THQ wants to have their cake and eat it too

[SMOGZINN]

from 1up:

THQ CEO Brian Farrell sees a future in a number of alternative business models for games -- free-to-play, digital distribution, and what THQ's doing with MX vs. ATV Alive (releasing a $60 game for $40 and offering tons of DLC). One of the most common complaints about digital games from the customer-side of things is that they aren't any cheaper than disc-based games -- only you aren't getting a physical object or the ability to resell it. Unfortunately, THQ isn't about to change that precedent.

Talking about digital distribution in a Forbes interview, Farrell explained its benefits from the publisher's side: The distributor's fee (what's charged by Microsoft on the Xbox Live Marketplace, Apple on the App Store, etc.) is less than what would be paid to retailers and first-parties with a traditional, disc-based release, not to mention the money that is saved on inventory. It saves the company money, to put it simply, though that doesn't mean those savings will be passed along to customers. "With respect to pricing, we evaluate the appropriate price for the games we are delivering, whether digitally or through traditional retail, based on the type and depth of the content," he said. In other words, should THQ feel Homefront is worth $60 on disc, it will cost $60 to download even if costs less to distribute.

When a game is cheaper than $60, as is the case with MX vs. ATV Alive, Farrell wants to avoid having gamers think of it as a "lesser product." He described the game as "an innovative concept based on what we've seen in the free-to-play markets. We're delivering a premium game experience at [a suggested retail price] of $39.99 in order to drive the installed base of users, and then digitally delivering over 100 pieces of downloadable content and an in-game store for micro-transactions, allowing the gamer to customize their experience and pay for the modes that they want to play."

So, THQ wants to have their cake and eat it too. They don't really seem to understand supply and demand, and sooner or later another publishing company is going to sell their games for lower prices and clean up. Yea, I'll eventually buy their shiny new game on Steam, but I'll wait a few months until it is a more reasonable price. In the mean time I'll play someone else's game that was reasonably priced to begin with.

It is the nickle and dimeing of endless DLC that bothers me, I can't help but think that sooner or later companies are going to start requiring the DLC to make the game playable with out it being noticed by the short time that reviewers have to evaluate it.

 

[Aikouka]

I hate it when DLC is actually on the disc, so all you're paying for is an unlock key to content that was developed under the project's funding.

 

[Bateluer]

I'm adding a new policy to my personal rules. I no longer purchase DLC. Its on the same list as Not Using the Cell Phone while Driving, and Not Taking the cell Phone into the Bathroom.

 

[KaOTiK]

Screw DLC, especially at the prices it comes out at.

I just wait a year for the super ultimated cock sucking game of the year collection to come out with everything and grab that on sale for less then what the base game itself cost when it first came out.

It is no longer buying a game in the first month it comes out anymore unless it is a must have game for you. Games are on sale not even a month later and I already mentioned the whole release it again a year later with everything.

I buy tons of games, but hardly any day one anymore, this year I've bought 2 games day one (Rift and DoW2 Retribution). The rest of the year day ones are BF3 WH40k Space Marine, maybe The Witcher 2, and I'll say maybe room for 1-2 other titles that I either don't know about or have no release date yet.

 

[Powermoloch]

DLCs = lame-o , if the game becomes half-assed, then I don't buy it. I vote with my wallet and tend to keep it that way.

 

[mindcycle]

DLC is ok IMO if it's developed after the game has been released and adds substantial content. Essentially, what used to be considered an expansion pack. What I don't like, however, is the nick and dime DLC BS. Like hats, horse armor, a cool front spoiler for your car!, etc.. Basically the entire Sims 3 online store model. The people who buy that crap are what's driving the industry to become DLC crazy. Everyone wants to cash in and it's getting absurd.

 

[SMOGZINN]

DLC is ok IMO if it's developed after the game has been released and adds substantial content. Essentially, what used to be considered an expansion pack. What I don't like, however, is the nick and dime DLC BS. Like hats, horse armor, a cool front spoiler for your car!, etc.. Basically the entire Sims 3 online store model. The people who buy that crap are what's driving the industry to become DLC crazy. Everyone wants to cash in and it's getting absurd.

I agree, what I'm really afraid of is a FPS that adds a DLC that adds stuff like a weapon that is required to be competitive in multiplayer, or an RPG that adds DLC needed to finish the game at all, that you don't even find out about until a 100 hours into the game.

Just think of Starcraft adding a new unit to each race, each sold separately, but allowing people that have bought them to play on the normal ladder against people that have not bought them.

 

[mindcycle]

I agree, what I'm really afraid of is a FPS that adds a DLC that adds stuff like a weapon that is required to be competitive in multiplayer

Sadly, it's already here man.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/04/battlefield-play4free-more-like-battlefield-cash4ea.ars

 

[KaOTiK]

Sadly, it's already here man.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/04/battlefield-play4free-more-like-battlefield-cash4ea.ars

Wow that is bad, like super real bad.

Cheaper to go buy BC2 right off Steam and have a full game then that crap.

 

[n7]

DLC like in Borderlands = i'm a happy buyer (for the most part).

DLC like in most other cash-grab scheme games = nope.

 

[simonizor]

DLC is ok IMO if it's developed after the game has been released and adds substantial content. Essentially, what used to be considered an expansion pack. What I don't like, however, is the nick and dime DLC BS. Like hats, horse armor, a cool front spoiler for your car!, etc.. Basically the entire Sims 3 online store model. The people who buy that crap are what's driving the industry to become DLC crazy. Everyone wants to cash in and it's getting absurd.

I hate to admit it, but I bought the horse armor. I'm not entirely sure why I did; I thought it would be useful at the time, apparently. I'm fairly certain that I lost the horse that I got the armor on anyways.. That was when I had it for 360, though.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Sadly, it's already here man.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/04/battlefield-play4free-more-like-battlefield-cash4ea.ars

Yup, precisely what I was afraid of.
Everyone PLEASE do your part to make sure this game is a huge failure, otherwise every game will slowly transform to this format.

As the article said, the TF2 method of hamster wheel shortcuts is acceptable, the Pay2Win format is not.

 

[busydude]

Remember few months back Codemaster's said the same thing.. with a little twist. Their intention was to prevent used game sales.. but the method is same. :thumbsdown:

Cousens says both sides in the debate have valid points and that some kind of accommodation has to be reached to end the "destructive" system that's currently in place.


DLC could feature prominently in any compromise solution, he said, suggesting that Codemasters could release a six-track retail version of its Formula 1 racing game and then add tracks via DLC as the season progresses, a system which would also give the game a more realistic, up-to-the-minute feel. "When you turn up in Abu Dhabi you have to pay for the circuit, and whatever the changes are to the cars that are put through," he told GamesIndustry. "That, I think, would deal with a lot of it, and also address the pre-owned."



He said the confrontational attitudes shown by both retailers and publishers is "ridiculous" and could eventually have a negative impact on the games themselves. "The way it's structured today is destructive, and it's negative to creativity and innovation. I believe it has to be managed - there's an element of it which is acceptable, and there's an element that isn't," he explained. "If the content creators could participate in the secondary or subsequent exploitation, I think that's fair game. I think equally the retailer then has an argument that he should participate in some of the DLC, which they ordinarily wouldn't. By default, you manage the process."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...s-CEO-Calls-Pre-Owned-Sales-Model-Destructive

 

[lupi]

as if there wasn't enough titles to allow me to wait and chose, these methods have mainly resulted in me waiting on any purchase until I can decide on if a GOTY or similar version will be released and then picking it up without the DLc hassle and at a much reduced price than if done initially.

 

[Glitchny]

Yup, precisely what I was afraid of.
Everyone PLEASE do your part to make sure this game is a huge failure, otherwise every game will slowly transform to this format.

As the article said, the TF2 method of hamster wheel shortcuts is acceptable, the Pay2Win format is not.

IIRC when they did this with battlefield heroes (buying weps) it made no real difference in multi-player. Something about the advantage of a different weapon wasn't enough to overcome skilled players etc.

Also considering how big a hit dlc/microtransactions are in Asia I don't see boycotting 1 game making a difference.

 

[Barfo]

Let others stuff the wallets of this greedy corporate fuckers.

Me? if I really want a game like this I wait until I can get the GOTY edition with all the DLC included for $15 or less. I don't care for belonging to the cool crowd that buys the game on launch day for $60.

 

[Soundmanred]

DLC like in Borderlands = i'm a happy buyer (for the most part).

DLC like in most other cash-grab scheme games = nope.

Borderlands was the only game I got DLC for, and I really enjoyed it.
Most of the other stuff just seemed like a cash grab.
I love Just Cause 2, but wouldn't get the DLC for it (guns, a jetpack, etc). Lame and not worth it.

