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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
MattsworknameDitto kotaku, Gawker, VOX, Polygon, ETC07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MechaTama31So, between pulling a game from one chain of stores, and forcing editorial changes to a media source, only one of them strikes you as being on the edge of censorship, and it's the game one?07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
Andrew EisenHave gamers ever tried to ban a product? Can you be more specific? I'm not clear what you're getting at.07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
Mattsworknamethey should have expected some kind of blow back. But I didn't participate in that specific action07/28/2015 - 8:41pm
MattsworknameAndrew Youd have to ask others about that, I actualyl didn't have much beef with them till last year, so I can't speak to there history. I simply feel that gamesutra chose politics over gaming and chose to make enimies of it's prime audiance. For that,07/28/2015 - 8:40pm
Andrew EisenI'm still not clear on how Gamasutra was lacking in accountability or what it was lacking in accountability for.07/28/2015 - 8:38pm
MattsworknameAndrew: You and I agree on most of that. I don't diagree that there should ahve been other actions taken. Now, I do want to point something out, casue Im not sure if it's happened. Have gamers ever tried to have a product banned?07/28/2015 - 8:37pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician