Future of THQ is in question...

Garden Ninja wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Garden Ninja wrote:
MeatMan wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

EDIT: Ubisoft expresses interest in some of the THQ properties.

I have mixed feelings about Ubisoft. If I were a PC gamer I'd probably have some negative feelings about Ubisoft due to always-on DRM.

Even though Ubisoft has promised to us PC gamers that they're abadoning the always-on DRM, I still don't want them anywhere near Saints Row.

What? Tom Clancy's Saints Row 4 doesn't sound sweet to you? You can't see Sam Fisher wielding a dildobat?

STOP STEALING MY SLASHFIC IDEAS I HAVE FOUR VOLUMES DONE ALREADY

Question: where do you affix the scope and suppressor on a dildo bat?

They're easier to handle than the nightvision goggles, let me tell you.

Dammit dammit dammit. God, I detest Ubisoft. Not just the DRM -- it's their Skinner-box game design doctrine that infuriates me. They are like, the opposite of THQ. Gah, some of my worst game industry fears realized. /firstworldproblems.

Archangel wrote:

Dammit dammit dammit. God, I detest Ubisoft. Not just the DRM -- it's their Skinner-box game design doctrine that infuriates me. They are like, the opposite of THQ. Gah, some of my worst game industry fears realized. /firstworldproblems.

Ubisoft has been very good recently. UPlay is actually okay if unnecessary. They've been excellent with fan requests for Far Cry 3 and they've removed the terrible DRM for Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood.

Edit: Of the major publisher's I'd prefer SquareEnix grab some THQ titles but Ubisoft has tried hard to redeem themselves. Activision openly sucks the blood out of franchises and EA's lost so much money that they are not willing to take any risks.

Hmm. I love Ubisoft(am a console guy), and I would love for them to get a crack at a few of the THQ franchises. I think Ubi is, for my money, the best of the AAA.

SallyNasty wrote:

Hmm. I love Ubisoft(am a console guy), and I would love for them to get a crack at a few of the THQ franchises. I think Ubi is, for my money, the best of the AAA.

Right, but for the THQ games and that people like how THQ have made them, would Ubi be hands-off and let them continue making them the old way, or would they stamp their mark all over the design.

Scratched wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Hmm. I love Ubisoft(am a console guy), and I would love for them to get a crack at a few of the THQ franchises. I think Ubi is, for my money, the best of the AAA.

Right, but for the THQ games and that people like how THQ have made them, would Ubi be hands-off and let them continue making them the old way, or would they stamp their mark all over the design.

Kind of irrelevant since no publisher other than SquareEnix allow developers to make games the same way THQ does. We know how EA and Activision will treat them.

Archangel wrote:

Dammit dammit dammit. God, I detest Ubisoft. Not just the DRM -- it's their Skinner-box game design doctrine that infuriates me. They are like, the opposite of THQ. Gah, some of my worst game industry fears realized. /firstworldproblems.

agreed... far better to let the studios die and lay off all the employees then let those bastards at Ubisoft put those games out.

TheGameguru wrote:
Archangel wrote:

Dammit dammit dammit. God, I detest Ubisoft. Not just the DRM -- it's their Skinner-box game design doctrine that infuriates me. They are like, the opposite of THQ. Gah, some of my worst game industry fears realized. /firstworldproblems.

agreed... far better to let the studios die and lay off all the employees then let those bastards at Ubisoft put those games out.

I think the employees of those studios would probably feel differently.

I would much rather see 2K pick off some of the good stuff (like Volition and Relic) and then I'm okay with Ubisoft. I just hope that the human cost isn't awful, no matter what happens. The people behind the games are the ones who are stake here and there are a lot of talented people out there.

But seriously, Triple A development is starting to go the way of 3 or 4 huge studios and everyone else is "indie."

Garden Ninja wrote:

Question: where do you affix the scope and suppressor on a dildo bat?

Right above the mouthpiece.

I think Valve could perhaps to great things with Metro and Company of Heroes. However SquareEnix can do even better things with Saints Row and South Park.

Wembley wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:
Archangel wrote:

Dammit dammit dammit. God, I detest Ubisoft. Not just the DRM -- it's their Skinner-box game design doctrine that infuriates me. They are like, the opposite of THQ. Gah, some of my worst game industry fears realized. /firstworldproblems.

agreed... far better to let the studios die and lay off all the employees then let those bastards at Ubisoft put those games out.

