Future of THQ is in question...

There's also the fact that while the Undisputed games were well-recieved critically, they actually haven't been doing that well other than the first game. The most recent UFC game sold about half as much as 2010, which itself was a sales disappointment.

Not quite sure if EA's game is going to do much better, frankly, but maybe this deal comes with some kind of commitment from EA on how much they market it or something.

So apparently THQ sold the UFC license to EA after the game failed to hit the break-even 2 million unit mark. This after last year's game failed to break even too. If a game with that license (and apparently half-decently made games to boot) can't even hit 2 million sales which is considered pretty mild in the sports world, that's something. I'm curious if EA plans to try and buck this trend by just spending boatloads on marketing and hoping it makes that back or what. Given that EA's own MMA game was apparently a flop too, I wonder if UFC is just something people want to watch instead of play. Sounds like THQ did the right thing here.

I think that Jason Rubin thing is being taken out of context. I feel all he meant was that Volition could do something more than just something weird and goofy and disposable.

That said, I agree with Greg Kasavin's tweet. With E3's deluge of Lara Croft beatings and Sam Fisher committing murder because he's such a cool badass, I think if anything, the industry desperately needs some stuff that is more silly and ridiculous.

Jason Rubin, the new president of THQ, says that Saints Row the Third is embarrassing to play, and that he doesn't want that of future THQ games.

I read more of the article and updated my comment. You're right, he's not saying that the game's an embarrassment, but he is saying that he didn't play it because he was personally embarrassed to, and that that's something he wants to change.

When the president of a company wants to change one of that company's few successful IPs because he doesn't like it, well, that seems like a stupid move.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I read more of the article and updated my comment. You're right, he's not saying that the game's an embarrassment, but he is saying that he didn't play it because he was personally embarrassed to, and that that's something he wants to change.

When the president of a company wants to change one of that company's few successful IPs because he doesn't like it, well, that seems like a stupid move.

No he didn't say that, read it again. Crecente said HE didn't play it because it would embarrassing for Crecente to get caught playing it by his son or wife.

All Rubin says it they can do more types of things than that type of game.

This has been a bit blown out of proportion by the SR3 fans IMO.

It's about half way through our interview, one in which Rubin talks bluntly about past mistakes of THQ, of the problems he foresees for the company, of the challenges he and THQ face, that I broach the subject of Saints Row the Third.

I haven't played the game, I confess to Rubin, because I wouldn't want to be caught playing it by my wife or my son. It would be embarrassing.

While most reviews for the game were positive, Edge Magazine seems to have felt the same way when they gave the game a relatively low score in their review, calling the title a "fratboyish endorsement of crime and female degradation, devoid of any conscience or commentary."

Saints Row the Third isn't a bad game, but it's not the sort I'd want to play, I tell Rubin. Then I ask him if he thinks that's an issue.

"That's why I am here," he said, after saying he wants more from Volition, "because of what you just said."

To be clear, Rubin isn't saying there isn't any room in his company "for a game that features a purple dildo," in fact he points out there are now two such games (the other is South Park: The Stick of Truth). But that sensibility isn't always a good fit for a studio.

"It works for South Park, but I'm not sure it does elsewhere," he said. "I don't think (Volition) chose to do what they did because they had all of the options available to them. It was the environment at the time.

"I know I can change that."

I have mixed feelings about the statement. Saint's Row 3 is outside of my interest zone, but I like the idea of Saint's Row taking all the crazy stuff from Grand Theft Auto and turning it up to 11. In fact, I feel like that could free GTA to go a more L.A. Noire route, where it's all about the serious tone and story. GTA feels like it is caught between wanting to deliver a good narrative and wanting to be bat sh*t crazy, and to me that just ruins the tone of the game as a whole.

But I've been unable to get into GTA for a variety of reasons, so maybe I'm not the person to talk to.

I should also note that the content Saint's Row 3 has, the questionable misogynistic crime crap, isn't as bad if it isn't as frequent elsewhere. But I think, considering the style of Saint's Row, it is fine. It's our other games that have that questionable content but are trying to be serious and mature that need to be taken to task.

Fair enough. My mistake.

Honestly though, would you all feel good if all Volition did was Saint's Row? I know it's a good game, but there's only so much 'zany' you can do in the same mould before it would become stale. They're a fairly hit-or-miss studio, but they seem to be at their best when not forced into doing sequels just because the last game sold well, so I'd be quite happy to have Volition do something else.

Scratched wrote:

Honestly though, would you all feel good if all Volition did was Saint's Row? I know it's a good game, but there's only so much 'zany' you can do in the same mould before it would become stale. They're a fairly hit-or-miss studio, but they seem to be at their best when not forced into doing sequels just because the last game sold well, so I'd be quite happy to have Volition do something else.

Agreed. I found SR3 pushed the envelope a bit too far, and that SR2 was a better overall experience, if only for feeling so new at the time.

My issue with the interview wasn't the embarrassing quote, it was this:

Who cares what it is and why it got to be what it is?

Isn't part of understanding successful IP understanding why it's successful? Isn't this kind of critical for THQ at the moment? Beyond that, not understanding why the game was made as it was (and presumably being disconnected from why people love it as much as they do) does seem a major missed opportunity for the studio head.

demonbox wrote:

My issue with the interview wasn't the embarrassing quote, it was this:

Who cares what it is and why it got to be what it is?

Isn't part of understanding successful IP understanding why it's successful? Isn't this kind of critical for THQ at the moment? Beyond that, not understanding why the game was made as it was (and presumably being disconnected from why people love it as much as they do) does seem a major missed opportunity for the studio head.

That, or trusting the people who do see why something is successful and can make the decisions on what will bring them profit.

I think the problem comes when companies blindly copy what was successful for another company with the assumption that it will bring equivalent success for them. I'm sure some game clones have brought in money just by the nature of being similar, but there's more to it than "Hey RDR is successful, let's make one of those!" (which wasn't what he was saying).

As I mentioned in the SR3 thread, it did a great job being effective satire of the misogynistic crime crap, with a couple of notable exceptions. (A few of the main missions from Zimos had.... er, incredibly poor execution. And one would have been fine with a bit more background).

It also has the advantage of being damned fun. And a fun game with a subtle message is orders of magnitude more effective than a game whose only purpose is to drop an anvil or two.

And as far as stale goes, SR* probably has another solid game before it has to worry about that. Small differences brought the FF series a long way, remember. (And, off the top of my head, I can think of a few pretty substantial setting and gameplay changes that would prevent staleness. The first one that comes to mind is a leap into the future. Which also opens up a bunch of near-future anime tropes to f*ck with. And the series is insane enough to be able to handle that any which way.)

Why does the world hate THQ?

ccesarano wrote:

Why does the world hate THQ?

In the class action case, it's a greedy lawyer finding some nitpick to make a class action out of, one where he'll profit substantially more than any shareholder. It's good ol' US legal vulturing.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

Why does the world hate THQ?

In the class action case, it's a greedy lawyer finding some nitpick to make a class action out of, one where he'll profit substantially more than any shareholder. It's good ol' US legal vulturing.

I forget where I heard this, but someone recently described the new American Dream as getting rich by not actually doing anything to earn it.

SuperDave wrote:

I forget where I heard this, but someone recently described the new American Dream as getting rich by not actually doing anything to earn it.

I've seriously wondered if I should spend my free time writing a bunch of generic sci-fi short stories, self-publishing them, and then get a lawyer to go after every game and movie studio until something sticks.

Also, Guillermo del Toro's InSane has been cancelled.

Take your pick:

http://www.google.com/search?client=...

It's a damn shame to see InSane cancelled (though since I can't handle horror games, I probably would have never played it anyway) but I'm glad THQ managed to pull in a profitable quarter, purely on catalogue sales (i.e. no new releases at all). Darksiders 2 is also apparently the most pre-ordered game in their history so I hope that bodes well for them. Hopefully Del Toro manages to find someone else to pick up the game but horror stuff doesn't seem to be big sellers this day so this might end up being another in a long line of projects he's had to shelve.

I questioned inSane once they announced it. Evidently they were still in pre-production and just making ideas and concept art when they announced it, so I didn't have much faith we'd see it released anyway.

Since Volition was working with Del Toro on InSane, it seems like THQ saw SR3's sales and decided SR4 was a higher priority. Given that they're using the Rise of the Dominatrix DLC as the basis for the next game I can only imagine they're trying to get SR4 out the door before GTAV and the next console generation arrive.

Is it possible for a sneak SR4 unveil at GamesCom in a couple weeks?

EDIT:

ccesarano wrote:

I questioned inSane once they announced it. Evidently they were still in pre-production and just making ideas and concept art when they announced it, so I didn't have much faith we'd see it released anyway.

Joystiq article is echoing this as well. Nearly two years after the announcement and they're still in early development? Yeesh...

On the plus side they say no Volition staff are affected by the announcement, so it sounds like they shifted people (probably not many were working on InSane) onto a different project.

shoptroll wrote:

Joystiq article is echoing this as well. Nearly two years after the announcement and they're still in early development? Yeesh...

I wonder if it's the same problem that destroyed Spielberg's collaboration with EA, which also took years without actually going anywhere. Directors are used to coming up with a concept, obsessing over the details for ages, filming over a short period, then spending a lot of time in post-production. It ends up being a major conflict with AAA games where you basically have to hit the ground running and iterate as you go, sometimes abandoning huge swaths of your original concept because they don't end up working out.

If you're embarassed to be seen playing SR:3 then you're doing it wrong.

I called my wife over and said: "Hey honey check this out, I'm a nude chick covered in tattoos beating the sh*t out of furrys with a huge purple dildo!"

Silly? Yes.

Any sillier than playing a US spec ops soldier shooting entire villages of brown people because they are "bad guys"?

I don't think so.

Besides, a pimp with a gold microphone pimp cane that he uses to turn his tracheotomy into autotune has absolutely got to be the best character ever created for a video game. HAS TO BE.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

If you're embarassed to be seen playing SR:3 then you're doing it wrong.

I called my wife over and said: "Hey honey check this out, I'm a nude chick covered in tattoos beating the sh*t out of furrys with a huge purple dildo!"

Silly? Yes.

Any sillier than playing a US spec ops soldier shooting entire villages of brown people because they are "bad guys"?

I don't think so.

Besides, a pimp with a gold microphone pimp cane that he uses to turn his tracheotomy into autotune has absolutely got to be the best character ever created for a video game. HAS TO BE.

+1

Though I'd still rather have a Space Marine sequel than SR4. But SR3 was fantastic fun.

Well, now I'm worried.

South Park, Metro Last Light and Company of Heroes 2 delayed somewhere into 2013. They were all originally slated for around March, and with three games releasing in the same month it is possible they could have climbed back up a bit.

Michael Pachter expects bankruptcy in the near future, Darksiders 2 didn't meet expectations

Stock price has plummeted after the investor call.

So, how long before they're put on the cart? I'm also wondering who will pick over which bones. I can't help thinking that Relic have limited appeal because they're a PC only developer, and might need to get away from bigger budget games and adapt to being on their own.

Considering how much I love the CoH, Warhammer and Homeworld RTS's, this news bums me out big time : /

whispa wrote:

Considering how much I love the CoH, Warhammer and Homeworld RTS's, this news bums me out big time : /

Me too. If THQ goes under, I hope Relic gets picked up since they are the makers of my favourite game of all time.