THQ’s $40 plan to combat used games
We’ve heard publishers and developers alike screaming about the used games market and how it’s destroying their Christmas bonuses. Many of the gamers like myself simply say that if you may a game worth its money, then your problem of turning huge profits would be fixed. But is that really true?
Do you not think that the likes of Call of Duty are missing out on quite a few bucks because of used game sales? THQ’s answer to this to combat used game sales is interesting to say the least. Executive Vice President of Core Games at THQ, Danny Bilson, said that in order to battle that market he’d introduce $40 new games with an option to upgrade to a $60 experience for the buyer.
Here’s a look at what THQ plans to do with its latest MX vs. ATV game….
“We’re going to put out the best MX ever at $40 retail. We’re not going to lock the used guy out of any online, they’re going to have a full ticket to all the functionality. Within the game there’s going to be an online store where we’re going sell items to people where they can build at their choice. You can wind up paying more than $60 or less than $60. That model is really exciting to me; a game where you can build and invest as much as you want is great.
I’m really excited about digital model going forward in terms of putting out a sort of buffet of game and letting people shop how they like. Somebody with less money can still play and somebody with a lot of money can be passionate about it. That solves a lot of these problems. You’re going to see on that game, the used gamer isn’t locked out of anything; he unlocks everything and the store. That’s the future, that sort of a buffet game.”
What do you think about this model? Would you like a “buffet” of game to choose from if it costs $40? My concern is how little of a game you’d actually start out with at $40.
I’d love a $40 game these days but not if it’s a chopped up game with parts of it left out so that I can buy my way back to a $60 experience. What say you?
November 16th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Will they cripple the game?
You want to combat the used game market? Drop your price. If prices get down to $40 at release it will be more difficult for people to trade them in and purchase
November 16th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
I am all for dropping the cost as long as it does not cripple the game or the quality of the game. Without seeing this plan in action yet, we will have to wait to see how this turns out I guess. Sounds promising but only time will tell.
November 16th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
—I say, “WHAT YOU TALKIN BOUT WILLIS?” I am not sure how cutting the consumer cost on initial investment affects the used game market other than allowing someone who may have bought used to buy new. That being said, wtf would make anyone want to buy a new game at 40 that needs to be upgraded, why not buy it used then upgrade it? Logically it makes no sense and I don’t see how this aspect of the “business model” combats used game sales.
Now onto the nerfed game…again wtf? I need a little more info on this so called “business model”. What exactly aren’t you gonna give us, high performance atv’s? so that mean unless we upgrade we can’t compete with those who do…sounds like a plan to gently nudge you down the road to micro transaction b.s. you see in all the facebook apps.
The idea of performance vehicles or better equipment being available for purchase is merely speculation as they didn’t bother to outline what exactly you can get and for how much. Sure you can spend up to $20 but are there 45 items totally 20$ or 450 items?
Forgive my cynicism but crap like this always seems like a scam to end up with more dollars for less product. Often taking advantage of people with more impulsive buying tendencies…
I hope they prove me wrong.
November 16th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
this is stupid. these companies need to stop whining about lost sales. they make a DISGUSTING amount of money on these games already (CoD and Halo are prime examples). how much can they honestly be “losing” in sales?! really, this is even more pathetic than the online functionality that you have to buy with used EA sports games now. these companies can never seem to make enough money…
November 16th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
I understand how the used market can take cash away from retail games but find a way to fix that shit without holding back content or messing with my pocket please…. Look into making the production of games more efficient or something. There’s companies that would take this innocent business model and make it into something completely screwed up.
”
“Pay $40 for 56% of single player and gimmie $30 for the rest! Want multiplayer you say? Pay $40 now and get a free cheese doodle for your avatar!
This is slowly getting way out of hand and I think it’s time for Batman to step in and save us. /Summon Batman
I’m WAY better at talking than typing my thoughts out which I’m working on, so I’m gonna shut up now before this gets jumbler…. Later homies!
November 16th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
I say this is an extremely bad idea, and I for one will not be stupid enough to buy into it. I hate microtransactions as it is, but to now take part of the game and make it like that aswell. That’s absolutely ridiculous. I hope Square Enix never screw up with stupid ideas like this
November 16th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Nan <3's Square Enix lol
November 16th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
FAlL on THQ
November 16th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
we will have to see how this turns out. this system may work for racing games.
i’m not sure how it will work for the other genres. maybe if i want to play a fps like COD or Gears just for the single player and if i want to decide to play multiplayer i will.
as long as EA doesn’t do this style, they will nickel and dime everything.
anyone remember them wanting us to pay ms points for in game weapons and cash.
I remember in Dead space you could buy weapons and a new rigs for points. I sure hope they dont do this again, but i’m sure they will for dead space 2.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
@PIMP, just curious why you think its fail. If done right it could work. Not saying it will be done right, but what are your reasons behind why you think it will fail.
November 17th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
@ SugarRy Most people do not play games online and are not informed about this like parents and non gamers. Parents who get games at the Wall Mart or Target stores. There be asking a lot questions to the store workers who have little knowledge about gaming.
November 17th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
@Pimp, good points.. i could see that happening
November 17th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
i agree about targeting the uninformed, a parent that doesn’t play will not think the game is different only the price.
November 17th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@Pimp. I have to admit, those are very valid points. Getting all to understand what they are getting could be difficult and it not properly done cause poor publicity for sure.
November 17th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Well if the dlc or extra purchase is almost needed to compete the confusion is probably welcomed. Like I said someone who doesn’t know much about games looking for a present now has the option to buy a 40$ new release, not knowing until they get home it’s gonna cost them an extra 20$. It could help initial sales. How it combats used game sales I still don’t understand.
November 19th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
This is dumb! It helps them get more money and that’s it. Just stick with how it is now, I don’t wanna play $40 for part of a game.
November 20th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
good thinkin eric get the word out homie…fight the power!
November 21st, 2010 at 12:34 pm
this is great for me b/c I never play online anymore. So I save tons of money as long as I get my 1000 GS with my $40 I am fine.
November 30th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Good point Hartman. If the online portion was just extra then those single player gamers would benefit greatly from this as long as the did not short the single player campaign and ruin the game.