I think the employees of those studios would probably feel differently.

Adjust your sarcasm detector, Wembley!

SallyNasty wrote:

Hmm. I love Ubisoft(am a console guy), and I would love for them to get a crack at a few of the THQ franchises. I think Ubi is, for my money, the best of the AAA.

Always on drm aside I'm rather fond of much of Ubisoft's work myself. They seem to have decent diversity.

Le0hart85 wrote:

I would much rather see 2K pick off some of the good stuff (like Volition and Relic) and then I'm okay with Ubisoft. I just hope that the human cost isn't awful, no matter what happens. The people behind the games are the ones who are stake here and there are a lot of talented people out there.

But seriously, Triple A development is starting to go the way of 3 or 4 huge studios and everyone else is "indie."

I'm no business guy and I know sh*t about economy and money and yatta yatta, but it seems this is the big trend in a capitalist society. There are a handful of gigantic companies that own a bunch of smaller ones, so even though, say, film seems really diverse, you still have four or five major studios leading the way, which is pretty much how it has been since the film industry went over to Hollywood.

That games are following a similar trend isn't really all that surprising, but being a digital form of entertainment I think it is easier to step outside of that five-company system, so to speak.

This is just guess work on my part, though.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Wembley wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:
Archangel wrote:

Dammit dammit dammit. God, I detest Ubisoft. Not just the DRM -- it's their Skinner-box game design doctrine that infuriates me. They are like, the opposite of THQ. Gah, some of my worst game industry fears realized. /firstworldproblems.

agreed... far better to let the studios die and lay off all the employees then let those bastards at Ubisoft put those games out.

I think the employees of those studios would probably feel differently.

Adjust your sarcasm detector, Wembley!

Really? Crap. Sorry GG. I thought you were being a monster. I asked for a new sarcasm detector for Christmas and all I got was clothes. This is what happens!

ccesarano wrote:

I'm no business guy and I know sh*t about economy and money and yatta yatta, but it seems this is the big trend in a capitalist society. There are a handful of gigantic companies that own a bunch of smaller ones, so even though, say, film seems really diverse, you still have four or five major studios leading the way, which is pretty much how it has been since the film industry went over to Hollywood.

That games are following a similar trend isn't really all that surprising, but being a digital form of entertainment I think it is easier to step outside of that five-company system, so to speak.

This is just guess work on my part, though.

Yea, this is kinda what I was getting at, just not in as long a post. Games are going the model of most other forms of entertainment. You have 3 or 4 big studios in music and film and then everything else is outside of that. But most "major" labels/studios have the resources to fund the big "blockbusters", but those huge endeavors are always the safest route.

All of the "really good stuff" comes from smaller studios and people working outside of those Enormous budgets.

Le0hart85 wrote:

I would much rather see 2K pick off some of the good stuff (like Volition and Relic) and then I'm okay with Ubisoft. I just hope that the human cost isn't awful, no matter what happens. The people behind the games are the ones who are stake here and there are a lot of talented people out there.

But seriously, Triple A development is starting to go the way of 3 or 4 huge studios and everyone else is "indie."

In part it must also be embraced that what is good for games, will likely be bad for many of the stores. Games are really suffering in the retail market. At present Gamestop and Best Buy are wielding tremendous coercive power. They are punishing publishers who go too far into download services. Discs are what is leading to a lot of this suffering among publishers and developers.

The thing is that digital downloads have helped stabilize and save Music and Comic books, so far. Boutique retailers are even getting better. It is industrial retail that is suffering.

Metro Last Light HAS to come out.. for all its flaws I felt Metro 2033 was in the end one of my favorite games in a long time...

Yeah, I really liked it, too. What I'm worried about now is that these games are going to be shorted for the resources they need to be truly finished.

Ubisoft seems to be regaining sanity with regard to DRM, so even if these studios end up over there, it may not be too much of an issue.

From what I've been reading of this, every game currently in the pipeline is definitely going to come out, they've been given enough funding to finish them on the new timeline Jason Rubin has set. What happens to the company after that is anyone's guess. I hope it stays independently funded and doesn't just end up getting chopped up and sold off but given that 2013 is probably going to be the hardest year ever for AAA development while people wait for new hardware, I don't know who would want to fund them back to full strength right now beyond other publishers.

