THQ president Brian Farrell thinks the $59.99 asking price for games is "keeping people out," and plans to explore cheaper price points in a move that he says is "the way games are gonna go".

"What we're thinking about the business is we're turning it on its head a little bit," said Farrell at the BMO Capital Markets conference this week (via Gamasutra). "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," he explained, adding that he believes the $59.99 price of games is "keeping people out".

"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,"

Thus Farrell hopes that launching at a lower price point from the start would garner a larger install base to which he can flog large amounts of DLC content.

"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."

What do you think?

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/ar ... ?id=275229

The majority of games I buy when they're reduced anyway (only paid £25 for Black Ops even), and rarely touch DLC even on triple AAA titles, so...

However, he'd better not be talking about selling chunks of the game that should have been included in the first place later on

MW2 is the only game I've bought DLC for and TBH it was more so I could play the maps with mates. Otherwise I'd be on my own.

But he is right - if you sell the games for say £20 and then sell the download content for another £20, you'll make more money than if you sold it at £40. Those people who'd buy the extra DLC are the ones who'd but it at £40. Hence you then get extra income from those who spent only £20.

Yes but not everyone will buy the extra content. Though considerably more will buy the game at £20 rather than £40. Those that might have waited till it was available pre owned or discounted to the lower level will now buy much earlier than before. I definitely would.

But that's my point. Look at MW2 - how many people bought that on launch day? Those IMO are the hardcore nutters who would have bought it whether it was £20, £40 or £60. They would also be the ones who would buy the extra DLC - if they're willing to spend £40 on a game, they're more than likely pay the £20 upfront and an extra £20 on DLC.

Then there are those who waited until MW2 was £30 or maybe £20. They're not likely to be the fps nutters that are in the first group. Maybe they were restricted by lifestyle, choice etc. Maybd they were never into FPS and wanted to see what the fuss was about. These are the ones where £20 upfront is an easier option and entices them to spend another £20 on DLC later.

In the first group - you would have had of their money irrespective of which method you chose. In the second group, you need to entice them to spend that £40 and more of them will do it if it's £20 first and they enjoy the game.

You could even get them to buy more than one set of DLC. As long as it was worth it then people would buy more DLC. Especially the hardcore gamers. Though trade ins might be impacted. Until someone does it and we get some data as to what happens who knows?