Coo, well i'm still not really convinced about that. Diablo 3 also didn't strike me like some ultra realistic when it comes to graphics, and iirc, it sold well.
Or lets take some other non blizzard game. How about minecraft? It's not exactly military realistic looking shooter either, and it sold and still is, like crazy.
Or Terraria. And there are other similar games.
So i'm not really sure it's the visual style that is guilty here. I think it's more to do with gameplay. It just felt average.
As i said, it was cool at start, but 15 hours into the game, i didn't feel like much has changed. Some new boss here and there, but there was no pacing, there was nothing that would keep pushing me to play farther.
So for even if there is DS3, with 50 price tag, i'd be very careful if i would buy it, if at all. And it's not because i don't like this type of game, or because it wouldn't have any potential. But gameplay has to have something to keep wanting me to play. More and more complex riddles, more and more story elements, more drama, more complex fight system (i could use same combat technique for most of the time), more complex enemy combos, something.
So dunno, i'd really look into gameplay before i'd assume it's the visual style that doesn't sell...
And i'm not really sure what to think when publishers says game has to sell around 2 mil copies at least to break even....that's sounds a tad optimistic in the first place.
I mean, even for cod, it took them several games titles until they started to hit those crazy numbers, it wasn't hit just all of sudden with the first or second game...
Coo, well i'm still not really convinced about that. Diablo 3 also didn't strike me like some ultra realistic when it comes to graphics, and iirc, it sold well.
Diablo 3 is a bad example. Diablo 3 had HUGE PENT UP DEMAND, basically a starving audience of diablo 1 + 2 fans had accumulated over many years. Diablo 3 even if it was absolute garbage would still have sold a lot on name recognition alone.
I compared a toony style first person shooter (borderlands) to another first person shooter (realistic) and noted the HUGE difference in sales despite them being the same basic game (Borderlands = shooting /w loot, Call of duty = shooting /w no loot). The people paying for games have moved beyond gameplay and videogames and are now BUYING AESTHETIC EXPERIENCES. People who buy call of duty have certain aesthetic tastes, a large % of call of duty people will never play a game with toony graphics ever.
That is a big problem for game makers since the call of duty audience many of them only go for realistic type graphics. Darksiders was clearly a console game in the vein of God of war and Devil may cry mixed in with a bit of zelda.
Darksiders 1 was a fairly mediocre blend of action and zelda I'm not surprised darksiders 2 sales were low, but the toony style combined with mediocre gameplay basically means they got the sales they deserved. Darksiders 1 was a very average game, it couldn't decide between being an action game and being a casual game. Darksiders 1 (and 2 btw) had huge problems with pacing. Darksiders as a franchise has one big going against it:
The team at vigil can't let go of Zelda casual style when they give Darksiders complex god of war like combat mechanics. You can't pace a game like Darksiders two like zelda without creating huge amounts of boredom since enemies pose no challenge and you just button mash you way through boring mobs that don't challenge you.
It has a comic book art style in a audience atmosphere that demands increasing realism, if you look at the STYLE of graphics of videogames over the last decade or so. We've gone from 2D toony sprites toony 3D models (PS1 era) to more hollywood-esque graphics the last two game console generations. Unreal and quake look downright toony compared to Call of duty/Battlefield/GTA4.
Call of duty, battlefield, grand theft auto, Red dead redemption, all moved towards increasing realism to widen their audience. You even had Ace combat developers purposely screw up their game to make it like call of duty when they saw the money call of duty was raking in.
Also...the SPECIAL PEOPLE at blizzard, blizzard is it's own phenomenon. 90% of game companies don't have franchises that can touch blizzards numbers. Blizzard is an outlier that proves the rule.
Lots of expert opinion about marketing, social psychology, demands of audience, business and sales in this thread.
It would be dishonest to say that the audience hasn't changed at all, even I've noticed it as along time gamer. I never thought grand theft auto was an amazing game, or that sandbox games like Saints row and Red faction guerrilla were all that great. That means because of things like generational turnover (i.e. fresh batch of gamers, new kids, etc). Newer generations of gamers have different tastes then old ones because they never grew up playing games like Doom, quake and half-life.
One developer told me about being at some gaming thing (forget its name) and he talked to newer generations of gamers who don't even know what doom and wolfenstein 3D are. Their history of first person shooters begins with Halo, anything before that basically they don't know about. It's kind of hilarious to think that there are millions of gamers who will never have played Doom, Duke nukem 3D, Quake, Half-life and unreal tournament.
It's kind of hilarious to think that there are millions of gamers who will never have played Doom, Duke nukem 3D, Quake, Half-life and unreal tournament.
I think that's pretty inevitable though. New people are born all the time. I bet there's more people on polycount that didn't grow up playing Atari than did.
Also, the market is much much bigger today and we're moving more and more towards an instant gratification type of society here in the west. Because let's face it, most people would rather have someone tell them they're good at what they're doing than bad. Not having to think for yourself has become synonymous with user friendliness.
And if you want to cater to as many people as possible then you need to build your gameplay around the instant grafification factor. Almost all games today are built like this in some shape or form. Games constantly rewards players by scores, upgrades, levels, unlocks, etc etc. That's how they are made. It's as simple as that. If you you make games too challenging then players more often than not abandon it and move on to something more accessible, even arguably great games like mass effect have a completion rate of what 40-50% and that's considered high for games these days.
Too much challenge in games = less sales = less $$$ and in the end that's all that matters. As much as it breaks my heart to say it; money is king.
Too much challenge in games = less sales = less $$$ and in the end that's all that matters. As much as it breaks my heart to say it; money is king.
Sales is just the industries excuse for lazyness, Regenerating health in FPS games is basically a cheat inside the game. The reality is the developers/publishers just aren't putting in any effort to make sure they make the best possible game they can. There's no good reason you can't have multiple difficulties. That's the reality.
Dragon Age 2 and mass effect 3 are evidence of games that are hugely rushed out the door. Publishers are partly to blame but so are developers for having no balls to stand up to publishers to prevent game quality from sliding.
i can count with my hand how many games get good advertising... the only reason I know about what games come out is because I do game art... I think that says it all... when I worked at sears selling tvs it be funny the look of confusion parents had when trying to buy games for their kids or find some game that they saw the name on tv but couldn't find it because it was some war game that wasn't call of duty... it sucks that so many big game publishers are closing.
There's no good reason you can't have multiple difficulties. That's the reality.
Actually I've been playing Devil may Cry 3 recently and this is an excellent example of how to fuck up multiple difficulties. Not only is the version you have contain different difficulties under the same headings of easy/normal/hard but you can't change this difficulty on the fly, meaning at any point the game is too difficult to continue, too bad you gotta restart..
I understand that that kind of game is meant to be incredibly hard, and while I don't necessarily think I represent the modern gamer: the modern gamer doesn't have time for that anymore. They don't have time to restart games or even restart the last five minutes to beat a boss that's kicking their ass. Sure if you can expect your customers to swallow their pride (a big ask) they can switch to easy, but then these difficulties better be so well made to still provide a balance of challenge and enjoyment. Alas easy is too often super piss easy while normal and hard continue to be hard.
Is this the fault of balancing difficulty of the game itself? Hard to say but more often than not: YES. DMC3 is an awesomely designed game, but is let down by this exact system of difficulties, splintering ideas of perceived challenge and the worth of information and gameplay mechanics. Case in point - The Item System.
Not in any other game have I seen a more redundant system. In most games items are a hyper-ludic construct enhancing gameplay by either providing new gameplay options or augmentation of difficulty. You dying? Chug a potion. Where'd you get it? I found/looted/bought it. Ahh this system feeds itself and can be used as an option depending on the context the player is in. In DMC3 the item system actively discourages its own use by doubling the price of goods on each sale permanently, then counting each item as used permanently even if you die. In 10 hours of gameplay I have picked up 3 items which will never be there again. All this while the game tells me I can have a max of 30 of each item, which so far looks impossible to reach.
Looking for answers I found most die-hard players stating that using items was not the real way to play, of course these same players scoff at the easy difficulty. It's a terrible way to insult players who want to play the game and not master it.
Demon's Souls has only one difficulty and is highly praised by today's gamers including me. No system in this game is redundant (even if it still succumbs to Japanese games terrible inability to communicate function). If there's something wrong with this game then it will be in the game design since with only one difficulty they only get one chance to make the best possible game they can.
Actually I've been playing Devil may Cry 3 recently and this is an excellent example of how to fuck up multiple difficulties.
Yes but it's not an excuse for lazyness, you're basically saying "because I played a game that was developed poorly therefore we should all have one difficulty that is dumbed down to lowest common denominator" it's just stupid talk. If games as early as Doom could implement difficulties, there's no excuse for modern games. They are just lazy lets admit it. Not only that you could go one step further and just give players infinite health and ammo on 'easy' mode you get the same hand holding/don't kill the player style gameplay without all the fuss. Then leave the regular difficulties intact, just give the newbie masses cheats already since we are basically there with regenerating health.
if the top executives really cared about the company more than they care about their own pocket they could literally take money out of their own pocket to pay off their lenders and bring the company to good standing.
the sad thing is like most american corporations, once the whole company gets shut down, the only people who really suffer are the actual people who create the content. the top executive leave filthy rich either way.
the same is true in every industry - and I would stretch to say it's not local to the US. The corporate model is really good at making the top brass wealthy off the backs of the workers without extending to them the same financial security.
"Today THQ filed a notification for a five-day extension to file our quarterly report (10-Q). The delay in the filing of our 10-Q has been caused by certain issues under the terms of our credit agreement with Wells Fargo. We are in discussions with Wells Fargo and believe we will reach an agreement with them to resolve these issues. Wells Fargo has continued to fund requests from us while we attempt to reach an agreement. We expect to file our 10-Q within the five days, on Tuesday, November 13, as required by the SEC."
