going to end up spending more money on the same amount of content. Anyone who thinks this will be a money saving venture is sorely mistaken. Companies like having more money.

 

[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.

Aren't they all MMOs?

Yes they are. My point still stands.

MMOs have a much greater opportunity to make money from other means and most of the F2P ones still have DLC. Those stores are what I'm talking about.

They still provide continual updates for free. I haven't played most of Nexon's library but I know that the cash shops in Vindictus only sell cosmetic items and useful but unnecessary items (such as self-revives that functionally only save you time if you mess up in a dungeon.) The meat and potatoes of the game: the dungeons, the towns, the npcs, the weapons, the armor, and the stat-boosting titles are all completely free and regularly updated.

I know this is hard to believe but, sometimes, there is such a thing as a free lunch (more specifically, whenever someone buys you lunch.)

 

[Saviordd1]

THIS IS....actually a good idea, ill vote with my wallet by buying this game (even if i dont like the game itself)

 

[Lunar Templar]

i like this idea, have to see how its executed, but i don't see any real issues
( plays F2P MMOs, uses micro transactions, and they work swimmingly)

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

Really good idea, hell if they did this with Homefront, I wouldve picked it up. Instead I'm waiting till its 30 dollars.

 

[delanofilms]

snip

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.

Aah. Well that's a different situation, since the average JRPG isn't the kind of game that suits itself well to DLC (western ones more or less are, see Borderlands & Fallout), but you surely can't deny that DLC could play a positive role in other genres where it is more appropriate. Imagine a guitar game where some musical licenses just couldn't be obtained until after the launch date and certain songs never saw the light of day for -insert music game here-. It just means that for your range of the games market they may or may not be very appropriate to implement.

 

[delanofilms]

I don't like the sound of this.

It just gives them even more excuse, AND ABILITY, to cut stuff out of the original 'full priced' release in order to sell it to us a bit at a time.

God knows what the original product would look like if ths kind of thinking became the norm.

Nope, don't like it at all.

It doesn't really matter how they phrase this kind of proposition anyway, whenever something comes out of a suits mouth you can bet the only thing on their mind is dollar signs... No matter what is said, it'll NEVER be in our best interests.

Valve. Seriously.
They even worked around Microsoft because Microsoft's DLC system wouldn't let them charge as little as they pleased.
It all comes down to implementation, like all else. Just don't trust this method if EA starts doing it.
-Looks back at Extra Credits' "Project Ten Dollar episode-
SHIT!

 

[delanofilms]

In the end, we're going to end up spending more money on the same amount of content. Anyone who thinks this will be a money saving venture is sorely mistaken. Companies like having more money.

Umm, by being able to charge less at retail and having the rest be direct to them, even if the consumer pays the exact same amount "they" still get more because the retailer gets less at market.

 

[silver wolf009]

I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

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

I'm a perfectionist, I'd like my products completed and bug-free.

I believe you need to find a new hobby then... there never has, and never will be a Bug-free game. At least, until we make computers powerful enough to design their own games....

Well there have been many a game that is game breaking bug free, and I think that is what he wants. And if that is the case, I support your goal good sir.

OT: I support this measure. I would by a new game for half its price now and help the company rather than not help and get it for the same price used.

 

[VanityGirl]

I don't think this would work into EA's plans of charging $10 for multiplayer.

I do, however, think it's a great idea!

 

[ionveau]

instead of selling the game for 60$ they're going to sell it for $40 and have $700 worth of DLC good stuff.

 

[theultimateend]

Quality games for low prices, sounds to good to be true.

It will be. You'll continually get less and less for higher and higher prices.

Just look at other industries in the US. They give you less product with more marketing and slowly crank up the price while driving down the value.

Genius really.

 

[Therumancer]

My thought is simply that the industry wants to go with microtransactions based on the philsophy that it's easier to get more money out of people if they spend it over a period of time, rather than in a single lump sum. Given the influx of the the lowest human denominator into gaming, I can see where the idea has it's appeal.

I of course oppose it, because I realize that no matter how they present it, it means me paying more for my games.

Simply put though, unless people stop it by not buying games using this kind of a gimmick (no organized boycott, just stop supporting this kind of DLC and microtransaction nonsense) the industry is going to go ahead with it due to the money being made. Simply put they are going to push, and gouge, for every penny they can get until we can't take anymore and/or
the industry collapses.

 

[SirDoom]

For single player games, it's a great model. Why pay $60 when you can get all you want from $40 and maybe an extra $5 DLC later?

For multiplayer, not so much. Take Rock Band for example.

--
-SirDoom joins the game-

GuitarProDude978: "Dude, how many DLC songs you got?"

SirDoom- At the moment, only a handful, but-

-SirDoom has been booted from the lobby-
---


Not a good experience for those who spend little to nothing on the extra content.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

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

maybe he wants a solid game and not have to have the DLC to finish the story or get the best cars.

Besides thats a crappy game so I can see why he would try it on that.40 bucks to buy it then 5 bucks here for some new bikes, 10 bucks here for 5 new maps another 5 bucks for even more new bikes.And what do you know??? they got their 60$ out of you anyway.Just may have took them 1 month or two longer.

I pretty much agree, expansions are a different story, but if I'm getting part of a game and I have to buy more later like some DLCs then it's not improving anything.

 

[aashell13]

we'll see. done right (i.e. a product genuinely equal to or superior in quality to most other $60 games) this could be really good, a classic example of a better product at lower price winning larger volumes and making more money.

That said, i'm not holding my breath. An ATV racing game doesn't strike me as exactly AAA material, and i have a very real fear that they're just knocking off the upfront price in order to nickel-and-dime you to death later. it's gotten so bad now that i normally don't even consider buying a game until a year or three after release when i can get the 'gold edition' bundled with all DLC & patches for 20-30% off the original cost of the base game.

 

[harvz]

i think the way bad company 2 did it would probably be a better method, except the base game should be $40USD, i very much doubt aus will see much of a price reduction...back to topic.
BC2 had the base game which included a multiplayer with 2 modes, you could buy the full vietnam mode for $15, onslaught for another $5 and special guns for another $5...and you can get your kits filled out for about $3 each (4 kits).

now most who enjoy the multiplayer will get the vietnam and special guns ($20 right there), many of those will get the rest (unless they have self respect, then they will work for the kits), congratz, this game has got good sales and could have had the base for $20USD and still turn a large profit.

 

[Spectrum_Prez]

Wait, so someone who is better at business or economics explain to me why lowering games to $10 a pop doesn't lead to six times more sales? Game prices seem to have gone through some ridiculous inflation over the past few years if DLC is taken into account. A decade ago, IIRC, most games only cost 30-40 dollars.

 

[duchaked]

sounds awesome
as long as the single player experience prior to the dlc and/or multiplayer add-on is worth the 40

even if some people go without the add-ons, the lower price tag might just warrant a purchase of a new game as opposed to waiting for the used. that's money they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. heck, the lower price tag might just warrant a purchase. period. that's money they wouldn't have even seen otherwise.