Future of THQ is in question...

Huh, I had no idea, Fxeni. GL

It really sounds like their primary failure was in being too optimistic, which in the overall scheme of things, isn't a major sin. They blew it, but they weren't bad people, they weren't abusive, and they weren't fraudulent, they were just too optimistic.

I think that would be a very fine thing indeed to have on your tombstone.

Fxeni wrote:

I thoroughly enjoyed my time with THQ. It wasn't always the smoothest of rides to say the least, but the people were great to work with. I hope everything will be fine, but I admit that I have some concerns. The studios that were sold off will just keep on trucking. I'm sad that I won't be able to help the project I was on through to the masses, but such is the way of things.

It was a pleasure, THQ.

I was also not familiar you were a developer for them. Were you under the THQ Montreal umbrella? Is your job secure still?

And honestly, it is good to hear nothing but good from the developers. So often you hear people discussing horrible working conditions or how the publisher forced their view, but as Parallax said, there's been nothing but good coming out about how supportive THQ was.

With the exception of Polygon's article on Homefront.

Still, if that's the worst that can be said of your company, you did something right...which is a shame they had to pay for it.

I think Jason Rubin and the people working to help his vision for the company were perhaps too optimistic but yeah, Brian Farrell had been making a mess of things at that company for many years. Hanging onto the licensed business and the uDraw were both his doing as I understand it. Had they executed Rubin's ideas a couple of years ago, they'd probably be hanging on today. Unfortunately, since Farrell was both Chairman and CEO, it was very hard to remove him and he staunchly refused to step aside, even when they were about to hit the iceberg.

It's a shame, even though they were another publisher and we generally think of publishers as evil, they didn't feel like a traditional big one like EA of Activision. They never came across as exploitative (i.e. not microtransactions in $60 games like Dead Space 3) and while they certainly put out a few duds in recent years, they always seem to be focused on delivery quality whenever they could. I can't recall many THQ games being broken on release or that didn't get substantial post-launch support. Even after Homefront bombed, it got patched for a while. And Patrice Desilets probably had multiple chances to abandon the sinking ship in the last year but he chose to stick around which says something too. I think AAA gaming needs more companies that operated like THQ had been the last little while.

Hope you land on your feet soon Fxeni.

To be fair, I do recall THQ being the first to include something along the lines of locking away multiplayer behind a code you only got with a new game. I cannot recall what game introduced it, though, but it was when Ubisoft and EA were putting their own things out so it was just another addition of Publishers doing Dumb Thinks to Stop Used Games.

Fxeni wrote:

I thoroughly enjoyed my time with THQ. It wasn't always the smoothest of rides to say the least, but the people were great to work with. I hope everything will be fine, but I admit that I have some concerns. The studios that were sold off will just keep on trucking. I'm sad that I won't be able to help the project I was on through to the masses, but such is the way of things.

It was a pleasure, THQ.

That sucks. Best of luck to you.

ccesarano wrote:

To be fair, I do recall THQ being the first to include something along the lines of locking away multiplayer behind a code you only got with a new game. I cannot recall what game introduced it, though, but it was when Ubisoft and EA were putting their own things out so it was just another addition of Publishers doing Dumb Thinks to Stop Used Games.

Wow, were they actually the first to do the Online Pass thing? Did not know that. I wonder what game it was. Probably one of the WWE ones.

It might have actually been Homefront, though don't quote me on that. I remember it being a shooter, though again, I could be wrong.

The online pass initiative predates Homefront by quite a while. Mass Effect 2 had the Cerberus Network in early 2010, but I'm sure that's not the first.

I personally had no issue with the online pass, and think there's merit in the the money going up the chain past GameStop but I know I'm in the minority.

demonbox wrote:

I personally had no issue with the online pass, and think there's merit in the the money going up the chain past GameStop but I know I'm in the minority.

You aren't the only one.

Fxeni wrote:

I thoroughly enjoyed my time with THQ. It wasn't always the smoothest of rides to say the least, but the people were great to work with. I hope everything will be fine, but I admit that I have some concerns. The studios that were sold off will just keep on trucking. I'm sad that I won't be able to help the project I was on through to the masses, but such is the way of things.

It was a pleasure, THQ.

Good luck man. Hope you land on your feet.

