MX vs. ATV dubbed a noble, though not successful, experiment
18
In trying to reinvent itself, THQ has tried some interesting things; unfortunately, many of these experiments haven't been successful. Take, for example, MX vs. ATV Alive, the publisher's budget-priced take on the motocross mainstay. "We were trying to take some of our learnings from the free-to-play market and see if we could apply them to the console world," CEO Brian Farrell explained to investors on an earning's call today. "The idea was [...] to come out with a robust product at a $39.99 price point, build a larger install base more quickly, and then monetize that install base through rapid and large-number of DLC drops."
The only problem is ... the game didn't move enough units to, in turn, move enough DLC to make the experiment a success. "The key learning there was that it was not a successful experiment," Farrell admitted. "The $39.99 price point, while good – it gave us good acceleration of sales – just wasn't enough to drive the install base to where we wanted it to be. Obviously the correlary to that, is that on a lower install base, the amount of DLC sales are not what we anticipated."
Farrell blamed the "high fixed cost of goods in the current console market" for preventing the publisher from hitting a low enough price to drive meaningful DLC sales. The CEO concludes, calling the game a "noble experiment" that he thinks will have "a long shelf life at $39.99."
The only problem is ... the game didn't move enough units to, in turn, move enough DLC to make the experiment a success. "The key learning there was that it was not a successful experiment," Farrell admitted. "The $39.99 price point, while good – it gave us good acceleration of sales – just wasn't enough to drive the install base to where we wanted it to be. Obviously the correlary to that, is that on a lower install base, the amount of DLC sales are not what we anticipated."
Farrell blamed the "high fixed cost of goods in the current console market" for preventing the publisher from hitting a low enough price to drive meaningful DLC sales. The CEO concludes, calling the game a "noble experiment" that he thinks will have "a long shelf life at $39.99."
Reader Comments (18)
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 6:33PM KungFuChaosNinja said
These games just won't sell well these days. THQ needs to understand this.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 6:42PM wickedraist said
they say: Farrell blamed the "high fixed cost of goods in the current console market" for preventing the publisher from hitting a low enough price to drive meaningful DLC sales
the truth: the game sucks reflex was better.
the truth: the game sucks reflex was better.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 6:50PM Agent X said
What's a "correlary"? Is it something like a corollary?
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 6:54PM aea0a095 said
Uhm, sorry to say but $40 is still a pretty high price point for what they tried to do. They thought they could sell the game for what really is still not all that cheap, then monetize the hell out of it with DLC making the game sell for over $100.
Companies should worry more about making the most complete game they can, and NOT plan future DLC, and if they do want to add in content in the future, MAKE IT FREE OR DONT MAKE IT AT ALL. This would have worked if the game were like $5 or free, but not at $40.
Companies should worry more about making the most complete game they can, and NOT plan future DLC, and if they do want to add in content in the future, MAKE IT FREE OR DONT MAKE IT AT ALL. This would have worked if the game were like $5 or free, but not at $40.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 7:00PM whatisdelicious said
@aea0a095 I was with you until that who "MAKE IT FREE OR DONT MAKE IT AT ALL" part.
I like paying for good DLC. And will continue to do so. Enjoy getting your DLC from Valve and no one else.
Reply
I like paying for good DLC. And will continue to do so. Enjoy getting your DLC from Valve and no one else.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 7:14PM KungFuChaosNinja said
@whatisdelicious
You "like" paying for good DLC? See, I'd rather get it for free, but I'll bite my tongue and buy it if it's good enough.
Reply
You "like" paying for good DLC? See, I'd rather get it for free, but I'll bite my tongue and buy it if it's good enough.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 8:10PM aea0a095 said
@whatisdelicious
I'm fine with expansion packs that add significant single player content, or radically change the multiplayer experience. But things such as map packs for MULTIPLAYER should never exist. Every time a map pack comes out, your effectively splitting the online community into smaller groups of people who do and don't have certain DLC content.
So yes as far as multiplayer paid DLC goes, it should either exist for free, or not at all. COD black ops is the last game I'll ever have bought that has paid DLC, and I got fed up with getting kicked from most games I join because the map changes to one I didn't buy. I didn't buy the game for $60 only to be kicked from multiplayer servers because I'm not throwing more money at Activision. For me, I'm not just going to buy it, then complain like the rest of the gamers out there, I'm just plain not buying it, and I won't be buying mw3, nor any game such as this THQ title that has multiplayer DLC.
Reply
I'm fine with expansion packs that add significant single player content, or radically change the multiplayer experience. But things such as map packs for MULTIPLAYER should never exist. Every time a map pack comes out, your effectively splitting the online community into smaller groups of people who do and don't have certain DLC content.
So yes as far as multiplayer paid DLC goes, it should either exist for free, or not at all. COD black ops is the last game I'll ever have bought that has paid DLC, and I got fed up with getting kicked from most games I join because the map changes to one I didn't buy. I didn't buy the game for $60 only to be kicked from multiplayer servers because I'm not throwing more money at Activision. For me, I'm not just going to buy it, then complain like the rest of the gamers out there, I'm just plain not buying it, and I won't be buying mw3, nor any game such as this THQ title that has multiplayer DLC.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 6:54PM Teancum said
They should have gone digital (XBLA/PSN) with it and done a $15 game. People just aren't willing to buy games like this at a retail price anymore. They could have easily cut the amount of content some, released it on XBLA/PSN and had a huge install base, but instead they think that failures like Red Faction: Battlegrounds are how all their games will go on a digital platforms.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 7:01PM Cranky Penguin said
They should have gone with a lower starting price, most full priced games are $39.99 within a month.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 7:07PM (Unverified) said
"The idea was [...] to come out with a robust product at a $39.99 price point, build a larger install base more quickly, and then monetize that install base through rapid and large-number of DLC drops."
