THQ Boss Challenges $60 Price Point

[Lorechaser]

Sorry, the consistently rotten behavior of video game publishers has made me sure this is just another ploy to drive up the cost of games. I could be wrong, but I kind of expect the "complete through DLC" thing to be a scam. At least I expect people who play online to get screwed as they will sell better bikes and upgrades and stuff, nerfing anyone who doesn't want to be nickel-and-dimed to death.

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.

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.

 

[katsumoto03]

Shit, I don't even usually like these kind of games and I'll probably buy it just to support this.

 

[NinjaTigerXIII]

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.

 

[shadowform]

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.

 

[Reallink]

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?

 

[mooncalf]

Hope it's a good game, because I'll be buying it to support devs/pubs seeking non-DRM related solutions, whether or not they work either.

 

[NinjaTigerXIII]

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?

Ay, there's the rub.

 

[WanderingFool]

What do you guys think? Are microtransactions like what Farrell is proposing for MX vs. ATV: Alive the future of console games?

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.

This has the potential to be good, and if implemented correctly, it can be a good leap in innovation. The question comes up as to what should be offered for the $40? Are you given just the multi-player and then asked to buy the single player, or vise versa? Are both options given at the $40, but only on a very basic level, and so you buy what you want from there? Is the game actually complete in its offering of both multi and single player and if you want more of one type over the other you just buy it?

This can either be a great way to customize the player experience while still generating a profit (maybe even a bigger profit) while not ripping off the player from having a complete gaming experience, but it can just be another form of price gouging. We will have to wait and see. Still, it sounds like an idea I could get behind.

Actually... this was basically what I was saying... so ninja'd... damn...

 

[Worgen]

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

 

[Wandrecanada]

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.

 

[Jaranja]

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.

They are completed...

DLC is extra content.

 

[Jaranja]

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.

 

[Jaranja]

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?

 

[Jaranja]

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.

 

[acosn]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Art Axiv]

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.

They are completed...

DLC is extra content.

Not in the proposed model I'm afraid. Currently, what you said is true though.

 

[Snotnarok]

I think I like what World at War had, free updates that were sponsored by a company that they showed an image of every loading screen.

Mass Effect 2 was the biggest runner up with that, good solid DLC for a mostly fair price and then guns or whatever you could chose to buy.

The worst by far is Call of Duty, 15 dollars for 4 maps? I can buy full games for that price.

 

[Jaranja]

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.

 

[Rad Party God]

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.