Fuck you, THQ.

I can see GAMESTOP generating a shit load of money on used games next gen..

The used game sale industry will double up and wonder why publishers and devs are against this pratice?

Two words pertaining to what THQ is saying: ****....no.

Let me emphasize with another two words: Bargain bin.

Three words for THQ: Kiss my ***.

They don't even publish great games.

P.S.

**** my ****

100 dollars would make me pirate D:

Considering I can't afford games now I can't give up any more, I need money for other things.

I have three letters for THQ: LOL.

Even if this is supposed to be looking another 5 years down the line, no; I seriously doubt it.

Games would likely go to a service and add on based business plan before that happened. For $100, I just don't see publishers realistically expecting consumers to start paying for extra content shortly after release.

But who knows, maybe inflation and the devaluation of global currencies will lead to $100 games that can still be finished over a weekend, but personally, I don't see it happening.

Maybe inflation can cause THQ to **** my ****.

Yeah, OK... if games were $100 a pop, then everyone would just wait for Black Friday lmao!  Nobody spends $100 on a game, unless in comes bundled with some kind of plastic instrument haha!

Seriously though... who's gonna spend $100 on the next yearly installment of Madden or Call of Duty??

Though I do agree with the OP on one thing... it wasn't uncommon to see games back in the 90's, specifically certain SNES and N64 launch games, retail for upwards of $80, and adjusted for inlfation that's almost $100 in today's money.  So yeah, you kids today who whine about your games being $59.99 or even more for "collector's editions"... we old-school gamers were paying those prices for the "regular" editions of our games more than 15 years ago!

That's right... almost all of those games that you can now get for $5-$10 on the Virtual Console, XBLA or PSN, we were paying $60-$70 for!

This coming from a 3rd rate publisher. Sure, charge $100 per game and remain a 3rd rate passover to the likes of Activision Blizzard and EA. In doing so, you will only go the way of Midway Games quicker.

The real problem is that developers keep looking at game design from an unproductive angle. They want to create graphics engines that have the most cutting edge aesthetics. They plow money into online multiplayer servers. Honestly, just because a system can produce better visuals, does not mean that you have to make a game with realistic or highly detailed graphics. Sometimes, gamers just want more enemies on the screen, smarter AI or better draw distances. Honestly, I still think that Dead or Alive 3 and Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) are some of the best looking games I have laid eyes upon. They could have stuck with those visuals and simply improved the draw distance and I would have been fine. That is why Blizzard is so successful with World of Warcraft. That game still looks like it is a game from the late 90s, however, it has a lot going on at any one time. 

If developers want to save money, they will quit wasting resources on graphics (which is the real financial drain) and licensing engines (e.g. licensing Id tech, Unreal etc), and spend more time improving existing game design and aesthetics. People don't mind the dated graphics in World of Warcraft. Nobody cares about the dated graphics of the Wii. People just want reasonable visuals and a fun game.