PS: Valve does exactly that and succeeds.

lumpi

Meh.

Here's another idea: Don't spend so much production money on graphics detail. Get a good artist, with a sense of colour, lighting and character design. Build his designs in medium detail but make sure it's true to the concept art. Then subtract the money you saved from the price tag and deliver the best piracy protection in the universe for free: Additional content and updates.

lumpi

Obviously it's not the best idea for regular retail model, but it could work well with digital distribution.

alecpyron

I think the modular idea will just lead to them charging us even more money. We'll still pay $60 for a brand new game it will just be crippled from the start and we'll have to pay to make it worth while. I'm all for releasing more DLC but not the price of gimping the retail version. If they really slashed the price on these, made it $30 or $40 for brand new games and then had more features to download if you wanted it would be good, but I don't see that price cut coming.

Something I want to recall is that I distinctly remember saving my pennies as a little kid to buy Super Mario Brothers 3, for $50. So we as gamers can't really complain about the price with only $10 of inflation over almost 20 years while prices on everything else have shot up cough*gas*cough.

Still $60 bucks pinches my wallet hard and I wish they were cheaper.

MolokoPlus

While the idea of a la carte gaming might appeal to those who only want one aspect of a game (only online, only campaign, etc.), I think extending it further to which features are included in a game will wreak havoc on the core gameplay. Already I have problems with games like Halo 3 and COD 4, where I can't join in with friends because I don't have the right map packs. The reason why I abandoned PC gaming for console gaming is that there commonality between all systems and all games. Unfortunately, this has been my greatest problem with this gen of consoles, which are becoming more and more like PCs. The consoles have a million variations in order to meet the specific demands of consumers, but at what cost? A model like the core 360 may represent a very small fraction of the user base, but devs still have to work around this limitation despite that fact that very few people will actually play that game on the core. The same is with a la carte games. If you make voice chat an extra, then you have to implement a non-voice work around despite the fact that the majority will use voice chat. I want one unified console, and one game, with perhaps a collectors edition in a fancy case and little extra baubles for those who want to fork over the extra cash.

Super_Nintendo_Chalmers

I think the industry should copy the supermarket structure- have a basic, no-frills version of a game for a much cheaper price, have a standard version with a beefier package (more multiplayer modes, etc) and then a premium version, with perhaps documentaries and other hopefully more imaginative swag.

Numanoid

personally, I only rarely play games online, and when I do they tend to be games designed specifically for online play - Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike, and the like. I like the idea of being able to pay for only the single-player component of a game like Call of Duty 4, where I had no intention of touching the multiplayer and no real desire to pay $50 dollars for a third of the content.

It would be cool to see single-player only versions of games like this for much cheaper, with the caveat that if I should decide I want to upgrade to the full version of the game, I shouldn't be punished for being unsure of what parts of a game I want by paying more for each section individually than someone who bought the full version of the game.

Coxswain

This is a great idea.. basic price for the box/initial download, then pay for additional features (voice chat, game modes, etc.). The initial cost will be lower, while we can put our hard earned dollars into the stuff/games we really want.

Lazz

@scndmg:
*versions OF one game
*are where

I need to read what I'm writing.

scndmg

Seems to me that, if developers were to have to make different versions of a game (online only, campaign only), it would drive the consumer price up for all of them (games are overpriced as it is). Having one iteration of a game, and then optional add-ons, is the way to go.

PollockRoc

Games that are build to order? That sounds kinda cool. Sorta like a computer. I approve of that.

NeoXY

This would never work at retail, maybe online, but never retail. You'd have to have like 5 different versions on one game, double that if it's multi platform.

Anyway, we already have cheaper games. Things like Wiiware and XBLA and were the 'economy' games are at.

scndmg

Setting aside the confusion I suffered when this article had nothing to do with marriage...

While I think the idea of modular games where you pay for the features you want sounds good, I doubt it is going to turn out for the benefit of the consumer.

The reason I say this has a lot to do with the current behaviour of companies regarding microtransactions - look at EA, charging the full price for the game, and then charging extra for things that traditionally would have been unlockables.

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I simply forsee a future where gamers pay prices far in excess of what is currently standard to get the same gaming experience, or pay prices more in line with current standards, but get a much reduced experience.

And when I see market statistics showing growth at rates other industries would kill for, I can't see how it's necessary to go this route.

The_Inquisitor

Interesting that you mention COD4 that is a game that unless you play it online it was not worth the full price. That's not to say it wasn't good it's just that the single player was too short, you have to play it on veteran to get a decent play time in it but that's only because you constantly die.

dsmx

In retail you just sell the full version for the full price.

okkervil

Well, I know how not to do it. I picked up Gunbound again after not playing it for a while, and you can now spend real cash to access additional abilities (increased damage, perfect shield, and a guidance system of some sort for targeting).

TheWP

I agree break up the price would definitely help. Obviously this would only well work with digital distribution. Call of Duty 4 is a great example to use for this as well.

Release the game for free with the Prologue single player levels and a couple multiplayer levels. Charge $10 for each chapter in the single player campaign and $20 - $30 for the multiplayer content. Or go one further and break up the multiplayer maps and charge $10 for each pack.

If you just play multiplayer or just play single player it will work out to be cheaper. I think you will end up with more sales in the end with this business model.

I also have no issue with charging money for weapons and other small items. Someone can work hard to unlock them for free or someone with the money can just buy them, it doesn't matter to me.

The key is to release the base for free and allow the person to start ranking up online. But make it so they have to buy the multiplayer portion to get the rest of the maps and start unlocking weapons.

In the end if you bought all the single player and multiplayer content it would be the same price so I can't see how people would feel screwed. Better than paying the full price and only using a portion of the game.

okkervil

The problem here is that he doesn't just seem to be talking about allowing people to buy online and offline modes separately. He's also talking about charging more for the game as a whole. He indicates this by saying he'd gladly have paid £50 rather than £30 for it.

Personally, I want the "whole" game when I throw down my $60, and I really don't want to pay more than $60. I still like added maps as long as they aren't made already or nearly complete when the game is released. That makes it feel like their abusing the system and me. I loved the Ace Combat 6 demo, but I still haven't bought the game b/c they released extra planes the same day they released the game. I'll probably hold out on Gears 2 for a little while b/c of the crap their pulling with maps.

Spartan1308™

The only game ever I didn't bother using all functionality is MGS4: namely its MGO part. The single-player is enough fun for me, and runs at my pacing.

All else - I'd use all features of the games plus sometimes get DLC.
@lumpi: I agree, even though I love graphics.
@Super_Nintendo_Chalmers: I moved to console gaming to be sure I always get the same graphical/framerate performance as everyone else. It's only unfortunate that Sony and Microsoft wants us to pay-up for maps. Comeon, at least let Europe get the maps for free - we pay $110 for console-games T_T.

somarix

This idea is horrible. Multiple SKUs means more packaging and more costs for the publisher, meaning costs are put onto consumers (us) buying the game. If anything DLC could be implemented to allow these things, but at what costs? Some games are built to have fantastic online, while not so much a fantastic 1 player and vice versa. Add into the idea that consumers who are not familiar with video games will become confused and not know they had to pay more for stuff in the game, they'll feel ripped off. And not every person has someone who can go "oh that's how it works, you don't get everything in the game even though that's what all the reviews were talking about."

If anything what we need is simply for games to become lower in price. $50 was the standard years ago, with some going as high as $70. Now prices have gone up, not down, as technology has advanced to cheaper DVDs (not so much Bluray, but hey). You would think that with cheaper discs and more content, companies would be decreasing prices to attract more people. Instead, we're attracting more with low priced simple games, and shunning those consumers from the "hardcore" games. If games were priced like CDs are, then I can bet not only would piracy be lowered some but that the industry would attract consumers to games they wouldn't normally pick up (whether they be longterm gamers or new to the market).

JGab

@NeoAkira:

my = me

NeoAkira

This system seems to work too much on the honors system. Why would the companies charge us decent amounts for all the parts of the game when they could just overcharge for each part and make a killing? Heck they've already started with DLC why give them this?

Call my cynical, but this system just SCREAMS "abuse the consumer"

NeoAkira

Meh. Wouldn't work.

People would feel screwed over and complain, whether or not it actually was that way.

They'd say "Well, you're charging more for the good parts, etc..."

There's just too much potential for abuse and mistrust.

Ad-hominem

I'm pretty hard up when it comes to money, but 60 bucks is perfectly reasonable to me for games.

I mean, your average DVD is 20 bucks. That provides, what, around 2 hours of entertainment? (not including special features) Now three 20 dollar DVDs add up to one game. So around 6 hours of entertainment for $60. The vast majority of modern games last around 8 hours at bare minimum. So from a general entertainment standpoint, you're coming out ahead.

Note: This line of thought only works if you think DVD prices are fair. But from what I've seen, most people do, so there you have it.

ShaggE

I like this idea. I'm not too much of a multiplayer gamer. I'm more in it for the single player experience and the story development. Hardly played Halo 3 or COD4 online, and when I did, it was only for a few achievements before I decided that I wasn't going to let my gamerscore become an obsession that took away the fun of video games.

akif24

My beef, is that companies keep recreating the same game over and over again.

Call of Duty 5 just seems like Call of Duty 4 with a new skin. Same with Quantom of Solace.

Just release 5 packs of $10 single-player mods.

Or $20 for the total conversion.

mlubczyn

@dead_red_eyes: For console games, publishers have to pay the platform holder per-copy licensing fees (and for additional testing etc). There are no such fees for PC games.

I don't know how much that works out but my guess would be somewhere around $10? Just saying...

quen

What I'm surpirzed about the current consoles with HardDrives/USB surrpot (Wii/PS3/360) is that there are not a lot of games with downloadable missions. Once I finish Uncharted, why can't Naughty Dog that makes extra misssions for the game and charges you $10 for 10 missions. They already have the engine and resources built, just give fans a bone until Uncharted 2 comes out. Same with Super Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess, give us some extra missiosn from time to time while we wait for the next Mario or Zelda to be released.

I'd love to download some more Call of Duty 4 Single Player levels.

I mean EA has it with their Army of Two game with extra single-player levels if people want them.

mlubczyn

@dead_red_eyes: no licensing fees on PC games.

hotdamn

@ShaggE: On the other hand, assuming the film is any good, that's two hours of unique content, dialogue, effects, etc. - in say a twelve-hour game, if you cut out all the repetition (shoot monster type A, shoot monster type B), you'd probably be down to well under two hours.

Gameplay is (by necessity) all about repetition, so that's not really a fair comment - but I think it does illustrate that comparing a film to a game using only runtime to judge is a bit chalk-and-cheese. For instance Tales of Symphonia, an otherwise good RPG, is about 50 hours long; if it had been 25 hours that wouldn't have made it half as good, more like twice... or going back to the film example and a recently-discussed topic, if you compared the emotional content of a good film with a good game, the film will blow the game out of the water.

I think the idea of modular games would be fine for consumers provided it meant a lower cost (ie I don't ever want online play, can I have $20 off) but simply for that reason, it wouldn't wash for publishers - it means I'm paying $40 instead of $60, so they lose money. (And then the people who don't want offline play also pay less.)

At present I only have a Wii. I don't have a problem paying $50 for a game (even though US dollars are a bit less like toilet paper in value than they were earlier this year) - and contrary to my earlier argument :), I do think runtime is part of the reason for that.

quen

@dead_red_eyes: - "when clearly the PC is ahead of them in many ways ..."

And the PC version of the same game costs $50. I just don't get it.

dead_red_eyes

If it went modular, like some people said it'll only lead to higher cost for the individual parts when bought separately -- which inevitably leads to certain confused individuals crying out bloody murder because the sum of the parts is cheaper.

And besides arguments like ShaggE's, there's _way_ too many games that are freely available yet of very high quality for a 'cost' argument to be effective. Cost seems higher today because, look around, and you have people DL'ing their games for free. For a while it took some thought before I bought a PSP game, as I knew as well as any other person that I could go around on Torrent/winny/whatever and leave the PC on overnight for a 'free' game. It took a dead drop on some stocks I owned before I really decided it's not worth fretting over cheap games... not that I buy too many to begin with, as I got 10-20 PS2/360/PSP games backlogged already to begin with.

muu

I meant to add that I still think it's silly how we're paying $60 for PS3 and Xbox 360 games, when clearly the PC is ahead of them in many ways. This "next gen price" is just bullshit, and it makes me think that when the next consoles come out, they're going to push for $70.

dead_red_eyes

I love Call of Duty 4, it's got a great single player campaign and the online stuff is great and all .... but there's no way in fucking hell that I would EVER pay $100 for a video game. EVER.

dead_red_eyes

I cant see how you people think its a bad idea, the full game will still be available to buy. Just for those who don't want the full game can buy just what they need. It would have no detrimental impact to you.

okkervil

@dsmx: That's exactly why you should pay *much* less for the single-player component. Personally, I never even touch the online component of most games, simply because the matching services are terrible, and I can't tolerate playing with 12-year-old idiots with a foul mouth and a headset. To me, that's the polar opposite of fun.

If a game has weak single-player, then I'm absolutely never going to buy it, unless there was some way to deliver the single-player experience *only* for much less than the full retail price.

dougr650

Bad idea, in my opinion. Sure, some companies may find creative and useful ways to do this but someone is going to come and poop on the parade making the standard a complete and utter headache. It's only a matter of time before it becomes abused enough to make us all shout out for a new model.

cZEAL

If this worked ideally and one could buy a game at $20 or $30 when you nixed certain components, that'd be great. But it seems very difficult to make that work. For one, the publisher is still putting the full development time into the full game. So to justify these a la carte prices, they'd probably say they had to be higher in order to pay for everything that was developed. So I would think prices would be more like 40-50 for a low-frills option...which doesn't seem all that economical to me.

Even though I don't play online very often, I don't mind having the option for when I do. If I'm going to be paying 40-60 dollars for a game, I expect the full experience. That is a significant amount of money for an entertainment item. This is probably why I don't like micro-transactions either...I've already paid so much, why should I pay more? (Needless to say, I don't play MMOs or other subscription games either for a similar reason)

teraphony

They wouldn't need to have multiple boxes with the various "versions" of games in stores. They could have an unlock code for the different parts of the game which you buy through PSN or Xbox Live.
Pay $5 for the disc that lets you play 1 single player level and 1 map (limited number of times?) in multiplayer and no achievements/trophies. Then buy the rest of the single player and/or the multiplayer if you want them.

I won't go into the possible issues when/if Microsoft and Sony want a cut of the 'unlock money' though...

Rakkoon

Why is everyone so skeptical and assume the publishers will abuse this. The whole point of going modular is to offer more choice and a lower price point if you don't want it all. It's not about making more per individual, it's about selling to more individuals and making more overall. If you don't feel something is worth buying, don't buy it. If you wan't the whole thing pay the $50 or $60 for the whole game. If you just wan't one aspect of the game, now you have that option. That's win win to me, your all a bunch of complainers if you ask me.

okkervil

A lot of the arguments tend to point out that the Publishers would never try this: I think it would be worth it to them if there was significant proof that those who would otherwise not buy the game would:
A) Not pirate it
B) Actually shell out the smaller denomination for the lesser content.

If you are making 0$ off a crowd that doesn't care about multiplayer, and you can guarantee that they would buy just the single player component for $20 (probably in a digital distribution method) then that's $20 you didn't have.

This obviously is not an end-all solution, but it's worth looking at an opportunity to make money on an otherwise empty market.

Shirleycakes

Why don't they just lower the price of games? I know its expencive to develop a game, but if you're a competent, and confident developer, why not drop your games price a bit? if it would have sold well before, now that its $45 instead of $60, you're going to sell a lot more.

But then again, this will never happen, and neither will stoping piracy. even if they lowered the prices, the pirates would find another reason, cause in the end, free beats paying in their eyes.

0rin

It's a great concept, and one I probably would have used for CoD4 online play. But, as others have said, it would only work online via digital distribution

Blah8

$59.99 is too much for most of the crap on the shelves today. I can see paying that for a really great AAA title, but it seems like this generation of games is a lot of lame shooters, lame sequels, lame racing games, etc. Honestly I feel sort of insulted when I walk into a store and see some crappy shovelware movie tie-in game selling for full price. Adding to the insult is that I can get a really great DS game for half as much money.

James in Dupont

It doesn't matter, because the pirates were full of crap. Even with stripped down models highlighting only aspects of the game. they'd STILL pirate the games because free is better than paying money.

Just keep it as it is.

raiseplease

On one hand, it's risky to allow splitting a game into more and less functional tiers, especially seeing how opportunistically some publishers have embraced DLC.

On the other hand, after seeing some recent episodic games, I'd love it if there was a standard economy package that cost $10-20, and contained the first several levels of a game, like the old Doom or Quake shareware versions. There are a lot of games I play where at some point the fun just runs out and the momentum needed to play it all is nowhere to be found, but they're still great for the first few weeks.

fuchikoma

The Scholarly Title: Revenge of the Colon.

Arleas

This is a pretty neat idea. I would only like it online though (waaaay too many versions if the game is on PC, Mac, PS3, PS2, 360, Wii, T-T).

Online though, they could have a checklist where you check every feature you want, and it tells you the price for each, and your current total. That way I wouldn't have had to pay for a lot of the stuff I don't use.

Overall though, I like it how it is.

mfwahwah

how would you work out what is worth what? considering you get much more content in some games as opposed to others, but they are all generally sold at the same retail price; could that mean that things could even go up in value depending on what amount is seen as the 'basic' package? things will start to get very messy and complicated.

besides how will this really help prevent piracy, the pirate copy will still likely be cheaper for a full copy than buying a legitimate part. that is not the problem. it is just cost in the first place.

considering the cost of download content for a couple of extra multiplayer maps is high enough, in the long run this approach is likely only to hurt the wallet.

im a complainer i know...

jabman

looks at image.. who is getting married. looks like someone googled happiness in chinese and got "double happiness" ie marriage.

minus_273

In theory I think its a brilliant idea, from both the perspective of the consumer and the publisher. I get to pay for only what I want and the publisher will be able to charge more overall for the "whole package" and break the current-gen price point threshold. However, I'm nervous as a gamer . . .

