THQ’s Farrell Sees Game Prices Dropping

September 24, 2010 -

While THQ CEO Brian Farrell believes that the future could bring lower costs for console games, that seemingly bright prospect contains a bit of a catch for consumers.

Speaking at a recent Goldman Sachs conference, Farrell, as reported by CVG, sees console games eventually selling for between $29 to $39 at retail, but those would be basic or stripped down versions of games, with—of course—extra content available from paid downloadable content.

THQ will experiment with just this kind of concept on its upcoming MX vs ATV title. As Farrell noted, “In the past, we've seen that we bring the game out at $59.99 and it does reasonably well - around one million, or one million-and-a-half units.”

He continued, “When we lower the price to a mass market price the thing really jumps... 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.”

Then owners can spend money on DLC to their heart’s content. Farrell added that, “…a person that wants to spend $100 on the product can do so as well.”

The prospect of DLC is so attractive that Farrell even mentioned game makers possibly adapting a twist on the free-to-play model, where a base game itself would cost nothing for consumers.


Comments

Re: THQ’s Farrell Sees Game Prices Dropping

I would rather the game be on the disc to be frank memory for dlc costs money too.

that said I dont want to pay for multiplayer on the disc that Im never going to play.

Re: THQ’s Farrell Sees Game Prices Dropping

I think the addition of a lower price point at retail will be a good thing overall- for every existing game that winds up toothless to work within the lower price, there will be another, slightly smaller game from a slightly smaller developer that would otherwise have been relegated to digital-only because it couldn't command current retail prices brought to retail, where it will reach a wider audience.

Long-term, this will only be a good thing.

/b

Re: THQ’s Farrell Sees Game Prices Dropping

Just as long as Final Fantasy VII "new" is brought down in price from $119+ to something more reasonable, like $10-$20, I'll be happy.  And that's for the Playstation version.  The PC version is over $200.

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: THQ’s Farrell Sees Game Prices Dropping

Last i checked, FFVII was available for PSN for only like $10

Does make me wonder why the price for the PS versions have not dropped when their is such a cheap alternative

 now xenogears on the otherhand is worth bitching about... need to get that on psn in north america

Re: THQ’s Farrell Sees Game Prices Dropping

Yes, but that involves having a PS3 and/or a PSP (a PSP that your child hasn't broken in one fashion or another at any given opportunity).  Neither of which I'm buying for the sole reason to get him a copy of Final Fantasy VII, which he has expressed interest in.  :)

Nightwng2000

NW2K Software

http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000

Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Nightwng2000 NW2K Software http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

Re: THQ’s Farrell Sees Game Prices Dropping

Because they are originals and not rereleases.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: THQ’s Farrell Sees Game Prices Dropping

Somehow I don't trust THq doing this sort of thing. Good ideal on paper but this sort of thing get get bad real quickly for gamers.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

I see no problem with this. As long as the base game has enough content to be worth $30-40 I wouldn't complain.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

Call me cynical if you like but I don't see THQ or any other company doing anything more than taking the same game you and I pay $60 for today and chopping it up into pieces that will end up totaling $100.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

If that is the case, then yes it would be a bum deal.

I have previously made the case that if companies like EA and THQ are going to sell their online componant seperately for used game buyers, they should do the same for new game buyers.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

The problem I have with selling online separate from single-player is that, well, for one, many games now are sold purely on their online, multi-player component. And, let's face, it online play is basically standard now, which is why these efforts to screw over the used game market are an insult.

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

But all the users who are only intersted in the singleplayer can get a cheaper gaming experience this way.  Not everyone has interest in the online component.

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

I'm not following your logic.  How is that an insult and who is it insulting?  Instead of complaining about the used market (something that annoyed many of us to no end) several publishers are actually doing something about it.  Namely, making buying new a more attractive prospect for consumers than buying used.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

>if companies like EA and THQ are going to sell their online componant seperately for used game buyers, they should do the same for new game buyers.

They do- it's just that they also offer a bundle deal for buying both the online and offline at the same time, sort of the same way pizza takeaways sometimes offer free garlic bread with a large pizza.

/b

 

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

No they don't. If I buy Madden NFL new, I am buying both the local and online together. There is no option for me to buy just the local option on its own and still buy new.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

That would be nice for those of us who are strictly single-player gamers but those companies are doing that to make buying new a more attractive prospect for consumers.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

 I thought knowing was half the battle.

Re: THQ’s Farrell See Game Prices Dropping

This must be the other half.

 

Andrew Eisen

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician