Death of THQ?
polycounter lvl 5
Saw this article and it has saddened me, THQ has produced many great titles and I just really hope THQ somehow survives. Do you think THQ has a chance still?
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-06-thq-stands-over-the-abyss
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-06-thq-stands-over-the-abyss
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
TBH - I wouldn't have moved back to Relic from Microsoft if I didn't think THQ has a chance.
https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:THQI
Let's see what happens tomorrow :O
WOW.... stock prices halved in under a day.
brutal.
just reading their history though and to date THQ have closed 19 studios and 18 of those are from 2008-present. Wasnt too long ago that their shares went under $1 aswell. so its not looking good.
worryingly it seems their games just arent selling. Darksiders 2 only sold 1.4 million units even though its super duper awesome, when you compare that to assassins creed 3 which has only been out a week and shipped an estimated 3.5 million units already. maybe they dont market themselves well enough?
though they kinda had it coming with the whole WH40k MMO thing
brutal about the stock price, it was reverse split from 50 cents to 5 bucks to avoid delisting, doubt they will be allowed to do that again.
The problem is, if your game doesn't have a heritage, essentially a fan-base that will follow it to death, then simply sale of "Oh, hey our game just came out, buy it" can really drive things down, and lets face it, THQ has been publishing awesome but kinda new IP names that no one even heard of, you're gambling alot.
SR3 is doing pretty well, and at this point, you can see the pattern.
THQ needs to understand that they need to advertise their games better AND wisely, not simply hire the biggest hipster in the ad world for a large sum of money. They also need to start getting out early copies out as early as possible, like Bethesda does (they send out early copies real early, so the person playing the game has a chance to talk about it fully the day it comes out in retail), especially if internet celebrities are involved in said review of it.
Not to mention, their release dates put them up against stiff competition, sometimes delaying your game for even a week or month can make a whole slew of differences.
An example of what I mean: I wasn't interested in buying Space Marine because it looked like Gears of War mashed in with God of War, it's wasn't until I watched this video that just enticed so much that I got it in the end:
[ame="
I didn't know when or where Darksiders 2 was coming out for PC, I think I saw maybe 1 article casually mention it on Joystiq.
The list goes on, but you get the gist.
That is the failing of Darksiders' ad campaign.
It saddens me deeply that we might end up giving lets players more power then they already have. People like Totalbiscuit deciding whether a game should sell or not. It's a scary future ahead.
Also, about Let's Play comments, say what you will, but I find it funny (in the case of TB, although he doesn't do LP's now last I checked) on how we get 'professional' reviews and a whole slew of drama around said people, when they don't even spend 10 minutes looking over a game, giving arbitrary scores, or haven't finished the game and feel entitled to rant about the first 2 hours of 60 hour game as 'reviews', yet we get Let's Players who spend 30 mins + on the starting segments of the game or so, actually giving you 'person to person' readout about the feel of the game with footage to follow.
Compare to the link I posted to the one from Gametrailers (as an example), which one will get you more pumped up to buy the game, considering the latter not only cut down the small review time they usually have of 10 mins to 5, but also talks 'generically' about all the aspects of the game, with half of the stuff in the video not even being mentioned, and very few that pique my interest aren't talked about again (mentions Relics/Artifacts to progress, as in upgrade? Unlocks? Secrets?). That's not interesting to me in anyway.
Don't forget some people won't even look at an another review as they'll assume everything they saw is that 5 min video is good enough, consider that for a moment.
Honestly, people who do long runs of a game on their channels are pretty much the only reliable thing you have at this point if you want to see the feeling of a game before putting up some cash.
Their games have great advertising, good scores, but poor sales. It's sad to see THQ in this situation. Piracy was pointed as one of the main reasons in our spanish news.
In other forums are saying that Darksiders 2 killed THQ, what the hell...
http://gamingeverything.com/32675/darksiders-ii-ships-1-4-million-copies-sales-below-thqs-expectations/
I'm sure i won't play darksiders 3 now because THQ may be DEAD in a few months. I wonder if releasing later the new Company of Heroes and Metro will save the company. I doubt it.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-06-thq-faces-bleak-future-of-sale-or-bankruptcy
February 2012: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/334490/warhammer-40k-mmo-still-alive-but-thq-seeks-help/
March 2012: http://www.complex.com/video-games/2012/03/thqs-warhammer-40k-mmo-is-no-longer-an-mmo-dev-staff-laid-off
And if you don't know the news... take this!
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/22/darksiders-2-creative-director-joe-madureira-leaves-vigil-games/
Will this mean that Vigil will be dead too?
It will be true, Death alives...
I'd hate to see Vigil, Relic, Volition or any others actually destroyed by THQ's downfall, I'd prefer they get to keep existing, even if they don't have the resources THQ once gave them.