Something I'm wondering is beyond the game brand/IPs, how much the THQ brand itself is worth for recognition. I'm thinking of a similar situation to Infogrammes/Atari. Could a publisher with a weaker brand wear THQ's face.

Yeah, THQ seems to be known amongst a more enthusiast market, but I know a lot of people that don't even pay attention to the Activision name in front of every Call of Duty they buy, or if they like Activision it is simply because they like Call of Duty and Activision puts out Call of Duty.

Which is nothing to say of the more mainstream audience.

Though that brings to mind, what if Microsoft or Sony (or much less likely, Nintendo) decides to gobble up some of the studios and turn those games into first party franchises? It seems highly unlikely, but I don't think I'd mind seeing Sony do such a thing as they've allowed many of their first parties to develop whatever they want (or that's how it sounds. See: inFamous ending at 2 games and Sony giving no pressure to keep it moving forward). Microsoft, on the other hand...

Scratched wrote:

Something I'm wondering is beyond the game brand/IPs, how much the THQ brand itself is worth for recognition. I'm thinking of a similar situation to Infogrammes/Atari. Could a publisher with a weaker brand wear THQ's face.

I wondered this too but I don't think the brand means anything outside of a few core gamers who already know the names of the studios anyway. I don't think the Atari brand did anything to help that company with how badly it was run. THQ was mostly a licensed shovelware pushed for many years and among the audience you'd be aiming to speak to, I think a smaller publisher with a lesser known brand would resonate more than a big publisher name attached to a failed company. But then, I don't work in marketing for a reason.

ccesarano wrote:

Though that brings to mind, what if Microsoft or Sony (or much less likely, Nintendo) decides to gobble up some of the studios and turn those games into first party franchises?

I would probably giggle myself to death if Nintendo owned Darksiders.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I would probably giggle myself to death if Nintendo owned Darksiders.

That would be amusing. I don't think Nintendo really makes overt purchases of Western companies though. Rare remained mostly independent, but I'm not sure how Retro is handled.

I'd expect Microsoft to make an offer long before Nintendo or Sony. But, I think THQ's properties/studios will go to one of the remaining AAA publishers before the platform holders.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

From what I've been reading of this, every game currently in the pipeline is definitely going to come out, they've been given enough funding to finish them on the new timeline Jason Rubin has set. What happens to the company after that is anyone's guess. I hope it stays independently funded and doesn't just end up getting chopped up and sold off but given that 2013 is probably going to be the hardest year ever for AAA development while people wait for new hardware, I don't know who would want to fund them back to full strength right now beyond other publishers.

Not so much concerned about DLC...but I do hope they have enough funding to support the game at least for a few months after.. I would hate to get the inevitable bugs NOT fixed.

That ongoing support is my main concern for any game with a multiplayer focus, COH2 comes under that umbrella too.

For singleplayer games I can be happy if the initial v1.0 never gets another patch if it doesn't need it. I have to wonder if some games may be being altered from having a model where they expect to proved ongoing DLC/support (like SR3) to one where they're quite uncertain whether they can do anything with it after launch, so that v1.0 is as complete as they can make it (unless there's an Obsidian/KOTOR2 situation).

bizzare time delayed double post.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

Though that brings to mind, what if Microsoft or Sony (or much less likely, Nintendo) decides to gobble up some of the studios and turn those games into first party franchises?

I would probably giggle myself to death if Nintendo owned Darksiders.

That would make for a hilarious Super Smash Bros. Link vs Horseman of War, it'd be like Zelda 2: Adventures of Link when he had to battle Dark Link.

TheGameguru wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

From what I've been reading of this, every game currently in the pipeline is definitely going to come out, they've been given enough funding to finish them on the new timeline Jason Rubin has set. What happens to the company after that is anyone's guess. I hope it stays independently funded and doesn't just end up getting chopped up and sold off but given that 2013 is probably going to be the hardest year ever for AAA development while people wait for new hardware, I don't know who would want to fund them back to full strength right now beyond other publishers.

Not so much concerned about DLC...but I do hope they have enough funding to support the game at least for a few months after.. I would hate to get the inevitable bugs NOT fixed.

Don't worry, in 4 years the fans will have fixed the game.