THQ Boss Challenges $60 Price Point

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I don't like DLC. I don't want DLC.
Stop making DLC.

I wish them luck, and I'll be interested to hear how it goes. But I have a nagging suspicion that the relative ease of piracy combined with a rising social trend of self-destructive irresponsibility disguised as self-interest has more to do with piracy than price point.

Art Axiv:

Or they can put the talent they have gathered into a development cycle of a new IP; I'm sympathizing with the developers, since they don't make the bad business decisions to publish often unfinished *items* but this does not mean that the quality standards are meant to be low for DLC. Also, you made it sound along the lines:

Publisher: "Buy the DLC or the Devs get it!"
Customer: "Alright, alright, put your pen away, you dont have to sign that management decision you have there.."

This is not how free market should work. And it's not something I support. I support quality, not harassment on both of the ends of the "supply chain". The DLC business model gets out of hand now. If its the digital purchase the publishers (or even developers?) want, just keep improving the digital stores and cloud computing while moving away from ordinary retail. I'd never buy a game to "customize" it with DLC. I find the idea atrociously frustrating. It's the same thing like buying a game just to see a in-game cash shop. Imagine Guildwars with a cash-shop in it, this is how I see it. Bad, is rather politely said.

I would love developers to put their talent into new IP's. But they'd have to convince the Publishers to go along with it. Which is much easier said then done.

And they are trying the "buy the DLC or the devs get it" thing. Only they're doing it with used games. I'm not saying I disagree(although it did sound like it...), I'm saying that with the way this industry works now, money is king. DLC gets more money, regardless of quality, so thats probably going to be the focus going froward.

And I wish they would improve online stores. Just to have something to compete with Steam. Its "biggest" competitors right now are Impulse(which was bought by Gamestop, so it might decline, or just get more annoying to use), and Games for Windows Live(HA!). Publishers/Developers are still trying to figure digital stuff out right now. There's going to be rough patches, but hopefully in time things will work out.

Well, publishers/developers other than Valve are trying to figure things out at least. You'd think that they would learn from the lessons of Steam, considering how successful it is.

Not a bad idea, and it has worked in some cases (Turbine's LOTRO and DDO being two prime examples), but if done wrong it could instantly kill online play for the title in question. How is online play going to work when each player has potentially a completely different assortment of tracks to race on? Or some players have cash shop bikes/atvs that are more better than anything non cash shop players can get? They need to tread carefully here or they'll be charting their own demise, no matter good the concept is.

THQ should do this for Saints Row: The Third. just sayin.

Hey as long as the game doesn't suck this sounds like a viable plan.

>THQ

This is doomed to fail.

Art Axiv:

Traun:

Jaranja:

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

No, I think he wants expansions...or equals.

Yes! Polished expansions are a huge yes in my book! It's a fact that DLC never improved the gaming experience I've got from a game. I consider it a huge bottomless pit of low-quality gaming experiences.

More or less this. I have experienced worthwhile DLC, but it's definitely rare.

That said, if I could've purchased Bioshock 2 for without the multiplayer or Black Ops without the singlePlayer for half price, I would've been more likely to buy those games instead of rent them. I understand the logistics issues regarding selling two different versions of a game instead of one, but it's an interesting concept that I would bet is going to happen in the not too distant future (next five years or so).

Hey maybe if they lower the prices for games, NZ could get games without the added bullshit!

I suppourt THQ. They better do it for Space Marine.

Irridium:

Traun:

Irridium:

That would require the game they just worked on to be a success. Which is something thats not easily predictable.

Usually a work on an expansion starts somewhere around 1-2 weeks to a month before release. Not to mention that a lot of work is done by outside studios hired for specific task, so they work on part-by-part basis. Not to mention that they don't have to work on a sequal...or with the same studio (part of the CoD team may be redirected to work on Guitar Hero).

They've been doing it for decades, believe it or not there was a time when studios did fine without DLC.

Yes, there was a time when developers did fine without DLC. But that was before budgets ballooned into the $20,000,000 to $50,000,000 range, where one flop could mean the end of a developer.

It was also before selling a million copies was a standard. Budget have gone up, yes, but the market has expanded as well.

Well I just hope that shorter games get cheaper instead of longer games getting more expensive.

Sounds good on paper. We will have to wait and see how it pans out though.

Also make new releases go digital download same day on PSN and XBL for $10 or $15 less. You have the convenience of never leaving home to help fight piracy (plus the lower price point), and it can never be traded in.

Irridium:

Traun:

Irridium:

They either can make DLC or the publisher can fire a chunk of the studio after the game reaches content complete.

Or they could redirect them to work on another project...like they did for decades and are still doing so.

That would require the game they just worked on to be a success. Which is something thats not easily predictable.

Iron Lightning:

Jaranja:

Art Axiv:
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.