Man, 2013 is already shaping up to be a hell of a year for the game industry.

SallyNasty wrote:
demonbox wrote:

I personally had no issue with the online pass, and think there's merit in the the money going up the chain past GameStop but I know I'm in the minority.

You aren't the only one.

Yeah, I don't mind online passes. Mostly because I always try to buy new, but the publishers deserve some money if I do buy used.

Blind_Evil wrote:

The online pass initiative predates Homefront by quite a while. Mass Effect 2 had the Cerberus Network in early 2010, but I'm sure that's not the first.

ME2 may not be the first, but I'm thinking EA was the first to implement the online pass.

Project $10 and all that, so maybe.

Has anything been said about the Stacking and Costume Quest IP Double Fine did for THQ?

Blind_Evil wrote:

Project $10 and all that, so maybe.

Yeah that was the start of the Online Passes from what I remember. Or at least the prior art.

shoptroll wrote:

Has anything been said about the Stacking and Costume Quest IP Double Fine did for THQ?

The rest of their assets get sold off a week or two from now.

shoptroll wrote:

Has anything been said about the Stacking and Costume Quest IP Double Fine did for THQ?

I haven't seen anything, but I doubt that DF have any intention of making new games within either of those IPs. As for the rights, THQ did not publish the PC version of Costume Quest. I think DF owns the rights to that, so revenue from any future sales would go directly to DF and/or Steven Dengler, who funded the PC port.

MeatMan wrote:
shoptroll wrote:

Has anything been said about the Stacking and Costume Quest IP Double Fine did for THQ?

I haven't seen anything, but I doubt that DF have any intention of making new games within either of those IPs. As for the rights, THQ did not publish the PC version of Costume Quest. I think DF owns the rights to that, so revenue from any future sales would go directly to DF and/or Steven Dengler, who funded the PC port.

This is correct. Double Fine, right now, could make sequels but they'd be PC only.

Vector wrote:
MeatMan wrote:
shoptroll wrote:

Has anything been said about the Stacking and Costume Quest IP Double Fine did for THQ?

I haven't seen anything, but I doubt that DF have any intention of making new games within either of those IPs. As for the rights, THQ did not publish the PC version of Costume Quest. I think DF owns the rights to that, so revenue from any future sales would go directly to DF and/or Steven Dengler, who funded the PC port.

This is correct. Double Fine, right now, could make sequels but they'd be PC only.

Right now, sure. I wonder if they'll have to renegotiate that with the new owners. I also don't know how viable it is for DB to pick up the properties. In their latest doc video, there's a heavy suggestion that they will go over budget on DF Adventure. I'd assume their in a tight spot unless they get some outside funding, or risk The Cave's profits on future endeavors.

Er, sorry for the guesstimates. I usually don't care for 'If' statements, but this subject intrigues me greatly.

cyrax wrote:
Vector wrote:
MeatMan wrote:
shoptroll wrote:

Has anything been said about the Stacking and Costume Quest IP Double Fine did for THQ?

I haven't seen anything, but I doubt that DF have any intention of making new games within either of those IPs. As for the rights, THQ did not publish the PC version of Costume Quest. I think DF owns the rights to that, so revenue from any future sales would go directly to DF and/or Steven Dengler, who funded the PC port.

This is correct. Double Fine, right now, could make sequels but they'd be PC only.

Right now, sure. I wonder if they'll have to renegotiate that with the new owners. I also don't know how viable it is for DB to pick up the properties. In their latest doc video, there's a heavy suggestion that they will go over budget on DF Adventure. I'd assume their in a tight spot unless they get some outside funding, or risk The Cave's profits on future endeavors.

Er, sorry for the guesstimates. I usually don't care for 'If' statements, but this subject intrigues me greatly.

Well, Double Fine owns the PC rights for Stacking and Costume Quest. They have said that they could make a sequel but it would be PC only.

I guess it comes down to cost vs benefit. If the console rights to those two games can be acquired for cheap then maybe it is worth the price.

How can they be going over budget on DFA? They got 3m but only planned for 400,000 game. Seems like poor planning.

They increased the scope of the project after getting so much more than they originally wanted, and the game is taking longer than intended.