Yes but it's not an excuse for lazyness, you're basically saying "because I played a game that was developed poorly therefore we should all have one difficulty that is dumbed down to lowest common denominator" it's just stupid talk. If games as early as Doom could implement difficulties, there's no excuse for modern games. They are just lazy lets admit it. Not only that you could go one step further and just give players infinite health and ammo on 'easy' mode you get the same hand holding/don't kill the player style gameplay without all the fuss. Then leave the regular difficulties intact, just give the newbie masses cheats already since we are basically there with regenerating health.
The point I was trying to make is that it's not laziness, it's actually difficult in itself to make a game any game work with multiple difficulties. For start, the variable in the game must be made to be adjustable in the context of gameplay. I'm not just talking about stuff like HP points and fire power rating, but animation responsiveness, collision distance, move timings and more; the stuff that gets tested and re-tested to the nth degree just to get the game to feel right. When you have only one difficulty this 'perfect feel' can be easier to attain and will expose the flaws of the game stronger, so get it right. Players who have a hard time of it will learn or give up but since the designer doesn't want players to give up they will make build up systems that enhance themselves.
When you have multiple difficulties you actually set up the design for more laziness. A game with 3 difficulty levels is now 3 different games. Unless the design team has tonnes of time or is really really good, I doubt they can make 3 different games at once. Lazy measures ensue, near the end of development they can just switch up some variables like enemy damage and health which they hope will retain the game 'feel' when they do or attempt to work properly on each difficulty from the beginning, but at risk that the overall design is never tightened.
Players don't want hand-holding or incredulously hard games (unless they do then those hard games advertise it like Demon's Souls and Spelunky) You're treating their desire to enjoy a game in a timely fashion and without highly trained twitch skills as derisive. The masses are not some kind of other people trying to get in on your club. While a tonne of games use stuff like regenerating health incorrectly, it creates a vital difference in gameplay. Games are interactive which include action and reaction. Regenerating health is not bad in down-time (when you'd use a med kit anyway) but in battle favours reactions: allowing the player to adapt rather than pre-strategise, which is more immersive.
why has a second thread devolved into a debate about game design?
Remember, when you're throwing out ugly words like "lazy devs", or coming up with uninformed outsider theories on why THQ is struggling, you are talking about people who's jobs and livelyhoods are on the line - you are talking about fellow Polycounters, many who devote their free time making tutorials and writing critiques to help out the community.
A game with 3 difficulty levels is now 3 different games. Unless the design team has tonnes of time or is really really good, I doubt they can make 3 different games at once.
Probably closer to eight different games because a player could switch difficulties in the middle of a game. What do you do with a weapon that appears in the expert mode but the player is now playing in beginner mode, or vice versa? Adds to QA test time also.
so...is coo some sort of troll? since he's joined I've yet to see him say anything that wasn't either combative or ill-informed and usually veering off topic...
Sorry I didn't really want it to go off topic, it appears my game design hot-buttons are showing for all to see. Also I am in no way advocating that any designers being referenced are lazy. Their games stand as examples to themselves and I will never purport to claim the length of effort developers put into their games.
you do realise Dishonored sold 460k copies in the US in October?
while you are making sort of a point here, you do realize, that call of duty modern warfare 2 sold 4.7 mio times in the first 24 hours? NMW3 did around 6.4mio in the first 24 hours. Battlefield 3 hit 10mio units sold in the first week. Not saying dishonored performed bad, but compared to the realistic shooters its peanuts.
you cant really compare call of duty with anything though, it made over a billion dollars ($400 mil of which was in its first 24 hours) on its previous outing and is its own machine. Its marketed to the high heavens with adverts starring hollywood stars, its target audience is pretty much everyone with a HUUUUUGE fanbase behind it to boot.
GTA, COD, Halo and Fifa will always sell well and thats because they are marketed stupidly well and have a silly amount of money behind them that most studios couldnt afford as they struggle to make the game let alone market them. This is a publishers failing though, and not the devs. Also the games are ace which always helps pry peoples wallets open.
on another note, Halo 4 has done indredibly well to sell so much during the call of duty month. I think it was $220 million in its first 24 hours according to sky news. Very strange yet very brave to release it within the same release window but they pulled it off Adverts on almost every channel, prints in all the magazines, thats how you market stuff!!!!
Lots of expert opinion about marketing, social psychology, demands of audience, business and sales in this thread.
You give marketing too much credit.
Marketing tends to sell our game like a commodity.
Game of the year nominee - lauded for its gripping narrative, about an engineer in space without any weapons, seeing echos if his dead wife. Marketed like its candy. http://youtu.be/nKkPFDEiC6Q
Now ask yourself: imagine if the movie The Ring was marketed with a cheap gimmick such as: your mom will hate it.
It's a shitty way to undermine the talented people who made a great product by marginalizing it.
Wildly successful MMO Rift is applauded for being a very rich wolrd, great worlds, with deep lore. Marketed like this: http://youtu.be/vTkyAtQarbc
Imagine if the Hobbit was marketed like that. You don't see any movie footage, don't see anything of the story or characters. You just see all the Hobbits in a tavern dancing to electro music.
Marketing has proven time and time again they refuse to market the talent that made the game, and shovel our games to consumers like they're a commodity like bottled water. So don't put them on a pedestal like anything they do has any bearing of relevance.