Because Nexon works on micro transaction, and will drop a game if it is not making money.

Finally! I love it, some games just aren't worth $60. Especially if I only want one part of it.

Irridium:
*snip*

We reached agreement then! : )

RedEyesBlackGamer:
What I posted on Facebook about this 3 months ago:
"Apparently, THQ thinks that "the future of gaming" is releasing a deliberately unfinished game at a lower price point and completing it through DLC. That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. If I buy a game, it better well be a FULL game."
Pretty much my opinion now.

Why on earth would you have something against a reputable publisher not REQUIRING the consumer to pay for something they don't want, while still delivering an entire game? On top of that, it means a higher percentage of the profit from the game goes directly to the game's devs and publisher. I still agree with the above proposed model for FPS's, the "sell single and multi-player seperately", since some people (myself included) don't give a damn about multiplayer.

Also, ... is...
is that Naoto Shirogane?

All I want from Starcraft 2 is the multiplayer. Why can't I pay half-price for half the game?

I think I like this idea.

delanofilms:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
What I posted on Facebook about this 3 months ago:
"Apparently, THQ thinks that "the future of gaming" is releasing a deliberately unfinished game at a lower price point and completing it through DLC. That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. If I buy a game, it better well be a FULL game."
Pretty much my opinion now.

Why on earth would you have something against a reputable publisher not REQUIRING the consumer to pay for something they don't want, while still delivering an entire game? On top of that, it means a higher percentage of the profit from the game goes directly to the game's devs and publisher. I still agree with the above proposed model for FPS's, the "sell single and multi-player seperately", since some people (myself included) don't give a damn about multiplayer.

Also, ... is...
is that Naoto Shirogane?

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.

It all doesn't make sense though, I mean if you have a lower price point they will abuse the hell out of dlc and you'll end up paying more to play with friends or get screwed because they won't have what you have.

Hard drive space is at a premium and Id rather get all my content for 60 than pay 40 with 30 dollars worth of dlc, see if you can figure out why.

Even if I didn't but the DLC I'm behind the cheaper game price.
I'm behind it 100%.

Hope it's successful in some regard so other companies can have cheaper prices on games

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.

There's always more than black and white to everything, but I don't like DLC because it makes the game you buy feel less complete and sometimes developers even develop with DLC in mind so much they leave (story) hooks everywhere that make it obvious there's be something in the future.

Call me an old guy that tells those youngsters to get off his damn lawn, but I like my games as a complete package. A beginning, a middle part, the end, all in one neat little game, everything gets resolved, no more questions, but maybe room for interpretation and pondering about details after the game, ideally.

Sequels *can* be just as bad, but most of the time they leave you with a somewhat complete original game overall and when you re-install the game you don't need to download a million patches and DLCs and wait for a month till everything is finally on your HDD. I just want to pay one, get my CD, and then stop worrying about money and immerse myself/have a fun time. That's the ideal.

I prefer it nice and simple: Pay once, get the full content. Fix bugs when bugs are due, please. Not even free content is always a good thing like TF2 likes to reminds me (tho it also reminded me how a good optional item store could work - if they left out the rarities).

In theory, this sounds... okay. It all depends on the type of DLC released. If it is Bethesda's horse armor, I would rather have the game at $60 with more content, but if it is ME2's Shadowbroker, then I think it'd be worth it.

Personally, for lots of games, I think $60 is too much.

But, it is better than some gimmicky micro-transaction based experience...

Jaranja:

Art Axiv:
I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

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

When was there ever a DLC that could be considered a genuine update? They're always just cash-ins. And I mean that for games I loved that had (in comparison to the rest of DLC content) decent DLC content (say, ME2). Not one of them felt like an actual update, they just felt like "oh here, go do a few more quests for 15$". I wish they scrapped the idea entirely and went back to expansions, several DLCs as a whole can at best hope to be AS good as an expansion and sadly, we view them as things that the developers are FAR less accountable for.

What I especially hate above and beyond all is knowing companies develop DLC that's ready to hit the shelves along with the game. So basically you're getting a part of your game cut out and sold to you for an additional fee and they don't even give you the courtesy of trying to hide it.

Magenera:

Iron Lightning:

Jaranja:

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.

Because Nexon works on micro transaction, and will drop a game if it is not making money.

Well, yeah, just like any other company (see: the APB fiasco.) They still continually update their games. What's your point?

Art Axiv:
I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

I wish the DLC came with the game and nothing more and then we wouldn't have to keep paying little by little until a game you bought for 40 ends up at around 80's worth.

Instead of $60 for a game, offer the single player for $30 and the multiplayer for $30. $60 if you want both.

Art Axiv:
I wish there wouldn't be DLC.

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:
I'd never buy a game to "customize" it with DLC. I find the idea atrociously frustrating.

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.

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.

Fronzel:
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.

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.

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?

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here