THQ: Lower game prices to 40 dollars

[Bateluer]

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=23147

At a conference in New York earlier this week, THQ president Brian Farrell spoke about what his company believes is the future of gaming: lower retail prices paving the way for more DLC sales.

What we're thinking about the business is we're turning it on its head a little bit. It's not, 'how high a price can we get', but 'how many users.' If you can capture everyone under that economic curve, that's where you can make the most money.

Suggesting that the $59.99 price tag on most new video games is "keeping people out," he reasons that lowering that price will result in a larger customer base for post-release DLC offerings.

When we launched [MX vs. ATV] at $59.99, we'd do some units, and then when we brought the price down to the mass market-friendly price of $39.99, it would just pop. So the thinking this time is, let's initially launch at $39.99 -- it's a very robust game, very high quality, so this is not about trying to get a secondary title out.

It's an AAA title, at that price point, but then with a series of DLC so people can extend their experience. We think this is the future of gaming. We think that's the way games are gonna go in the long term.

It certainly makes sense, considering most people wait for the prices of new games to go down before they buy anyway. By starting out at a lower price point, you make better use of that initial hype and marketing AAA titles are treated with, instead of relying on the customer to find out about a price drop or sale later on.

Not to mention, you're probably more likely to shell out for DLC if you saved $20 to begin with, right? Assuming, of course, that the quality and amount of content offered with new games is not proportionally reduced...

Oops, 40 dollars for the game and another 100 for DLC.

Now, given a complete game for 40 dollars, I'm not opposed to quality DLC, but history has shown DLC to be lackluster at best. Overpriced, often broken, and not much more than the usual mods you can DL from various sources for no charge.

 

[Lonyo]

Why reduce games to $40 and then release lots of DLC when you can release games for $60 and then release DLC? Follow the Activision model!
(Also typo in your title, THQ not THG)

 

[Soccerman06]

I'm all for $40 full titles at release. However I don't want to pay $40 for 5 hours of gameplay and the $40 for another 5 hours to see the ending.

 

[Soccerman06]

Why reduce games to $40 and then release lots of DLC when you can release games for $60 and then release DLC? Follow the Activision model!
(Also typo in your title, THQ not THG)

Because more people will buy a game at $40 then $60, didn't you read the article?

 

[ImpulsE69]

On the surface this would seem like a win for consumers...maybe I'm one of the few, but I pretty much stay away from purchasable DLC, as you say..most of it is well..not worth the money.

At a deeper level, this is what I see happening: Companies making shorter, less featured games, knowing that they can "upsell" these things later. So eventually you are actually paying more than the $60 you would have initially spent for the same game it should have been. Then, when all DLC is released and the purchasing of said game and dlc is waning, they will release a GOTY edition with all said content in it for $60.

This is how companies work. It's all about spin and profit.

 

[Bryf50]

Sounds good as long as the DLC isn't something that should have obviously have been included in the initial release.

 

[LumbergTech]

sounds good to me

if the core game is actually GOOD enough to warrant purchasing the DLC then i will. otherwise theres no way in hell

i dont care if there is a cliffhanger ending or not, the game has to be good enough to warrant a secondary purchase

 

[JSt0rm]

deflation here we come.

 

[manimal]

Good news. I think steam is turning heads with these game sales.

 

[Chocu1a]

Yeah, THQ has probably sold more copies of Frontlines: Fuel of War in the last 3 months, than in the first 2 years it was released thanks to Steam!

 

[erikistired]

Because more people will buy a game at $40 then $60, didn't you read the article?

apparently not if you put Call of Duty in the title. then you can release a turd in a box and people will line up to drop 60 bucks on it.

 

[thedosbox]

I'm all for $40 full titles at release. However I don't want to pay $40 for 5 hours of gameplay and the $40 for another 5 hours to see the ending.

And yet there were plenty of people who bought BC2, MW2 and CODBLOPS for $60. None of whose SP campaigns ran over 10 hours. Sure, most of those people bought those games for MP, but I'll bet most of them never bothered completed the SP campaign.

The reality is that many people don't finish games (e.g. only 40% finished Assassin's Creed II), so why pay "full price"?