Well, I'm going to echo you on that Crazyfool and say that you can't really use Halo as an example either in that case.
They already had a huge fan base and the eyes of the gaming world was on 343 to see if this up and coming studio could shoulder the Bungie halo legacy. I also imagine they probably had a higher than normal budget to pull it off and hire the crazy amount of talent they had working on it. In some ways they also had to set a quality bench mark for the studio and the 6 or so halo games they have in the pipe so it was definately a huge project for 343 and microsoft. You could argue that Halo is one of the most important franchises for the Xbox so microsoft probably backed it pretty hard.
An example where the marketing didn't really carry the title is Dark Siders 2. For what seemed like a month up until the release I saw dark siders ads on every gaming site I can think of as well as youtube and gaming magazines. While it's an awesome game, probably on par with all the rest of the best games this year, it's barely sold a million copies world wide as of now.
Brand recognition is becoming so important if you want to make some fat profits, which is why we most big games out has a 2, 3 or even 14 at the end of their titles.
New AAA ips are so damn hard to do if you want them to sell well as well, it's going to be intresting to see how Last of Us and Watchdogs does.
sorry, I wasnt using it as a comparison with THQ but as an example of good Marketing that helped sell it to the unsuspecting public.
Although they did the same stuff for darksiders2 (tv, print, interwebs) it did it very badly. The CG trailer showed nothing of the game or story to draw new players or even existing players in, the print stuff again was uninspiring. They could of tried for more gameplay/story centric trailers coming upto launch, much like the assassins creed 3 adverts which show before every video on IGN at the moment etc.
its frustrating as the game has so much to it but the marketing portrayed a very different type of game to the uninformed. It came across as a more mature WOW for 12 year olds rather than an epic/dark adventure.
The main thing though is the game has to be good haha, otherwise it will sell nothing.
Dishonored is apparently this years best performing new IP aswell apparently just pipping sleeping dogs in sales
so...is coo some sort of troll? since he's joined I've yet to see him say anything that wasn't either combative or ill-informed and usually veering off topic...
The CG trailer showed nothing of the game or story to draw new players or even existing players in, the print stuff again was uninspiring. They could of tried for more gameplay/story centric trailers coming upto launch, much like the assassins creed 3 adverts which show before every video on IGN at the moment etc.
They might have not had game centric cg trailers, but correct me if I'm wrong here- I remember seeing practically the whole game up on gaming websites pre-release. Boss walkthroughs, playtest after playtest. I honestly was under the impression they were showing too much of the game.
so...is coo some sort of troll? since he's joined I've yet to see him say anything that wasn't either combative or ill-informed and usually veering off topic...
Coo and someone else around here, these two more or less joined around the same time, and have been opening fire posts like no tomorrow, while at the same time having a large field of expertise ON EVERYTHING MANKIND KNOWS!
Seriously, I went to a Medical/Law and even Science school for 2 years each, and not even I have such fine understanding of everything these two claim to have hand over fist understanding of.
Honestly, I tend to be a huge massive dick sometimes (no pun intended) but these guys are seriously giving me a run for the money!
They might have not had game centric cg trailers, but correct me if I'm wrong here- I remember seeing practically the whole game up on gaming websites pre-release. Boss walkthroughs, playtest after playtest. I honestly was under the impression they were showing too much of the game.
thats fine but again you have to be looking for them and have a somewhat prior knowledge and also be a regular visitor to particular gaming sites. you have to want to click on it,
Im talking about sitting at home watching mythbusters or whatever and all of a sudden an advert comes up and you go 'oooooooo that looks good'. Or even looking at the new call of duty trailer on ign and a 30 second teaser loads up before the video shouting ass creed at you and it peaks your interest, you open up a newspaper and see a full page print of Halo or something and you say to yourself 'I didnt realise they have a new one out'. This is where you will find new customers and bring back old ones, although DS2 did have a marketing campaign I dont think they did a good job of showcasing just how awesome it was.
I actually think the gaming websites like you said did a better job of advertising the game by making their walkthroughs/gameplay vids compared to what the publishers actually did which was make a cg trailer that said nothing about the product.
Only until I bought the game and loaded it up did I hear Deaths awesome voice by Michael Wincott. That could have sold BILLIONS!!!!! haha
Coo and someone else around here, these two more or less joined around the same time, and have been opening fire posts like no tomorrow, while at the same time having a large field of expertise ON EVERYTHING MANKIND KNOWS!
Seriously, I went to a Medical/Law and even Science school for 2 years each, and not even I have such fine understanding of everything these two claim to have hand over fist understanding of.
I hope you are not pointing at me (even though you are not since you stated that they joined about the same time.) Because I actually learned to read through the entire thread before deciding to post something. :poly122:
If I was being or have ever been a douche bag. I apologize.
While this thread has been derailed to an off topic discussion I would suggest you and anyone who is being irritated by such personnel to ignore and keep the discussion on topic. That actually makes you a better man. I've also learned from you guys that if you talk with the troll you are bound to be irritated and then become a dick and then get banned for your mistakes so best idea is not to get involved with them but continuing on with discussion by quoting the post before theirs (assumingly on topic post.)
