Sounds terrible and will only lead to lower quality/shorter games upon release as "We'll save that content for DLC" will become the mantra of certain studios.
THQ: The Future of Gaming Is Lower Prices, More DLC
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Ugh...that made my balls hurt.Greg Tito said:
Anyway, sounds good, as long as the base game has enough content to satisfy the consumers. Not everyone wants to dish out money for DLC's. It really depends how low the game price is.
If the game they sell is worth $40 or whatever they are charging then fine. If they are charging $40 for an engine demo then you pay another for the game content they are wankers.
Oh and a hint for the marketroids, my impulse buy threshold is $5. More than that and I start thinking about it.
Also I think there should be MORE horse armor, outfits, hair styles, skins etc as DLC. Because morons will buy that and the developers and publishers make more money, while I don't and get more and better games, so really everyone wins.
Oh and a hint for the marketroids, my impulse buy threshold is $5. More than that and I start thinking about it.
Also I think there should be MORE horse armor, outfits, hair styles, skins etc as DLC. Because morons will buy that and the developers and publishers make more money, while I don't and get more and better games, so really everyone wins.
no,no no no no nonononono....NO.
this is the exact opposite direction you should be going, we're already on the trend of 'release a broken unfinished game, fix it with patches later and milk DLC out of the consumers desperation to get a complete experience', and it is not good.
...please... take a journey with me fellow escapists, to a different time. a time when a game had to be released completely finished, as is, and with no quick and easy patching had to be in working order as is. a time when an expansion pack to an existing title had to be damn full of content to warrant a purchase.
...but that time is long gone, and the age of broken moneygrabs has descended upon us. if we are to have any hope of returning to the era of gaming paradise, we must remind publishers that, yes, games are frikken hard to make and take a long ass time, but that is the glory of it; for all the struggle, you will have realized what a cohesive, entertaining experience the developers countless hours of dedication have produced; a singular experience of pure awesome, that if awesome enough could result in being able to release expansions to the game with half the content at 3/5 the price and totally being worth it.
or, you could take this route; give developers 6 months to shrug their way through 1/3 of a game, release it barely finished for cheap, gather no fans to your partial game, then work on DLC to make back your investment that no one will play because no one bought the broken, 2 hour mess you released initially.
hype for big titles, release day events, all the excitement AAA titles garner with the promise of full gaming experiences...you will kill it all. please, dont. for the love of gamers everywhere, and for the love of my money, dont. your the only publisher with any semblance of sense left THQ, dont lose your marbles now.
this is the exact opposite direction you should be going, we're already on the trend of 'release a broken unfinished game, fix it with patches later and milk DLC out of the consumers desperation to get a complete experience', and it is not good.
...please... take a journey with me fellow escapists, to a different time. a time when a game had to be released completely finished, as is, and with no quick and easy patching had to be in working order as is. a time when an expansion pack to an existing title had to be damn full of content to warrant a purchase.
...but that time is long gone, and the age of broken moneygrabs has descended upon us. if we are to have any hope of returning to the era of gaming paradise, we must remind publishers that, yes, games are frikken hard to make and take a long ass time, but that is the glory of it; for all the struggle, you will have realized what a cohesive, entertaining experience the developers countless hours of dedication have produced; a singular experience of pure awesome, that if awesome enough could result in being able to release expansions to the game with half the content at 3/5 the price and totally being worth it.
or, you could take this route; give developers 6 months to shrug their way through 1/3 of a game, release it barely finished for cheap, gather no fans to your partial game, then work on DLC to make back your investment that no one will play because no one bought the broken, 2 hour mess you released initially.
hype for big titles, release day events, all the excitement AAA titles garner with the promise of full gaming experiences...you will kill it all. please, dont. for the love of gamers everywhere, and for the love of my money, dont. your the only publisher with any semblance of sense left THQ, dont lose your marbles now.
Not quite. With lower prices, they will expect to sell more units and have more people out there in the potential market for the DLC (in turn selling more units without the middle man). It is basic economics, and I doubt pseudo-annual sports games will suffer from this drop considering their marginal costs are relatively low.Tenmar said:
Video games operate in an oligopoly (few sellers with many barriers to entry) and to maximize profits they need to set prices (because of the oligopoly they are allowed to set prices) where the marginal costs equal the marginal gains. By lowering costs (half produced game with a multitude of DLC) they can lower the price and have the same marginal gains. In fact, they could earn more money because the DLC costs are paid to them meaning the only people suffering would be retailers since they won't see the extra payments from the DLC.
Well, it's nice to know Farrell has a brain compared to the likes of what passes for one in Kotick's head. Good show, THQ, I (and I imagine many others from what I've read in the comments so far) agree.
There's two ways I can really look at this. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Downside: You might end up paying more for games than you normally would. To get all the maps on a gmae, plus weapon packs, costume packs and stuff mite end up costing a bit more than a pretty penny.
Upside: You may be able to choose what game features you want in a game. You would only have to buy the game levels that you're interested in, or game features, meaning you cut out all the other crap that you were never going to use in a game anyway.
Maybe. I'd still prefer to have whole games tho, with good and bad. Kinda like a condom, it's better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. ;P
Downside: You might end up paying more for games than you normally would. To get all the maps on a gmae, plus weapon packs, costume packs and stuff mite end up costing a bit more than a pretty penny.
Upside: You may be able to choose what game features you want in a game. You would only have to buy the game levels that you're interested in, or game features, meaning you cut out all the other crap that you were never going to use in a game anyway.
Maybe. I'd still prefer to have whole games tho, with good and bad. Kinda like a condom, it's better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it. ;P
I like this idea
1. I get a game on the cheep.
2. If I like said game a lot then I will buy some DLC.
3. If the game is not in my taste I don't have to buy DLC and I save around 20$.
1. I get a game on the cheep.
2. If I like said game a lot then I will buy some DLC.
3. If the game is not in my taste I don't have to buy DLC and I save around 20$.
Thats what I was going to say. The only problem I see is that they only release a game worth $40, and sell the other $20 as DLC.BenzSmoke said:
This is actually a great idea. They would get more preorders, more new game sales, and then the DLC would easily make up for the $20 initial loss. It could also effectively kill used sales for those would just wait a month for games to come down $15-20 for the used copies.
I would have probably increased my new game purchases some 200% to 300% if I had this as a possibility.
But cutting content would probably be what happens with the big companies (EA, Acti, Ubi).
I would have probably increased my new game purchases some 200% to 300% if I had this as a possibility.
But cutting content would probably be what happens with the big companies (EA, Acti, Ubi).
Me too, especially new IP's, who knows, games could cost $30, and if you sort of enjoy it, it's not that bad of an investment, and if you really liked it, you can buy more DLC for it, spending even another $30 to further your gameplay. Even if I bought a game I thought would be good and I was kinda disappointed (let's say, Haze), then I wouldn't feel as disappointed spending $40 or even $30 on it. I might even hold onto it as opposed to selling it for a price like that.Raregolddragon said: