THQ has called on Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to change their home console business strategy - and allow for microtransactions controlled by third-parties.
In comments no doubt mostly directed at Microsoft - whose Xbox 360 remains closed to in -game commerce directly managed by other companies - Farrell warned that the 'big three' needed to evolve if they are to remain dominant.
Farrell told the Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference yesterday that to maximise the potential of this model, the dominant platform holders would have to adjust their strategy - echoing similar calls from the likes of Valve in the past.
When asked how quickly THQ will be able to "ramp up" the micro-transaction model seen with MX vs ATV, Farrell said:
"What we really need, and we've been talking to them about it, is for Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo - if they really want to stay at the cutting edge of the games industry - they need to adjust their business models to allow for these new consumer experiences. Consumers are going to demand it, in our view.
"Again, we're platform agnostic: if someone else comes with some kind of a Cloud system or one of the other platforms takes off competitively [in a way] that allows consumers to consume the way they want?
"That's going to be the winner at the end of the day, and that's where we're going to migrate our content. We'll make great franchises. If new platforms emerge, or the current winners adjust their business models - which we're pushing for really hard - we have to keep our flexibility."
He added: "Our main focus is to deliver these big entertainment franchises, and then leverage them across the screens to do one of two things: obviously the primary objective is making money, but the second one is that we can use Facebook, iPhone, iPad, some of these other devices, as ways to keep our customer engaged with our product and also to market to that consumer.
For example, we have several Facebook games up now leveraging one of our bigger brands; they do two things: they generate some revenue and cash flow although for a company of our size it's not that meaningful yet, but if someone enjoys the UFC or the Saints Row experience, they can stay engaged with it.
"What we're thinking about those new markets is if we create great entertainment - and we've been doing this for 20 years - we need to be platform agnostic and figure out where's the business opportunity for a particular consumer on a particular platform."
Farrell has previously suggested that the $59.99 US asking price for games is "keeping people out", and that THQ plans to explore cheaper price points in a move that he says is "the way games are going to go".
Comments
12 comments so far...
Domin666 on 17 Feb '11 said:
THQ get real when u make a game worth playing I would buy it, not buying demo's of you get real.
subform on 17 Feb '11 said:
SOD...................wait for it...
OFF!!
"whimper whimper...we want microtraaansaaaactions....."
"Why?"
"Because we need to make more money!!"
"Why, you charge forty sheets for a new game?"
"Yeah but we...sniff...we wannaa make more than we are now!!!"
"Why can you just sell this game to more people??"
"whiiine... because some people don't like our games, or think they are too short and they trade them in to GAME... WAAAAAAHH... that's OUR money!!!! An...an... an... for those people that DO like our games... we want to sell them HALF A GAME for forty pounds... and then... wuh wuh wuh we can then sell them more bits of the game over the weeks after launch and maybe make more than a hundred pounds per game sold!!"
"erm... why not just make a better game that takes longer than 6 hours to complete, that people like, will tell their friends to buy and will keep?"
I don't buy a car expecting to pay more for the steering wheel. I hate microtransactions
mfnick on 17 Feb '11 said:
Word to your mutha bruv!
Yo! THQ! Listen to this boy yo. He be talking that real s**t. *Fist bump*
WHERESMYMONKEY on 17 Feb '11 said:
Ah Man that sucks. Yeah i want to pay more for games. not less. you're crazy THQ selling your games at a lower price point and then making up the deficit with extra content if the customer wants it. Thats absolutely insane.
I for one will never see the benefit of paying less for a game, and then if i enjoy it spending a little extra on some more content for it. eventually handing over my £40 noteworth only if i really enjoy it. No thank you!
I'd rather pay £40 for a game up front only to find that the last act of it is going to be DLC and the ending won't make any sense unless i buy it. This is what i want....
Come on People were you born retarded or just dropped on your heads as children.
Very_Silver_Ownz on 17 Feb '11 said:
yes please milk me for everything I'm worth. Yes I want half games sold to me and I want to pay more for a short, awful game
gmcb007 on 17 Feb '11 said:
Theres only one thing worse than Activision and thats somebody trying to copy Activision. Its a shame these dicks own saints Row and Homefront which will more than likely be milked very badly THQ style
pmantis on 17 Feb '11 said:
When thq makes a game worth paying more than a tenner for then they can have an opinion. Until then, shhh......
Athrun888 on 17 Feb '11 said:
God I'm glad THQ don't make any good games, I'd hate to be a follower of their franchises with this sort of s**t. Dlc is a complete rippoff to begin with (90% of the time just being content chopped off the game to sell a week or two after launch), I will give up gaming completely if the business model became essentially "buy part of a game then buy dlc to finish it", take your business model and shove it up your backside THQ, dlc is bad enough when it takes away post-game content, last thing we need is this.
Balladeer on 17 Feb '11 said:
"Consumers are going to demand it..." Only if they've been consuming their own heads.
jtthegame on 17 Feb '11 said:
the way i am reading this is they want to make games cheaper which is a good thing and definetly different from a certian activions making them more expense or at least there milk of duty more expensive
ACCESSALLAREAS on 17 Feb '11 said:
I for one prefer buying full games. I'll give an example: I bought the standard version of Mass Effect 2 and loved it but didn't buy the Firepower Pack dlc. It might have enhanced the experience but because I had finished the game the initial buzz had gone.
With this proposed business model it would be like someone asking me every 5 minutes if I was having fun and wanted to spend a little more to continue. We've all come across borring levels in an otherwise great game and the question is would you pay to get through it so you could reach the better levels (if there are any to come)? I for one don't want to be entering my credit card details all the time, and it breaks tbe immersion factor.
Frankly I already think that DLC is often an excuse for cutting vital elements of a game (like Supreme Commander 2's Infinite War DLC- the units should have already been in the main game). So one has to wonder if the next business model is charging for in-game hours (or even by the minute). The 20 odd million buyers of Black Ops paying £30 each suggests a lot of people are happy with the way things are.
Nollog on 21 Feb '11 said:
It's hilarious because THQ have no idea why they can't make a profit.
Also,
LMAO.
hahahahhaha, Golly Gosh THQ. Golly Gosh.