So keep your heads clear, bright and stay in the game. Mr.Coo is wrong about many things and we know it.
This explains why this thread is about 4 pages long.
EDIT; ON TOPIC: I was seriously looking forward to DarkSiders III, and other games that THQ invested in (Atleast I thought it was Vigil Games that came forward with the idea of DarkSiders and THQ Invested in it majorly, Or if they were the same company.)
I hope things work out for all the artists and programmers at THQ.
Sorry. I really don't mean to be such an abrasive person. I just am, and I don't much like it, but I don't know how to be anything else. Being so consistently pessimistic about the media in question probably doesn't help either. I should probably get a life once I get off this course. I guess be glad you'll never have to work with me in this field?
@JamesWild and Nitewalker: It's not either of you guys, it's one of the peeps that joined recently, it also doesn't help that their user-name is as Nerdy as it comes without jumping at light-speed.
Seriously, you guys are mellow.
@Gir: I'm trying man! But there is much one person can be a dick about! If only I could be a bigger dick, I would die happy then (pun intended).
On a related note, what do you guys think of this?
Ubisoft boss Yves Guillemot says his company is interested in THQ's assets. Speaking to GamesIndustry International, Guillemot said the North American company has good brands, and that his own company is "always interested in good brands." He declined to go any further, but confirmed it's something Ubisoft "can consider."
THQ's struggles have surged in the wake of last week's blunt Q2 earnings call, with the company's stock decimated by half the day following. THQ's stock at the time of writing is $1.19 per share, compared to $3.02 on November 5.
EA obtained UFC rights from THQ earlier this year in exchange for an "undisclosed cash payment." Given the desperate situation and Guillemot's forwardness, more assets may well move on in the near future.
Coo and someone else around here, these two more or less joined around the same time, and have been opening fire posts like no tomorrow, while at the same time having a large field of expertise ON EVERYTHING MANKIND KNOWS!
Seriously, I went to a Medical/Law and even Science school for 2 years each, and not even I have such fine understanding of everything these two claim to have hand over fist understanding of.
Honestly, I tend to be a huge massive dick sometimes (no pun intended) but these guys are seriously giving me a run for the money!
Hm, not sure if this other guy was maybe me, or you meant someone else.
If it was me afterall, I'm just saying from my point of view, why i think DS2 wasn't selling so well as it could have.
I liked the atmosphere and overall feeling of the game, visuals were great, and so on. But gameplay just felt a little reperative a little to early for me. Gameplay wise, it just felt like i was doing same, or similar puzzle over and over again, and while i liked those, i didn't feel any if this was advancing in any way that would keep me interested.
I did not mean any disrespect towards anyone, but i just wanted to point out to Coo, that it may not be the visuals that were guilty for "poor" sales, but rather gameplay, which imo didn't really stand out from the crowed or at least it didn't motivate me enough to keep playing it.
If i offended anyone with my comments, i'm sorry, but if are already talking about ds2 and it supposedly poor sales, i thought it's not a bad idea to give comment what i think may helped with that.
I understand people's jobs are at stake here, but i think that's why it's even more important to understand what led to this situation.
I think the gameplay has nothing in common to its poor sales. I think it's because it's a single player game and people are used to don't pay for these kind of games.
BTW, for me, Darksiders 2 is better than Darksiders 1.
The game is on sale for 13 euros in amazon.com, and the season pass for 5 euros. THQ must be desperate to earn money selling the game with such ridiculous price, and more considering that Darksiders 2 was shipped on september 28, nor 2 months has passed. It's incredible, and i paid more than 50 euros for the game, items and season pass.
I personally blame the piracy as the main issue here, because the torrents download charts are insane for Darksiders 2 (pc and xbox 360 version).
Another great game that didn't sell well is dishonored, and all because it's one player!. If you don't understand this fact, you must be blind, and more arguing about the cons of the game.
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 have outdated graphics and it's a cutre port, and it sells millions of copies, and all due to its multiplayer.
Why the heck don't they use a bnet system for their games?. In that way, piracy would be killed with one shoot. You put your starter edition or demo, and if you want to play... connect to a server like with all the mmos. If the market is totally fucked by piracy, let's take extreme measures.
Why the heck don't they use a bnet system for their games?. In that way, piracy would be killed with one shoot. You put your starter edition or demo, and if you want to play... connect to a server like with all the mmos. If the market is totally fucked by piracy, let's take extreme measures.
Because it can still be cracked, why spend money designing something like battle:net but for singelplayer games when it will do no good against piracy and only hurt the customers, I mean we all know how it went for Ubisoft and their always online DRM. Just take Blizzards Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. Both requires an internet connection to play, yet they both got cracked.
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 have outdated graphics and it's a cutre port, and it sells millions of copies, and all due to its multiplayer.
Call of Duty sells because it's Call of Duty. Seriously. It's a name people know and connect over and they buy it automatically, and while the fact that it has multiplayer helped get it to build up like it has, if the game released for the first time today it would probably have incredibly modest sales in comparison.