We aren't dead yet though, so no destruction happening to anyone now. If it does come to that point (which would be down the road a ways I believe), THQ can potentially sell off its assets (ips and studios) to any willing buyers. So even if it came to that, it doesn't mean that all of the studios would be doomed to certain death as far as I know. Still would be a (small) chance of surviving in some form or another.
That's commendable, but I wonder how much (or lack of) arm twisting is actually causing issue for THQ at this point, since many others studios are getting their arms twisted like a pair of nipple tassels but still turn an internal profit, while THQ doesn't seem to be doing that and sticking to their guns, but still getting a rash.
Reminds me kinda of Babysitter and Carry kind of scheme from MOBA games.
I'd assume a table is given a "flipped" state after it has been flipped and thus doesn't need to be flipped again.
isTableFlipped is an unsigned 8 bit int.
After 255 flips, it just wraps back around to being upright again.
:poly142:
You could do worse, you could be using UnrealScript rotators, those things make absolutely zero sense to me (look 'em up if unfamilliar)
I thought the first game was freaking perfect; it's one of the few recent FPS's I've replayed over and over again. I had no qualms about the pacing...
- BoBo
I'm not against them exploring new ways to advertise their games for "free". And I think the hole word of mouth is more suited for a younger audience. As I remember when I was a kid, me and my friend would always tell each other when we found a really good game or a really bad one so we knew what to get. I think it comes down to that the older we grow the more we do research and stop believing in what a single person says.
I don't have anything about the concept of Let's Players, I don't like it that they start relying on people like Totalbiscuit since it gives him more power and the more power he gains the more control over the market he has. I mean, take Yogcasts as an example. They got 2,6 million subscribers at the moment, and its mostly thanks to their fans that their game got greenlit. This single channel can determinate if your game ends up getting greenlit or not. This is just an example to show what power these channels have/can have. And the more the developers cater to them the more power they will end up having.
None of them makes me interesting in buying the game. I don't base my opinion on what a single person says. Especially when it comes to something like video games, it's to personal. What does both of these videos tell me? That they like the game and nothing more. No one should base their purchase on opinions made by people. Demos need to make a comeback.
That's why you try the demo (if the company made one that is). If the company didn't make a demo for people to try the game before they buy it. I simply recommend pirating the game and trying it out yourself. There is nothing more reliable then trying out the game yourself.
The guys up in THQ Montreal feel the same way. None of those guys are planning on jumping ship anytime soon.
^_^
Hope things work out for you guys!
No, because I'm a PC guy, I rarely get a demo, or get them about 6-12 months after the game is out gold (Bullet-Storm), not to mention, Demo's won't show you the game-breaking bugs you get mid-game (XCOM).
Also, I don't pirate because I cannot waste my internet cap willy nilly, watching a 100MB video of XCOM for me was much more reliable before I bought it, then downloading a 4GB demo which didn't show me any of the issues the final game had (which again, with the videos I saw, was prepared for it).
It doesn't matter what you or me think, the end issue is it's upto THQ to decide what they want to do, and they better start exploring these options pretty fast as you said, especially since gamers themselves are becoming part of the 'grey nation'.
Yeah, I'm a PC guy too. That's why I added the pirate option since developers rarely care about giving us a demo. But neither reviewers or people like Totalbiscuit will show you game-breaking bugs that are mid-game. It's rare that Totalbiscuit plays more then the tutorial-level 1/2.
Eh, you have capped internet? How can you even survive. At your situation i guess it's better to watch some movie then download a demo if your internet connection is capped. But if it wasn't capped, what would you do? Would you still watch youtube videos or pirate/download a demo?
That is true, it don't matter what anyone says on polycount, the big guys over at THQ are the ones that matter. But we can always still talk about it and speculate about things that might happen/they might do.
Creating ads is just stupid when they have the best ads themself, screenshoots and information about the game. All they really have to do go to get noticed by magazines/internet sites is to release information and screenshoots. I never really understood the secrecy game companies have about their games.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
What are you trying to say here? That they're not creating publisher-owned IP, and are letting the studios they publish keep the IP?
They own Volition, Relic, THQ Montreal, and Vigil completely. They have no other studios under their wing, and they have Metro, Homefront 2 (at Crytek UK), and Southpark (at Obsidian) as their announced publishing deals. Metro and Southpark are non-THQ IPs, and Homefront is a THQ IP. If they have anything else, I don't believe it is announced.
I hope THQ pulls through for the sake of my THQ-employed friends, but I have fewer and fewer THQ-employed friends every day.
and yeah, fuck piracy discussions, it is impossible to have a useful discussion about it because the meager handful of facts get ignored and it's otherwise an entirely emotional issue.