 

[Raduque]

Some of the DLC for Dragon Age is great. Some of it, not so much (blood dragon armor, soldiers peak).

I thoroughly enjoyed all the DLCs for Fallout3 (Even the Nintendo-hard Point Lookout) and I'm sure I'll enjoy the DLCs for Fallout: New Vegas too.

Some DLC is good (buying a pack that includes new weapons, armor, enemies and a large area to explore with a good storyline in a shooter or action rpg), some DLC is bad (having to buy tracks to complete a season in a racing game). I encourage the former, and discourage the latter.

No game that cripples itself to get me to buy DLC will ever be purchased, whereas games that are value-added with DLC, but can still be completed as intended without the DLC will be bought.

Oh yeah, haven't played Borderlands DLC yet, so I can't comment on that.

 

[KaOTiK]

Want to know a game that went way way way overboard with DLC right out of the game? The new Tiger Woods Masters that just came out like a week ago. It is the first time the master tournament is in game or whatever and that is their big selling point on it. Funny thing is, when you play through that tournament not all the courses are available for you too play, it comes up telling you you need to purchase this course or you can skip it.

Someone added the DLC for the game up right as it came out, it was around $220 worth of DLC.

All I can say is, holy shit batman.

Oh yeah, that DLC crap is only on the PS3/360 version, the Wii version has it all since it doesn't support DLC, and the Wii version is $10 less then the other two's still LOL.

 

[floogy]

Mafia 2 is one game I'm glad I didn't pay full price for DLC (or full game for that matter). Decent full game, short but good. Sad dlc however. Jimmy's Vendetta was basically a lame GTA style sub game. The other DLC was just clothes and cars. I regretted buying that stuff for even less than a buck each. I'm with the guys who wait til it all comes packaged up for $20. Unless it's a game I really must have right away. Those are pretty rare.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Hmm, I'm seeing a lot of mixed reactions from people regarding DLC.

Some people hate the nickel-and-diming cosmetic DLC (e.g. horse armor, hats). Myself, I don't have a huge problem with it since it's entirely cosmetic and I can just ignore it. It does bother me on some level that anyone would be stupid enough to spend real money on fake stuff that doesn't even affect gameplay, but whatever, it's their money, not mine.

I am fine with "expansion pack-like" DLC, where you buy a complete new scenario. Stuff like several of the Mass Effect 2 DLC missions, or the Fallout 3 DLC.

What I don't like is locking things like certain game modes or in-game items that actually affect gameplay unless you pay money. Feels like I'm getting half a game. And I don't like it when games feel incomplete without their DLC, but so far I haven't run into that.

Personally, I feel no responsibility to foot the bill for devs beyond buying their game. But if they want to make some extra money by fleecing people dumb enough to buy skins and other useless stuff, that's fine by me. Some games may be funded in part by other people buying worthless cosmetic stuff, but not by me.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i think it works for SP and MP coop. I think it breaks competitive MP and generates resentment from gamers. Unless the haves are segregated from the have-nots.

 

[kalrith]

I'm with Kaotik and wait a while until they release a version that has all of the content. I treat expansion packs the same way. If a game has expansion packs, I wait until I can get everything for a reasonable price, or I don't get it at all. The exception would be Starcraft 2, which sounds like each expansion will be a whole other game.

 

[mindcycle]

Want to know a game that went way way way overboard with DLC right out of the game? The new Tiger Woods Masters that just came out like a week ago. It is the first time the master tournament is in game or whatever and that is their big selling point on it. Funny thing is, when you play through that tournament not all the courses are available for you too play, it comes up telling you you need to purchase this course or you can skip it.

Someone added the DLC for the game up right as it came out, it was around $220 worth of DLC.

All I can say is, holy shit batman.

Oh yeah, that DLC crap is only on the PS3/360 version, the Wii version has it all since it doesn't support DLC, and the Wii version is $10 less then the other two's still LOL.

Wow, what a joke. You'd be better off buying an entire wii system plus the game, as those two together would cost less than the "full" game on the other systems. lol

 

[AstroManLuca]

Wow, what a joke. You'd be better off buying an entire wii system plus the game, as those two together would cost less than the "full" game on the other systems. lol

LOL, you think that's bad? I added all the Railworks DLC to my Steam cart once and the total was over $1,000.