THQ: Console Gaming May Switch to Free-To-Play
But maybe just for the first chapter. If you want more, pay up.
THQ boss Brian Farrell said that new console games will eventually drop in price, costing around $29 to $39. After purchasing a title, gamers would then have the option to download extra content that could cost up to $100. There's even a possibility that console games could go free-to-play, taking on the microtransaction structure currently used with PC-based MMORPGs online, or offering bonus "chapters" for a price.
During the Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference in New York, Farrell noted that the MX Vs. ATV titles sell "reasonably well" when they hit the market packed with a $59.99 price tag--around one million to one million and a half units. But once the games are lowered to a mass market price range (meaning cheaper), sales suddenly spike.
"So what we're doing this time is we're coming out initially with a smaller game at a lower price point--the $29 to $39 range," he said, referring to the next MX Vs. ATV title due next year. "We're then doing a download model for different modes, different tracks, different vehicles. It's what we call a hybrid--it's a bit of the microtransaction and DLC model."
Farrell seems to firmly believe that this model will be the future of gaming whether it's the reduced-price model, or a take on the free-to-play mode. "It's where our industry is going and this is a very, very interesting experiment with one of our key brands," he said.
Sony has already introduced a similar model on the PSP with the release of ApeQuest, an RPG spinoff of Ape Escape. Gamers can download a "starter pack" for free, and then purchase the remaining three separate chapters (Gold, Blue and Red) for $9.99 each. Gamers can also purchase the entire bundle for $19.99.
- Confirmed: Verizon Heading into Tiered Pricing
- Emergency Bra Doubles as Two Respiratory Masks
- Mark Zuckerberg is Worth More Than Steve Jobs
- The iCon an 'iPad-compatible' Bed; Costs $20,000
- Verizon Chief Shoots Down 2011 iPhone Dreams
- Netflix Sorry for Hiring Actors to Fake Excitement
- Tega v2 Tablet Will Have Dedicated Ctrl+Alt+Del
- Zynga: We Add 1,000 Servers Each Week
- RealD Bringing Full HD Passive 3D in 2011
- Samsung Galaxy Tab Gets Full Video Walkthrough
- 12-Year-Old Boy Killed Due to iPod Distraction
- Apple Store Gets Burglarized for $24,000 Worth
- Netflix Sorry for Calling Americans Self-Absorbed
- Blockbuster Officially Files for Bankruptcy
- Mozilla Shows Off Awesome Smartphone Concept
- Sony Says Fake PS3 Controllers Could Explode
- Sorry, No Tethering for Windows Phone 7
- Man Hacks VoIP, Gets 10 Years Sentence
- UN Selecting Ambassador for Alien Contact
Greed ruins yet another form of entertainment.
No the problem is that many games cost too much for the content you get. Lowering the price and the content, then charging MORE for a little extra content only makes it worse.
There was a time when you could buy a game and it would last you a week to complete, and then if it had multiplayer it could be even more. I just beat Bioshock 2 in a day yesterday, and the multiplayer isn't worth anything at all. Some people paid $60 for that game, and THAT is the problem.
no more buying
No, THQ, the problem is that $60 dollars is just too much and people hold out for the $30-$40 dollar price drop.
Ok well you can have that thq. But I still want my map and modding tools for the pc. Then youb can bundle a map that I made for free. And sell it to the box-tards for $15
Anyone remember when Cartridge games were upwards to $80?
what they really mean is paying $29-$39 for half of a game and then they will charge us up the ass for the ending, for costumes, for multiplayer, for cut scenes, for guns, for characters. hell i bet they'll find a way to charge you for trophies/achievements.
Welcome to 20 ago with PC shareware software. Two very notable examples being Wolfenstein and Doom. The first chapter was free and widely distributed via friends, floppies, and BBS with the full version available for a price... almost any PC game around that era had something similar. I understand that this is newer for consoles, but it's a hardly an experiment in gaming.
60 is way too much, I personally buy only 1 NEW game per year and that is the SVR series. but if THQ goes this route (charging more for the same game) Then I will simply STOP buying console games.
Don't care much for console gaming or THQ but making games free to download & free to try limited content before paying for the full version is, in my view the best method for selling a game.
Years ago I brought 3 games mail order after reading good magazine reviews (DOS era), all cost about £ 35 each, all were crap, over £100 wasted.
It would stop people illegally downloading if there main reason is to try before buying, cause once they've downloaded and got it working why buy it...
Better for both consumer & developer.
Oh yeah & iv seen Assassin's creed 2 for PS3 in shops in Europe for 60 euros, can't see them selling many copies at that price.
The problem is that DLC is selling, and because of that they will keep making DLC as long as millions buy it. And it turns out they want to make only DLC over a free "Demo". They use the same system as crack dealers.
Dropping the price to get more sales? Good. Taking out parts of the game and then making them more expensive as downloads? Good...bye sales.
I think it is an interesting idea. Lower the entrance cost, but with less features, then allow people to add on more features for added cost. For instance maybe making a game like Halo Reach or MW2, and only having a few MP maps to start, but the full Single Player for say $40. Then add on new map packs every month. Then the people constantly playing the game online, would also be paying for new content each month. While the person only playing through the game for the story, does not end up paying for a multiplayer they dont use.
People also need to stop being so dam cheap when it comes to gaming. It seems like a lot of gamers would spend $18 for a dvd they'd watch maybe once a year, and it takes a whole 120min. Then they'd spend $60 for a game they'd play 20 hours+ a week for months, yet they bitch and moan about having to pay $60.
Even at $60 a game, + extra for DLC the dollar to entertainment hours ratio is still much much better then almost anything else.