^ see this for the rationale on the end of demos. Pessimistic but true.
The reason the outcome is negative for them is because their definition of a demo is that the purpose is to increase the revenue of the product. Of course the outcome will be negative for the developers in this case. But, if you go the by the real definition of the word demo you get a different outcome
dem·o 1 (d
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/demo
"A game demo is a freely distributed demonstration or preview of an upcoming or recently released video game."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_demo
By this definition a demo is supposed to aid the customer in their decision about purchasing a product. What is the outcome if we go by this definition then?
Outcome 1; Your game and your demo is terrible, you loose sales. According to Penny Arcade this is a bad outcome.
This is the point of a demo, to showcase the state of the product. You make a bad product that no one wants to buy, you loose sales. It would be good if developers who made terrible games couldn't get away with it thanks to demos. If developers would be forced to make demos, games would have to be worth paying for else no one wants your product (there is a bad side of demos that outcome 2 demonstrates.).
1 Positive outcome so far.
Outcome 2; Your game is terrible, your demo is okayish. According to them most people who tries the demo will then wait (90% as they showcase in the video) for a review who will then state that your terrible game is terrible. You loose sales.
This is where one of the negative sides of demos comes up. If you make your demo look better then the whole game then people might buy it after trying it. This is bad since it doesn't showcase your product in a truthfully light. That's when the reviewer is supposed to step in and clarify if the demo speaks the truth or not. Is the rest of the game as good as the rest of the game.
2 Positive outcomes so far.
Outcome 3; Your game is terrible but your demo is awesome. According to Penny Arcade pulling something like this of is rare but when it does happen it might convince some people to buy the game.
Here they ignore the reviewer whom they included in the last outcome, easy to forget such things I guess. As I stated in outcome 2, after the demo the reviewer is meant to step up and state whether or not the demo is actually true.
3 Positive outcomes so far.
Outcome 4; Your game is okay but the demo is awful. According to Penny Arcade people loose interest if not, they do it when the game is released. You loose sales.
And once again, they forgot the reviewer. This is where he is supposed to step in and say that the game is actually okay and that the demo does not do the game justice.
4 Positive outcomes so far.
Outcome 5; Your game and demo is okay. According to Penny Arcade some people might buy, won't convince people unless they were planning on buying it already and most people will decide they got their fix from the demo.
The demo does it job by convincing they ones who were planning on buying it that the game is worthwhile. Showed people that had interest in the game what it really was, they didn't like it so they didn't buy it.
5 Positive outcomes so far.
Outcome 6; Your game is okay and the demo is great. Increases sales and player expectations, which occasionally leads to a backlash when they find out the finished product is nearly as good as the demo made it look.
Once again the reviewer is ignored, this is where he is supposed to step in and say that the game itself is not on par with the demo. And of course a backlash occurs when you showcase something that is great, but the finished product is not up to standard of what the demo showcased. This is just natural and nothing to be surprised about.
6 Positive outcomes so far.
Outcome 7; Your game is excellent but your demo is awful. This absolutely kill sales.
Once again the reviewer is left out and supposed to step in and say whats true. Even then I don't understand why developers would make a excellent game but an awful demo. Not even the funders/publisher would surely want this as it will kill sales for sure.
6 Positive outcomes and 1 negative outcome so far.
Outcome 8;Your game is fantastic but the demo is okay. Some people still buy, a large chunk of players only buy great games.
This time they indirectly do include the reviewer by mentioning meta critic score. But fail again to mention that it's crazy that the developers put out an awful demo or that even the funders/publisher allowed it.
6 Positive outcomes and 2 negative outcomes so far.
Outcome 9; Your game and demo is awesome. Marginal increase in income or sometimes no noticeable at all. Game in this category (triple A titles) already have a huge marketing push or a fantastic word of mouth.
The demo does what it's supposed to do and showoff that the game is great. Reassuring people that the product they want to buy is awesome.
So by simply changing the definition of a word I drastically changed the outcome. So what is the lesson we learned today kids? Words are fun to play with.
So the big question is, why don't we have more demos? It's quite simple actually, if developers were forced to make demos people wouldn't buy the pig in the sack. They would then actually know if a game is good or bad before buying it. Better to give out controlled information which puts your game in a good spotlight.
Influencing a customer to convince them to purchase a product is the same as attempting to increase the revenue and sales for that product. There is no difference in the definition you are using and the one put forth in the linked video. The ultimate objective is still to help the product sell.
But the point of a demo is not to influence a customer into buying their games, it's to convince the customer the game is up to the standards the customer is looking for in that specific game. There is a difference in my definition and the definition in the video. Their definition is that demos are made to sell games while my definition is that demos are made to make sure that games are up to standards of the customer.