On the idea of piracy being the reason sales went to shit, that's bullshit. For one someone who pirates a game wouldn't have necessarily bought the game, and even if the did they'd probably have got it used or something because they're clearly against putting the full price towards it. Keep in mind a lot of kids/teens/college students who play these games don't have a ton of money to just dump on games they think might be vaguely interesting.
Darksiders 2 did not have enough of a name and enough buzz to go beyond the curiosity that would make someone want to try a game but not go out and pay full price. A game like Dark Souls, while I personally don't like, got its shit right, it knew to play up the 'hardcore' marketing and it got a lot of buzz for a relatively obscure Japanese game.
I loved darksiders 1. The year leading up to it, I watched all the developer vids, trailers, etc and was super excited. I also loved the style, bought the art book, etc. I was excited for the second one up until they started releasing videos and I was... Not excited all that much. Not quite sure why, but part of it was I wanted to continue the story with war. It also didn't seem marketed as much leading up to release so perhaps the hype machine in my mind just wasn't chugging. Regardless, it was still something I planned to purchase until I heard about people being left out of the credits and that made me ultimately not buy it.
Why the heck don't they use a bnet system for their games?. In that way, piracy would be killed with one shoot. You put your starter edition or demo, and if you want to play... connect to a server like with all the mmos. If the market is totally fucked by piracy, let's take extreme measures.
Well unfortunately for Blizzard, that's the entire reason I'm haven't played Diablo 3 at all. They miss out on my money but I suppose since it would be a drop in the pool for their revenue they don't care. In the case of a lesser known game could they afford to miss out?
Which is the crux of the problem now, unless you're Assassins Creed or Call of Duty or FIFA then it's too big of a risk.
We have a few former Vigil and Relic guys and girls here at DE. I'll be the first to say that the poor sales weren't due to the lack of effort or talent at those studios.
Unfortunately, sometimes the blame has to hang entirely on the publishing arm. Rushed schedules to meet fiscal quota, poorly coordinated release dates against industry giants, ineffective and low budget marketing.
The publishing half of THQ has a tough task of properly funding, marketing and releasing their relatively unknown IP's in genres dominated by competitors. Warhammer Spacemarine vs Gears of War 3? Take your pick.
Diablo 3 is one of the best selling games in the history , and i play it some hours per week, Talking bad about it is a nonsense. And btw i earn money with its RMAH.
I don't think "Call of Duty sells because it's Call of Duty", because you just need to see the steam stadistics to see the current players playing the multiplayer. I don't know people that buy the game just for its short one player mode.
If you want to see numbers about illegal downloads, just google it . They are easily found. And im sure that the people don't download games just for the sake of trying it... The majority finish the game and then they complain on forums saying things like that "darksiders 2 does not have an ending".
Assassin's creed, FIFA and COD are famous for their multiplayer, and we all must know that fact.
I'm wondering now if ubisoft will help THQ buying some IPs.
The pc gaming scene is going towards online gaming with server/client DRM like battle.net or Arena.net. Just google "Bless mmo" or "Black Dessert online". I paid 130 euros for the CE of gulild wars 2, and i don't care about if i need a permanent online connection. Who cares about a conection nowadays? i think just only pirates and a few ones.
And if a kid can't afford to buy a game... he can't ask his daddy to buy him a game. Btw, the daddy is already paying the internet access bill. And as far as we all know, internet access = free games, free music, free films, free porn, free ALL.
Your position Blazier is fine but you can't just generalise like that. I can talk bad about Diablo 3 if I want and it's unfortunate that you see my position as nonsense. I have nothing against Diablo 3 the game I have issues with Diablo 3 the system. Of course maybe I should have clarified that I care not at all for Diablo multi-player, and some how that makes me an outcast as someone who wants uninterruptable single-player. Not that this matters to Blizzard since Diablo will sell because it's Diablo.
Call of Duty does sell because it's Call of Duty. It doesn't matter if it's about the multi-player or not, in fact it's probably a bad example because it's one of the few game brands that would sell in this day and age on name alone. Call of Duty to me is not at all famous for its multi-player, I know that's one of its biggest features but if I'm at all some random bloke on street I played its single-player for a big of bombastic fun and that's what represents the brand to me.
I don't need to see download figures I fully believe that piracy is rampant, so rampant it will never be stopped. Popular games like Call of Duty and The Sims have figures astronomically high in comparison to those that fail in the marketplace, correlation is not causation even if it helped. Alas this is not a line of discussion we can continue on if I'm sure about polycount rules...
PC gaming going online is fine if online multi-player is the point but I lament it as a person who enjoy single-player and I don't have to be a pirate to feel that way. It's already enough to separate my dollars from Blizzard and so it's my opinion that developers should be doing everything they can to remove reasons for people to not buy their game; I mean that psychologically not physically.
I don't know what that last part meant. On a side note: Assassin's Creed multi-player is actually pretty fun anybody who hasn't tried it should I mean especially if you're sick of just shooter deathmatch and stuff.
Blaizer... Assassin's Creed famous for it's multiplayer? What the hell are you smoking?
In which world do you live? Don't say me... you only play the single player LOL
I'm not generalizing, i'm just pointing to a FACT.