Joy...as if the $60 price point for console games wasn't bad enough they now want to microtransaction us into oblivion...f**k...
Don't care much for console gaming or THQ but making games free to download & free to try limited content before paying for the full version is, in my view the best method for selling a game.Years ago I brought 3 games mail order after reading good magazine reviews (DOS era), all cost about £ 35 each, all were crap, over £100 wasted.It would stop people illegally downloading if there main reason is to try before buying, cause once they've downloaded and got it working why buy it...Better for both consumer & developer.Oh yeah & iv seen Assassin's creed 2 for PS3 in shops in Europe for 60 euros, can't see them selling many copies at that price.
Years ago I subscribed to "compute" magazine. They printed basic programs in the back of every issue for video games. You typed them into your computer and saved them, debugged, then run. free video games. It was a blast. That's how I got into computers back in early 80s. Meanwhile the dumb kids in my neighborhood were paying big money for game cartridges.
LOL, the shareware model?
People buy games once their prices go down because the vast majority of them aren't worth $60 in the first place. I'll buy 2, maybe 3 $60 games a year (always at launch, if I'm not going to buy it at launch I'd rather wait that pay full price), and I'll buy about 5-10 20-$30 games. Unless I'm absolutely positive I'll play a game to death, there's no reason to buy it at launch since I could instead buy two cheaper games of equivalent quality. By next year, when it still isn't any worse or better than a new game, I can pick it up at half price. Just because price goes down after a year or two doesn't mean quality of new games goes up in that time. In fact, thats almost never the case. There are generally maybe 3-10 "revolutionary" or "must have" games released a year across all genres, and that usually leaves something like 1-5 that any individual actually wants. Anything outside of one's "comfort zone" of sequels and preferred/clearly defined genres can easily be put off until next year.
If you want to sell new games at $40, fine by me, they'll sell better and a lot less people will wait for the price to drop. But if you try to sell "part" of a game new at $40, then charge something like $60 for the rest, not only will you lose launch sales (because those that buy at launch are more interested than those who wait and likely want to play the full game), you'll kill off the lower-price sales too, as a lower launch price will undoubtably mean the game will remain at that price for a longer time, so by the time it's affordable there is either something better or the game will "only" cost what a new game does today, once you factor in the cost of the DLC.
DLC as a whole is effectively just a price-hike for customers, as you may be getting more content out of one game, but the developers time could just as well have been invested in the development of another game, and if release schedules all remained the same, everything would have more content, and it wouldn't cost the developers anything more. (With the exception of developers not planning any games in the future, but if that's the case they are probably more worried about bankruptcy than making DLC.) It's true DLC takes less time to make than a new game does, but if you start a new game now instead of making DLC for an old one, you'll finish earlier and have time to finish the "DLC" before the launch date.
Wow, that turned out a lot more wall-of-text y than I wanted it to...
Basically, most games aren't worth $60 and DLC is a flat price increase that does nothing for consumers.
In the end, the cost is still rediculous. $50 for a game is expensive.
This format is good for the companies...very very bad for the consumers. You get even more crappy rushed games and you end up pay double of what you would pay now
The problem has been mentioned multiple times, the problem is that games don't have replay value and don't take that long to finish.
Anyone remember Zelda or Link on the NES? Final Fantasy 1? You remember how long they took to beat? Months! You could shave it down to weeks if you knew the game but then you still took months because there was replay value there.
There is no replay value in anything anymore. The last game I had replay value in was Battlefield 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 but that's multiplayer, the single player either didn't exist or was 5 hours long.
Design a game worth $60 and I will pay it.
People buy games from THQ still? damn.. news to me.
^+1 THQ has been making bad games for a while and ruining once good ones. Not surprised they came up with this BS idea.
If all forms gaming comes to this I'm done, thats the last straw. DLC and Ripp-off launch prices have almost broke the camels back anyhow.
This is a great business model for the consumer, which means it'll never catch on. People will realize a game's crap before spending the money which means less money for the vast majority of developers out there.
Sad, but true.
You guys are complaining about games costing $60, we here in Australia are paying $109 for a new release, considering the exchange rate atm is around 0.95C. They are ripping us blind here!
THQ games already drop to that price pretty quickly
this reminds me of heavenly sword
a mate of my stepdads told us its not a game you buy
its one you rent
bassically long story short he finished it in under 8 hours
this is a good idea. woulda saved me a ton of money on cod:MW2. that game is absolute garbage. 60$ was way too much for it. if it was in the 20$ bin i might have been happier. would be great for so many games. if you have to give your shit away free and rely on microtransactions to bring in the cash as people fall in love with your game and want to play more then youll make better games, hopefully. there is way too much fluff on the market now. especially for the Wii. other than new super mario brothers, SMG:2 and metroid other M there hasnt been anything on that thing for damn near a year.
THQ needs to read their own statement, its clear... switch to being a budget game company and your sales will spike. Your games aren't worth $60. Drop them to $19.99 across the board and you'll be a lot more successful. Stop trying to compete with the big boys, you're wasting your time and sending your company into bankruptcy.
so what they are doing is practically selling us a slightly longer demo version of the game for upwards of 20 dollars?
weren't demos free up until now?
I'd like to think that Brian Farrel is underestimating gamers and that people will realize they are being scammed. But when Xbox live avatar items (like costumes and the little RC warthog) are selling like hot cakes I have to admit people probably won't wise up. They'll buy up all his overpriced down loadable content as if they had real value.
Speaking of value, when are we going to be able to sell our download able content? You can sell and trade in used games but downloaded content is literally worthless.