On topic, this is a very interesting read, and related --
How mismanagement, incompetence and pride killed THQ's Kaos Studios
Hopefully things turn around for thq, I think they have the best good, creative game ratio of any big publisher these days.
Bigjohn: That sounds great, but where do these indie studios find the revenue stream to be confident they can pay rent on their office and all of their payroll indefinitely? There is a reason MOST indie studios are very small.
The best case for the people who work at those studios is that someone with big money is bankrolling them and providing stability.
But whatever happens I hope they dont shut down the studios they own like Vigil and Volition. That would be the worst, to close down the studios instead of selling them off or something. So many talented people at both studios.
And super sad that there pretty much wont be a Darksiders 3 now. Such an awesome premise of a different Horseman each game. Not to mention some of the best art around. Its a shame they released the game in the summer, nothing ever dose well then.
I was not very familiar at all with Darksiders franchise, but all the hype and especially competition here at Polycount made me interested in it.
And i must admit i just love the style, character seems quite interesting.
However, while visuals are very nice, especially in the first map, i have to say that i was maybe even a tad disappointed with the actual gameplay.
At first, it was fun, animations are really well done, you have quite few combat moves, you also have some interesting mechanics like climbing, jumping from one place to another, solving simple riddles by shooting at certain places, blowing up another, etc.
However, quite soon, it just felt very repetitive. I was fighting same or similar mobs, i didn't really have to chance my fighting style really, and enemies didn't feel like they have different tactics, or not different enough to force me into changing the way i fight, depanding on the enemy.
I guess to sum this up, what made it boring for me, was bad pacing.
For example, i like old school shooters, an serious sam 3 was one of them.
It's also mostly action oriented with some minor riddles here and there.
What i love about ss3, is pacing. You start with basically one weapon, only one or two mob types, closed environments.
Soon, you the environment opens up and become just massive towards the end, mobs become more and more complex, you suddenly get small, long range attackers, some flying combo of long range + melle, some very fast rushing at you bull like enemies, etc.
The combo of enemies gets more and more complex, and while you get more weapons, you also have to think more and more what weapon will you use for what enemy.
So, basically, it starts simple, and it gets more and more interesting and complex. That's why made it so good. It keeps you intresting into the game towards the end.
But with Darksiders 2, quite late in the game, i still gave similar type of weapon, i get a bit more enemies, but most of them i can handle the same way i did with the mobs at the start, riddles aren't really getting any more complex then at start, etc.
I just didn't feel any pacing to it.
And then there's environment. While i love the style itself, many times environment would feel kinda empty. At best i could see some mobs here and there while i roam the landscape.
I mean, in gothic 1, which is now like 12 years old, you had animals all arround the map, you had beast that came out just at nights, you had cities full of people, and so on. DS2 kinda lacked most of this, so it made the game feel a bit empty.
I know DS2 is different type of game, but still, i got used to "living world" and to come back to empty world (atleast as far as i have played it), it just felt somehow boring.I mean, there are few npc's here and there, but that's pretty much it.
So, i hope you guys don't hate me for this, and don't get me wrong, i love the style of DS2, but pacing is really what it killed it for me eventually.
So, i think this might be one of the reasons why it maybe didn't sell that well. Gameplay wise, it really didn't stand out from the rest of the games out there.
Reality is darksiders is cartoony = lower audience numbers, assasins creed = realistic, higher audience numbers.
It's the same way military FPS games like call of duty blow games like Unreal tournament out of the water in terms of sales, no one likes 'sci-fi' everyone likes military grunt style.
In fact, every other mmo these days seems to want to take a similar cartoonish look that wow has.
Though, i guess there is some truth about military vs fantasy/scifi.
But i still think it has something to do with the gamepaly itself as well.
WoW is a special case, many people who play WoW only play WoW. Note that no other MMO has touched WoW's numbers, even big properties like star-wars can't get anywhere near close to it. WoW is a phenomenon unto itself, it's taken game developers many years to learn that hard lesson by the almost every struggling MMO going F2P and going full exploitation mode on the dumb half of humanity.
Not only that Darksiders is way more demanding in terms of player skill and that right there would put off a large chunk of the WoW audience. MMO's are essentially skill-less games as they don't make any serious demands on reflexes, they are basically glorified chat not so much a serious videogame.
Take the same genre:
Call of duty does something like 10-15 million, Borderlands (the first one) only barely scratched maybe 2.5 million, the sequel sold 5 million but I bet that was more on word of mouth and the advertising hype machine.
Borderlands is pretty Toony but it's more cartoon shaded realistic feeling characters then pure on fantasy-comic style like War and deaths character in darksiders. But still, borderlands being a first person shooter still can't touch Call of duties 'gritty realism' numbers despite being in the same genre.
you do realise Dishonored sold 460k copies in the US in October?