What scares me is how the developer/publisher will determine how to pool their resources and funding. They will be forced, in many cases, to determine which portions of the game deserve the most attention based on a predicted demand for certain content. Will they gimp the single player campaign because the title is expected to draw more players and more micro-transactions from the multi-player community? Will content determined to be more valuable to the single player experience be nixed from the multi-player package? How well (or poorly) will developers be able to (forced to) fracture a holistic gaming experience?

Should such a distribution model become more prevalent, in time I'm fairly confident that the economics and demands of the consumers will speak loud enough (with their dollars of course) in order to forge a rather reasonable model, however we are undoubtedly hurdling toward a good 5-10 year period of enjoyable game content being shattered, scattered, and glued back together using paste of all degrees of strength.

That being said, the current price of entry for games and consoles, in my opinion, begs to be reconsidered and reformed in one way or another. I am most certainly what could be considered a "hardcore" gamer and since the launch of the 360 only one title this generation, Little Big Planet, has me willing to go and shell out $60+tax on day one, as it seems to be the first title to offer something truly remarkable to the gaming experience that hasn't been present on the same level in previous generations in one incarnation of another. However I still don't own a PS3, and won't be buying one for LBP. That's an entirely separate pricing issue, and I'm not just talking about hardware prices, but we'll save that one for another day.

pigz0011

Sounds like a decent enough idea. I wouldn't be too scared about price increases, since one of two things would happen:

1.- If it's overpriced, it won't sell. If you're going to charge me $100 for the full experience, I'll just skip it.

2.- If it sells, then it means it's not overpriced. It means people are willing to pay for that.

Eventually, the games will settle to the point where publishers will get maximum profit. It might just be that such a point will end up below $60, it might be above.

In any case, I'd rather be "ripped off" by paying, say, $40 for singleplayer only than have to pay $60 when I'll only use the singeplayer.

I think the problem is the lopsided definition of value that many people have. Most want to get "more for their money" even if they ended up paying for stuff that is of no real value to them - it's a bit like a person saying he saved $100 because he just dumped $900 bucks on useless crap that normally would go for $1000.

@Coxswain: That is quite an unfair caveat to the seller.

Grive

I don't see this happening anytime soon. Gamers will bitch pretty much about anything and the dev is screwed either way..if they can't have the game broken down and cheaper for their specific tastes, they bitch, but then turn around saying that micro-transactions are nickeling and diming them to death in the same breath if it's done.

Currently and in the foreseeable future it's going to be almost impossible to split a game down at retail. If they did find a way it would be with a "splitting dev team" to do it which, surprise, costs more money in the long run and will be past off to the consumer.

JohnnyLA

My suggestion for a model that would work (and be profitable for both consumer and publisher) is this:

You buy a game for, let's say, $30-40.

When you insert the disc, you get a choice of which part of the game you want to open; Offline single-player, offline multi-player or online multiplayer.

In addition, you could also be asked whether or not you want to open the additional features for $10-15 each.

This way, the full game will cost exactly as much as it does nowadays, but the people who want less can get less, and there will still only be one single edition to put out in stores.

Gringorilla

Can't we decide what a game's worth and how much to pay after we've played it? There have been many a game I bought full of anticipation and excitement only to be let down upon playing it.
Like (some) restaurants, if the food is not up to the standard you were expecting you can refuse to pay.

StuiWooi

I'm fine with how it is thanks. Sure I don't play a lot of multiplayer, but I like to know I can once that disc is mine.

TearsandScreams

@Ad-hominem: People feel screwed over and complain now.

@StuiWooi: Gosh, if only there were people paid to play games and give their opinion thereof.

Seriously, pirates try that method now, and they're the first ones to complain game prices are too high. If I worry that the car I may buy is crap, I check out reviews and ask around first. Caveat emptor.

Jonn

While I wouldn't want to pay for a weapon, or a feature like voice chat, I wouldn't mind paying $25 or $30 for the multiplayer only, or for the single-player only.

evilstick34

Twenty bucks. I won't pay more than that for a game unless it's a gift for another person or I just can't wait for the price to go down.

StickyPurpleCat