THQ: Games Cost Too Much

J

John_Keck

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
379
THQ CEO Brian Farrell thinks $60 is just too expensive. Their upcoming game will be at a $40 price point with the goal of capturing more users and making money with the use of DLC. An interesting experiment!
“I know investors worry about price points,” he says. “When we think about this business, we wonder if we can turn it on its head a bit. How many users can we capture? … The real key is expanding in the installed base.”
Click to expand...
 
It sounds good up until the "making money with the use of DLC" part. Generally that means very limited content and very expensive DLC.

I do appreciate the fact that THQ is at least experimenting with a new model, however, as opposed to just increasing the price of games as Activision seems all too happy to do. Hopefully it pans out well for them.
 
this scheme does work. by dropping the price 33%, they'll sell more than 33% more copies to make up for it. you see this kind of stuff on steam all the time.
 
Just keep in mind that the $30ish Atari/Nintendo 1 games from back in the 80's cost the equivalent of $100ish in todays money.

Personally I'd rather have 1 $20-25 expansion pack at the 6 to 8 month mark than 4 $5-6 DLC units spread out over the same time period. The latter fragments the market badly; even in single player mode having 5 configurations vs 2 makes strategy guides (excluding walkthroughs for linearish games) a PITA to create and maintain.
 
As long as they don't half-ass a $40 game to make people have to buy the DLC to get the rest of the content that should have been there initially then this is good.
 
djoye said:
As long as they don't half-ass a $40 game to make people have to buy the DLC to get the rest of the content that should have been there initially then this is good.
Click to expand...

Yea this is my fear as well. DLC can be really good but it can be stuff that should have been included in the game to begin with.
 
Prepare for more Capcom-style DLC: Selling you unlock codes for content that's already on the disc but locked away where you can't get it unless you pay them extra money.
 
$60 for a good game is not too expensive, heck I would go so far as to say it is downright cheap when you consider cost/hr of entertainment.

The problem is the overwhelming majority of games being pumped out at $60 a pop plain outright suck. I would wager a large percentage of those games would have trouble selling unless they released sub $20. Perhaps if the industry spent less time pumping out garbage and priced games according to the value they offered they might sell more. I know I demo and read reviews on everything except a few select titles these days before buying. While I don't care about the review rating per se (Because they are bought), I do want to know how many hours I can reasonably expect to get out of a purchase. I will not buy any game that I expect to get less then 15-20 hours of solid game play out of for $60.
 
Krieger91 said:
What game?
Click to expand...

A game called "MX vs. ATV".

Wikipedia tells me there's been a series of games from THQ with the titles "MX vs. ATV: Unleashed", "MX vs. ATV: Untamed", "MX vs. ATV: On the Edge" and "MX vs. ATV: Reflex", but I've never even heard of them before now, so I guess the lower price is an attempt to get more attention.
 
$60 for a game is pretty expensive. DVD movies are around $20. Producing a movie is certainly more expensive than creating a game.
 
I won't buy Call of Duty Black Ops just because of its price.

Obviously they get away with it, as people are prepared for a toy town online fps experience but I find it objectional. I've spent probably £500 on games this year but you have to draw the line.
 
Do you think they're finally noticing that its a buyers market with low demands and a high amount of expensive crappy games on sale?
I wish people would stop paying for crap at $60+ on the first day when it clearly is crap. I'm looking at you CoD ____ purchasers.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
$60 for a good game is not too expensive, heck I would go so far as to say it is downright cheap when you consider cost/hr of entertainment.

The problem is the overwhelming majority of games being pumped out at $60 a pop plain outright suck. I would wager a large percentage of those games would have trouble selling unless they released sub $20. Perhaps if the industry spent less time pumping out garbage and priced games according to the value they offered they might sell more. I know I demo and read reviews on everything except a few select titles these days before buying. While I don't care about the review rating per se (Because they are bought), I do want to know how many hours I can reasonably expect to get out of a purchase. I will not buy any game that I expect to get less then 15-20 hours of solid game play out of for $60.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

It used to be that games were a niche market. And while yes, awful games still got made, there were genuinely more good games available. These days, now that video games are a mass-market commodity, there are a far larger number of mediocre titles just looking to cash in on the suckers, meaning that the $60 pricepoint can mean pure gold, or pure shit, with little to indicate which is which.

Look at the Wii, for instance. On the system with the widest install base and the broadest appeal, we also find the largest amount of bullshit shovelware. The Wii does have some good games, but they are a tiny smattering next to the gargantuan pile of refuse that is the total Wii library.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Do you think they're finally noticing that its a buyers market with low demands and a high amount of expensive crappy games on sale?
I wish people would stop paying for crap at $60+ on the first day when it clearly is crap. I'm looking at you CoD ____ purchasers.
Click to expand...

Sorry :eek:
 
i haven't spent more than $40 on new games in a while, mostly due to big name games have been getting the preorder $20 credit treatment from amazon.
 
I understand that AAA titles can sometimes deserve a $60 price point, but there is a lot of crap that it doesn't make sense. Madden with only an updated roster should be like $30.
 
Make better games. That's the best plan to get more customers.


Boring repetitive videogames with no replay value are worth the same at 10, 40 or 60 bucks = A shit.
 
Well, hope THQ makes a pile of money, and there's a great following because of it, and others quickly follow suit.
 
Daemas said:
this scheme does work. by dropping the price 33%, they'll sell more than 33% more copies to make up for it. you see this kind of stuff on steam all the time.
Click to expand...