The unique and possible way to combat the piracy is what blizzard was doing since diablo 1. And that's battle.net DRM. Just look Diablo 3 and starcraft 2 sales. Blizzard is one of the few companies selling very well in PC, and what's wrong if they force you to connect to a server? what's wrong?. In every mmo you need to connect to a server in order to play. So, if they do this to protect their product, you CAN'T complain.
And Blizzard does not make videoconsole games... and look, Activision-Blizzard... take that!
I don't understand why there are pro-piracy people here (and assume that reading the unfortunate comments you say), in a forum with industry professionals. You should show your real names in the signature as minimum, and not shield yourselves behind a nickname.
It's kind of funny that you're talking about how great online-required DRM is for companies, but Ubisoft (with Assassin's Creed II and other titles) got their asses kicked these past couple years for trying to implement that nonsense. Huge backlash from paying customers.
Two Listen, you should understand that the nonsense you talk was the constant online check. And "two", Ubisoft uses a different security than blizzard's or the one used for mmorpgs games.
What's up, do you play their games illegally?, because with the 1st Assassin's creed i didn't notice anything, just one time with Prince of Persia: Sands of time when i lost connection. They put a patch, and solved, no worries.
Blerg, why are we having this debate? THQ aren't even afoul of these kinds of practices. Their real problem seems to be a failure to adequately market their properties and constant mismanagement at a higher level.
what's wrong if they force you to connect to a server? what's wrong?. In every mmo you need to connect to a server in order to play. So, if they do this to protect their product, you CAN'T complain.
Features like this come at the expensive of the paying customer (what happens when the server is unavailable, or the player is offline?), comes with a massive research and development cost (and it's the customer who has to foot that bill, and that money could certainly be better spent elsewhere covering marketing or development costs).
I have games on my shelf that require online activation, but the servers are already offline.
Features like this almost literally never put a dent in piracy at all. Pretty much any singleplayer game with 'always-on DRM' or server-side authentification gets cracked on or before release day; the games that don't are the games that weren't going to sell in the first place; therefore there's no interest to create a crack.
Multiplayer games don't count; you have to connect to something in order to play, so that's not a part of this debate, and most people don't have a problem with having to connect.
In short:
1) It doesn't actually protect the product anyway.
2) Millions invested in ineffectual software could have been spent on development or markerting.
3) Those millions have to be recuperated from the paying customer.
4) It hampers the user experience.
P.S. - I'm not hiding behind an alias, I'm easy to find. The first page that comes up in google is my ModDB profile http://www.moddb.com/members/ambershee
I've seen Darksiders 2 TV spots in the soup, in the soup... So THQ did a high invesment in marketing.
The problem here, and in my opinion, if you read me well, is that their games are SINGLE PLAYER. And as i already stated, nobody will pay a shit for them because they are cracked days before the launch. Multiplayer is what sells.
If the server is unavailable, i don't play. Today there's a server mainteneance for Diablo 3, and i can't play. The same happened with guild wars 2 and all the mmos i play. The world will not end, so that's is a stupidity to consider in this matter. Another nonsense.
Too many studios launch low cost mmorpgs (korean), and they have their game with their client. A client based DRM is not so expensive, and when you have less players, you do a server mergue and that's all. Tera Europe did one a few days ago.
With multiplayer games you need to have connect to something, you said id ambershee. And that's why people buy these games, because they are forced to have a valid key in order to play. And that's my point. With Blizzard's Games, you want to play... you NEED to pay yes or yes. You don't have the option of the ilegal download to "fully try" or finish the game.
Another thing, Ambershee, are the people playing a pirated Diablo 3 with all its glory?.
And which games do you have on your shelf that requires online activation, and that you can not activate. As far as i know, all my games with online activation are activated only once, one unique time, and they are associated to an account, and i repeat you, ALL. What you said is another nonsense for me, so you will need to say me which games you can't activate now because that is not very credible.
I have all the assassin's creed games, and too many ubisoft titles, and my user experience was not hampered. Furthermore, i support their efforts to protect their product, and i demand stronger measures anti-piracy.
I would like to see too many pro-piracy guys from here working in the industry, and then, being fired so they could taste their medicine. I'm sure their perspective would change drastically.
THQ didn't do a great job protecting their games. That's all.
Replies
Or lets take some other non blizzard game. How about minecraft? It's not exactly military realistic looking shooter either, and it sold and still is, like crazy.
Or Terraria. And there are other similar games.
So i'm not really sure it's the visual style that is guilty here. I think it's more to do with gameplay. It just felt average.
As i said, it was cool at start, but 15 hours into the game, i didn't feel like much has changed. Some new boss here and there, but there was no pacing, there was nothing that would keep pushing me to play farther.
So for even if there is DS3, with 50 price tag, i'd be very careful if i would buy it, if at all. And it's not because i don't like this type of game, or because it wouldn't have any potential. But gameplay has to have something to keep wanting me to play. More and more complex riddles, more and more story elements, more drama, more complex fight system (i could use same combat technique for most of the time), more complex enemy combos, something.