Well maybe they shouldn't have failed when it came to this.
1. The product was not "robust", it had a total of like 14 tracks and 2 free ride areas that were 1/4 of the size of the ones in Reflex. Oh and the tracks, were from the same environments like 3 environments for 14 tracks.
2. The level system (1-50) failed because you have to grind starting at level 3. Its stupid.
3. No DLC but a few pieces of gear dropped for the first weeks, the first TWO supercross tracks dropped earlier this month, and the rest is supposed to come out in January?
Really, you took out TONS of events, and modes and thought you were providing a robust product? The price for this game NEW should have been $20.
I bought DLC for the game and played it for a few months but they just did not support it, and then they blamed the users for it. Its stupid and THQ needs to not do this if they don't have DLC ready to go within 2 weeks if they are going to take out everything but Nationals & Short Track.
Well maybe they shouldn't have failed when it came to this.
1. The product was not "robust", it had a total of like 14 tracks and 2 free ride areas that were 1/4 of the size of the ones in Reflex. Oh and the tracks, were from the same environments like 3 environments for 14 tracks.
2. The level system (1-50) failed because you have to grind starting at level 3. Its stupid.
3. No DLC but a few pieces of gear dropped for the first weeks, the first TWO supercross tracks dropped earlier this month, and the rest is supposed to come out in January?
Really, you took out TONS of events, and modes and thought you were providing a robust product? The price for this game NEW should have been $20.
I bought DLC for the game and played it for a few months but they just did not support it, and then they blamed the users for it. Its stupid and THQ needs to not do this if they don't have DLC ready to go within 2 weeks if they are going to take out everything but Nationals & Short Track.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 7:09PM (Unverified) said
@(Unverified) Another thing I should add. The DLC pricing was atrocious.
$3 for 1 Bike
$5 for 2 Tracks
etc...
Really? Forza 3 offers 10 Cars in high detail for $0.50 a car, and that feels like its worth it, but $3 for one bike? I would be ok with paying $3 for a 150/250/450 Package.
Reply
$3 for 1 Bike
$5 for 2 Tracks
etc...
Really? Forza 3 offers 10 Cars in high detail for $0.50 a car, and that feels like its worth it, but $3 for one bike? I would be ok with paying $3 for a 150/250/450 Package.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 8:06PM SonicGA said
It wasn't the business model that failed, it was the content THQ was using to try it out. MX Vs. ATV: Alive had a very small fan base to begin with. If they did this with Homefront, I believe the results would've been the exact opposite.
I would like to see F2P and $20+MT games on the 360 in the near future, but I imagine MS is trying to figure out how much they can make off of Micro-Transactions before jumping on board. At this point, it's inevitable for them.
I would like to see F2P and $20+MT games on the 360 in the near future, but I imagine MS is trying to figure out how much they can make off of Micro-Transactions before jumping on board. At this point, it's inevitable for them.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 9:51PM Kirkpad said
You Don't Know Jack on the other hand, was priced $10 cheaper, and probably moved many more units. $20 worth of DLC ($10 this week during the THQ sale) is still not enough YDKJ content.
Posted: Jul 27th 2011 11:20PM Slayer15 said
These damn spam comments are really getting out of hand. 22% of the comments on this article are spam! "Believe you will love it" - No, you believed wrong.
Posted: Jul 28th 2011 3:30AM BFBeast666 said
Maybe I'm being stereotypical here, but why try such an "ambitious experiment'" with franchise only a couple hardcore fans would buy? I also think that $40 is still too much.
If you want to really move some DLC, look at Pinball FX 2. The basic engine comes for free, early adopters can still use their old tables, but after seeing what the NEW tables do with the system, why even go back to Buccaneer or Speed Machine? The Marvel Pinball tables are really well done and reason enough to buy, if you even have a cursory interest in pinball (and who doesn't?). Not to mention the DLC is reasonably priced - 200 MSP for one table isn't much more than a Rock Band song and you can get nearly endless play value out of it.
Again, bad business decisions. Oh well, bye bye THQ, was nice knowing ya.
If you want to really move some DLC, look at Pinball FX 2. The basic engine comes for free, early adopters can still use their old tables, but after seeing what the NEW tables do with the system, why even go back to Buccaneer or Speed Machine? The Marvel Pinball tables are really well done and reason enough to buy, if you even have a cursory interest in pinball (and who doesn't?). Not to mention the DLC is reasonably priced - 200 MSP for one table isn't much more than a Rock Band song and you can get nearly endless play value out of it.
Again, bad business decisions. Oh well, bye bye THQ, was nice knowing ya.
Posted: Jul 28th 2011 12:45PM Milf Biggenson said
Should have been download only for $14.99. Are you telling me that this game was going to give me more play time than Battlefield 1943 did? Don't think so. THQ can continue to ignore the writing on the wall and then have to issue statements like this every year or they can choose to educate themselves and actually study the market and see what's happening. It's a very different gaming world out there since THQ published anything worthwhile.
Posted: Jul 31st 2011 9:30PM ungeheier said
I'm just here to add to the $39.99 is not budget.
I love Rainbow's games, but I'm not $40 in love with them.
I love Rainbow's games, but I'm not $40 in love with them.