 

[soccerballtux]

And yet there were plenty of people who bought BC2, MW2 and CODBLOPS for $60. None of whose SP campaigns ran over 10 hours. Sure, most of those people bought those games for MP, but I'll bet most of them never bothered completed the SP campaign.

The reality is that many people don't finish games (e.g. only 40% finished Assassin's Creed II), so why pay "full price"?

why even include the SP?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Sounds good as long as the DLC isn't something that should have obviously have been included in the initial release.

They're going for the whole razor and blades strategy. It'd be extremely naive to even hope the DLC won't be things that should have been included in the initial release.

 

[ZzZGuy]

I don't mind as long as:

A- The base game is worth $40.
B- You do not need any DLC to enjoy the game or enable core features like MP (if it has it).
C- The DLC is worth whatever it's price tag is.

I'd also say no online activation/install limits but that is more of a overall DRM issue then a DLC issue.

 

[gorcorps]

I like the idea in theory, but if this happened they'd just put less effort into the vanilla game.

 

[fatpat268]

Makes complete sense.

Lets face it, most games aren't "worth" $60 at release. I certainly won't buy a mediocre game new at $60, but I might just at $40. There should definitely be a tiered pricing structure for new games, where only the elite games debut at $60.

 

[coloumb]

$40 is about the max price I'm willing to pay for PC games without a demo. Word of mouth and a few review sites that I visit have been nearly spot on if the game is worth it or not [Metacritic is nice as it provides reviews from numerous sources]

 

[Postbiological]

$40 is about the max price I'm willing to pay for PC games without a demo. Word of mouth and a few review sites that I visit have been nearly spot on if the game is worth it or not [Metacritic is nice as it provides reviews from numerous sources]

Yep

 

[CZroe]

How about $40 standard (as I've been saying all along) and charging appropriate prices fo expansion packs like the PC market had done for decades? Is that concept too old in this DLC age? Why did Prince of Persia get DLC on consoles and not even a paid expansion on PC (easier to do even!)?

 

[Modular]

This is so common in everything and yet they make it seem like they are reinventing the wheel.

Screw the DLC and just lower prices. Don't start playing games with people's games.

 

[Gibsons]

sounds good to me

if the core game is actually GOOD enough to warrant purchasing the DLC then i will. otherwise theres no way in hell

i dont care if there is a cliffhanger ending or not, the game has to be good enough to warrant a secondary purchase

I agree. They need to make the game good enough initially under this model, or they won't get the DLC.

 

[SMOGZINN]

They're going for the whole razor and blades strategy. It'd be extremely naive to even hope the DLC won't be things that should have been included in the initial release.

I like the idea in theory, but if this happened they'd just put less effort into the vanilla game.

I think this will happen at first, but then a lot of games will fail because the company held back to much content and the game sucked, so no one wanted to buy the DLC.

For this model to work the original game has to be really good. People have to WANT more of the game, or no one is going to pay for more of the game. And that is why I think it will ultimately help the market. It will encourage the creation of better games, and will keep the buy in price of new games lower. That means I will spend less of my money on crap I will only play a few hours.

The only real problem I see with this is that once a company has a hit game they are going to suck you dry. Think about Blizzard having Starcraft weekly DLC that is $5 for a new unit or map. You might be able to still play, but you will be at a disadvantage that will grow as you fall behind. A real life equipment grind!

 

[Nintendesert]

STEAM and Valve reached this conclusion a long time ago. That's why you see so many sales. As the price of a game goes down the number of people purchasing it grows in relation to the amount knocked off the price.

I know I impulse buy games all the time when they're on sale. A $60 purchase is significant. A $20 not so much. And I'm just more willing to drop down money on a whim on cheaper games.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Because more people will buy a game at $40 then $60, didn't you read the article?

That ignores profits... it's not about how much you can sell, but the profit!

Example -
Business model 1 - Sell 600,000 copies at $60 = $36 million
Business model 2 - Sell 700,000 copies at $40 = $28 million

In business model 2 the extra sales do not make up for the decreased product price.

Granted from the article it seems that THQ have seen fewer sales at $60 and much more when the price is reduced to $40...

(Maybe 1 sale at $60 to 3 sales at $40?)