THQ Boss Challenges $60 Price Point

[punipunipyo]

um... I'd say... this is a good start... but THQ didn't take this idea to the point of risk yet... they are testing it on a sport title... when the BIG game is actually the action(Shooters... like... say... maybe SPACE MARINES!~), and RTS (like Dawn of war)...

 

[GonzoGamer]

Unfortunately after a few publishers do it with some success, EA, Capcom, & Activision will start selling $40 demos where the bulk of the game is from DLC.

I disagree with the publishers you name, but I fully agree with your point.

The iPhone style, sell a cheap/free game, that's crippled without buying all DLC.

Exactly.
I actually think it's a good idea, it's just that it might set a bad precedent for some of the more greedy publishers... and I think we/they all know who they are.

 

[JimmyFury]

I'm a little torn. The potential for such a system to be abused by the Dollars-over-Quality side of the industry is really high.
But then lower price points can level the field a bit between the high-disposable-income-teenage-gamers and the strict-budget-adult-gamers. A boost to the DLC market would also help stabilize it, bring down prices, and draw out market-standard prices.

Plus there's the reality of the situation. We're already getting hit with repackaged cut content, gimped games, and continuously growing multiplayer via DLC. It's not some theoretical concept or anything. That part is already happening and it's profitable so it's not going away.
All THQ is proposing is a drop in the base-game price.

 

[Icehearted]

I think your closing points are killer, Greg. One of the reasons I'd actually avoided more than a few shooters was due to the larger focus on multilayer, which I've always felt is too dependent on other players rather than on the game itself (which is awful when you take into account all of the boosting that goes on online). I think the idea could be a good one, as long as they don't start abusing the DLC system to milk even more money out of us with higher price points for their content. I realize they're already doing as much, but still it could get a whole lot worse than Horse Armor if they decide to take that path.

 

[IamGamer41]

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.

That's the point...

You buy what you want added to the game.

So if that true ending for a game is DLC your just shit out of luck if you don't want to pay the 7 or 15 bucks for it.

 

[Jacob.pederson]

I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

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

That's funny, so all my free campaigns for Left for Dead must have occurred in my imagination then?

Left 4 Dead was hardly a full game when it was released.

I paid $35 for Left 4 Dead on release day (4-pack deal), but If you don't want to count that, how about the free maps, game modes, and features on Starcraft 2? Or the free new Portal themed game modes on the 13 games of the Potato Sack? How about the free map packs on Unreal Tournament, Company of Heroes, Portal 1 or Team Fortress 2? I seem to recall similar items being priced in the $10 range on consoles.

No, you won't get free updates for ever . . . but on a system that has to compete with piracy (PC), games will be cheaper, better, offer more community support (official mod support) and offer more free stuff, because they HAVE to. If they didn't, many more people would just pirate.