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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Basically, most games aren't worth $60 and DLC is a flat price increase that does nothing for consumers.