Alex Navarro did an awesome write-up on the THQ fallout from this week and gave his take on where a lot of their franchises ended up. I can normally take or leave Navarro and most of his writing but this is really good.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Alex Navarro did an awesome write-up on the THQ fallout from this week and gave his take on where a lot of their franchises ended up. I can normally take or leave Navarro and most of his writing but this is really good.

The happenings of THQ is of great interest to me, so despite my thoughts on Alex, I too started reading it. I couldn't stop reading. I was genuinely surprised how good the article was, so I left a comment. It's nice to be reminded every now and then that Alex is more than his persona, or music, wrestling, and bad game expertise.

I left a positive comment for him as well. I feel a lot like him on THQ. I never like to see people out of work and it's a sad thing for gaming when any publishers or developers go under but I've felt genuinely sad over the loss of THQ this week. Mostly because like Alex said, they often took some crazy creative risks that you'd never see from an EA or an Activision. They put out a lot of crap like any big name but some of my most memorable games of the last few years had their stamp. They dipped their toes in some truly unique stuff and sadly, a lot of it didn't pay off. I made a blog post about that this past week. If gamers actually rewarded innovation rather than scream for it while largely buying the same crap over and over again, maybe things would be different for them. I think an important voice in the publishing world died this week. I really wish that Clearlake Capital thing had happened and they'd been given another shot under Jason Rubin.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Mostly because like Alex said, they often took some crazy creative risks that you'd never see from an EA or an Activision.

For about the last 10-12 years, publishing risky titles typically gets punished. Sega did it. They lost their console business and nearly went under completely. Midway took some creative risks in the end and disappeared. THQ...actually did alright, apparently, until the uDraw disaster. XSeed and Atlus manage to publish niche titles successfully, by releasing small print runs initially, and only making more to meet demand.

AUs_TBirD wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Mostly because like Alex said, they often took some crazy creative risks that you'd never see from an EA or an Activision.

For about the last 10-12 years, publishing risky titles typically gets punished. Sega did it. They lost their console business and nearly went under completely. Midway took some creative risks in the end and disappeared. THQ...actually did alright, apparently, until the uDraw disaster. XSeed and Atlus manage to publish niche titles successfully, by releasing small print runs initially, and only making more to meet demand.

The secret seems to be to not assume that every weird quirky game is going to be the Next Big Thing and budget accordingly. Who knew?

hbi2k wrote:
AUs_TBirD wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Mostly because like Alex said, they often took some crazy creative risks that you'd never see from an EA or an Activision.

For about the last 10-12 years, publishing risky titles typically gets punished. Sega did it. They lost their console business and nearly went under completely. Midway took some creative risks in the end and disappeared. THQ...actually did alright, apparently, until the uDraw disaster. XSeed and Atlus manage to publish niche titles successfully, by releasing small print runs initially, and only making more to meet demand.

The secret seems to be to not assume that every weird quirky game is going to be the Next Big Thing and budget accordingly. Who knew?

XSeed and Atlus use a model that wouldn't work when applied to North America publisher/developer houses.

Vector wrote:

XSeed and Atlus use a model that wouldn't work when applied to North America publisher/developer houses.

I'm curious to hear you elaborate on that. I'm not a business expert, but I don't see what there is about making niche games for relatively small but loyal audiences on a reasonable budget that only works in Japan but not in NA. I'm just armchair quarterbacking, but it seems to make more sense than trying to compete in the AAA space against bigger, better-funded competition (that are themselves struggling to keep it up).

Vector wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
AUs_TBirD wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Mostly because like Alex said, they often took some crazy creative risks that you'd never see from an EA or an Activision.

For about the last 10-12 years, publishing risky titles typically gets punished. Sega did it. They lost their console business and nearly went under completely. Midway took some creative risks in the end and disappeared. THQ...actually did alright, apparently, until the uDraw disaster. XSeed and Atlus manage to publish niche titles successfully, by releasing small print runs initially, and only making more to meet demand.

The secret seems to be to not assume that every weird quirky game is going to be the Next Big Thing and budget accordingly. Who knew?

XSeed and Atlus use a model that wouldn't work when applied to North America publisher/developer houses.

Speaking of that, isn't part of this an issue of whether games developed in the west actually gain any traction in Japan? For whatever reason niche titles do much better in the US than mainstream US titles do in Japan.