Actually, by dropping the price by 33%, you'll have to sell about 50% more copies to make up for the lost revenue.

Here's an example: THQ sells 100 copies at $50, resulting on $5,000 in sales. If the price drops by 33%, each copy is now selling for $33.50. At this price, it would take 150 copies for THQ to reach $5,000 in sales.

But other than that, I don't think it's such a bad idea.
 
The benefit of gaming on a pc is most games are $50 new, if I buy a console game I wait until it hits the bargin bin or I can find it cheap on craigslist.

$60 is just absurd for most games that tend to just be repackaged regurgitated crap (CoD, Halo, Rock Band, most sports games)
 
Example: I love FO3, but I hated having what... 5 DLCs coming out?

Now, I'm not buying Fallout New Vegas until all the DLCs are out.
 
Third time is a charm. If it's a good game it will have a GOTY edition with all the dlc, a much cheaper price and you will probably have a computer that will be able to play it with all the bells and whistles on by then..
 
I almost never buy games for full price anymore. Mostly because most can be beaten in less than 10 hours and offer little replay value. There are some exceptions, Mass Effect 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Halo Reach. I payed full price for, but most other titles I wait until they are $15-30 as generally that is all they are worth.
 
JimmiG said:
$60 for a game is pretty expensive. DVD movies are around $20. Producing a movie is certainly more expensive than creating a game.
Click to expand...

Producing a movie can be more expensive to create than a game, but has a hell of a lot more avenues of generating money.

1. Theatre release
2. DVD-Blu-ray release
3. Premium Channel release (think HBO and crap)
4. Regular Cable release
4. Free TV release

US games pretty much usually have a single release day. The worldwide release on all platforms. Very few games ever have more than a single release day and the only ones I can think of that do, are Japanese games. They get the arcade release, which sits there for a year. If popular enough it gets released for consoles. Then it gets to be released outside of Japan. Then we see it ported to handhelds like a year after that, with a Japanese release, then worldwide. Each time it gets ported, they make minor alterations to attempt to get ppl to buy the game twice.
 
DeathPrincess said:
And CoD and any pretty much any "millitary" shooter
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be like 99% of shooters?

Goldeneye for N64. James Bond is a Commander.
Quake I, II, 4. Military shooter.
Rainbow Six. Military shooter.
GoW. Military.

Very few shooters aren't military anymore. Even a game like Bioshock Infinite is borderline. The protagonist was part of a military contractor.
 
Games cost way too much these days. Thank you THQ for trying to make gaming more convenient.
 
3 years ago, I would have significantly purchased more games if they released at $40. Now, I am almost to the point of not buying any games until at least 12 months after release. Some companies are worse than others, but a typical release is starting to go like this.

1. Release game price for $60
2. Over the next ten months release $50 of DLC that (in some cases) can up to double the length of the game.
3. 11 months after release, drop price of game to $30.
4. 12 months after release, sell new edition with all DLC for $50.

As an early buyer, you used to know that there would be price drops. Now, it is unknown the level of premium that you will be paying if you want the full experience.

I don't have a problem with new multiplayer maps as DLC or new character costumes. DLC that substantially alters the game is what I have the problem with (Borderlands, Fallout 3...). I also have an issue with companies dropping support for the older version, and only patching the collector's edition (RE5 on PS3).

I took me a couple of games to realize that I am really being suckered into paying $100 for a game. Whether or not it is all up front cost shouldn't matter.
 
jamesrb said:
I don't have a problem with new multiplayer maps as DLC or new character costumes. DLC that substantially alters the game is what I have the problem with (Borderlands, Fallout 3...). I also have an issue with companies dropping support for the older version, and only patching the collector's edition (RE5 on PS3).
Click to expand...

Borderlands, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, etc DLC doesn't substantially alter the game that you originally bought. Now it does add to the game. I personally have zero issues with these kind of things. New multiplayer maps or character costumes. That crap should just be in the game to begin with.

Look at the games that come out nowadays. Regular version, $50-$60. Limited/Collector's version, $75+ dollars. Same as regular version with in-game armor, in-game weapon, in-game map, etc and $0.50 worth of some real life crap.

Fuck any kind of DLC and just go back to expansion packs. At least then, I'm spending $30-$50 on something that's worth it. $30-$50 gets me maybe half an expansion pack worth of DLC.

----------------

Also this is THQ. Are any of their games worth $60? Let alone $40. Maybe they should contemplate dropping the price to $20 and give out free DLC. Maybe then, I might actually buy one of their games.
 
jamesrb said:
3 years ago, I would have significantly purchased more games if they released at $40. Now, I am almost to the point of not buying any games until at least 12 months after release. Some companies are worse than others, but a typical release is starting to go like this.
Click to expand...

I am in the same boat. I usually buy games long after they are released or if they go on sale for some stupid price. The only game I've paid full price for recently was Starcraft 2 and that was not really worth it IMHO. That was the first game in over 8 years I paid full price for.
 
Because software has no marginal cost, "piracy" is natural and charging $60 is unnatural. The game itself should only be a means to company revenue, not the source of company revenue. This is why Starcraft 2 doesn't have LAN play, Blizzard wants to sell hosting service.

It's becoming practical for game makers to reduce PCs to dumb terminals that just run an interface. Piracy would become obsolete. For a further step, let in-game advertising pay for the hosting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top