So dunno, i'd really look into gameplay before i'd assume it's the visual style that doesn't sell...
And i'm not really sure what to think when publishers says game has to sell around 2 mil copies at least to break even....that's sounds a tad optimistic in the first place.
I mean, even for cod, it took them several games titles until they started to hit those crazy numbers, it wasn't hit just all of sudden with the first or second game...
Diablo 3 is a bad example. Diablo 3 had HUGE PENT UP DEMAND, basically a starving audience of diablo 1 + 2 fans had accumulated over many years. Diablo 3 even if it was absolute garbage would still have sold a lot on name recognition alone.
I compared a toony style first person shooter (borderlands) to another first person shooter (realistic) and noted the HUGE difference in sales despite them being the same basic game (Borderlands = shooting /w loot, Call of duty = shooting /w no loot). The people paying for games have moved beyond gameplay and videogames and are now BUYING AESTHETIC EXPERIENCES. People who buy call of duty have certain aesthetic tastes, a large % of call of duty people will never play a game with toony graphics ever.
That is a big problem for game makers since the call of duty audience many of them only go for realistic type graphics. Darksiders was clearly a console game in the vein of God of war and Devil may cry mixed in with a bit of zelda.
Darksiders 1 was a fairly mediocre blend of action and zelda I'm not surprised darksiders 2 sales were low, but the toony style combined with mediocre gameplay basically means they got the sales they deserved. Darksiders 1 was a very average game, it couldn't decide between being an action game and being a casual game. Darksiders 1 (and 2 btw) had huge problems with pacing. Darksiders as a franchise has one big going against it:
The team at vigil can't let go of Zelda casual style when they give Darksiders complex god of war like combat mechanics. You can't pace a game like Darksiders two like zelda without creating huge amounts of boredom since enemies pose no challenge and you just button mash you way through boring mobs that don't challenge you.
It has a comic book art style in a audience atmosphere that demands increasing realism, if you look at the STYLE of graphics of videogames over the last decade or so. We've gone from 2D toony sprites toony 3D models (PS1 era) to more hollywood-esque graphics the last two game console generations. Unreal and quake look downright toony compared to Call of duty/Battlefield/GTA4.
Call of duty, battlefield, grand theft auto, Red dead redemption, all moved towards increasing realism to widen their audience. You even had Ace combat developers purposely screw up their game to make it like call of duty when they saw the money call of duty was raking in.
Also...the SPECIAL PEOPLE at blizzard, blizzard is it's own phenomenon. 90% of game companies don't have franchises that can touch blizzards numbers. Blizzard is an outlier that proves the rule.
It would be dishonest to say that the audience hasn't changed at all, even I've noticed it as along time gamer. I never thought grand theft auto was an amazing game, or that sandbox games like Saints row and Red faction guerrilla were all that great. That means because of things like generational turnover (i.e. fresh batch of gamers, new kids, etc). Newer generations of gamers have different tastes then old ones because they never grew up playing games like Doom, quake and half-life.
One developer told me about being at some gaming thing (forget its name) and he talked to newer generations of gamers who don't even know what doom and wolfenstein 3D are. Their history of first person shooters begins with Halo, anything before that basically they don't know about. It's kind of hilarious to think that there are millions of gamers who will never have played Doom, Duke nukem 3D, Quake, Half-life and unreal tournament.
I think this video explains it rather well:
[ame="
I think that's pretty inevitable though. New people are born all the time. I bet there's more people on polycount that didn't grow up playing Atari than did.
Also, the market is much much bigger today and we're moving more and more towards an instant gratification type of society here in the west. Because let's face it, most people would rather have someone tell them they're good at what they're doing than bad. Not having to think for yourself has become synonymous with user friendliness.
And if you want to cater to as many people as possible then you need to build your gameplay around the instant grafification factor. Almost all games today are built like this in some shape or form. Games constantly rewards players by scores, upgrades, levels, unlocks, etc etc. That's how they are made. It's as simple as that. If you you make games too challenging then players more often than not abandon it and move on to something more accessible, even arguably great games like mass effect have a completion rate of what 40-50% and that's considered high for games these days.
Too much challenge in games = less sales = less $$$ and in the end that's all that matters. As much as it breaks my heart to say it; money is king.
Answer to AAA success; marketing, advertising...
Marketting, trailers, etc can polish any turd if done correctly...
Sales is just the industries excuse for lazyness, Regenerating health in FPS games is basically a cheat inside the game. The reality is the developers/publishers just aren't putting in any effort to make sure they make the best possible game they can. There's no good reason you can't have multiple difficulties. That's the reality.
Dragon Age 2 and mass effect 3 are evidence of games that are hugely rushed out the door. Publishers are partly to blame but so are developers for having no balls to stand up to publishers to prevent game quality from sliding.
What games do you know about? What are the games that most stand out to you over the time you've been a videogamer?
Actually I've been playing Devil may Cry 3 recently and this is an excellent example of how to fuck up multiple difficulties. Not only is the version you have contain different difficulties under the same headings of easy/normal/hard but you can't change this difficulty on the fly, meaning at any point the game is too difficult to continue, too bad you gotta restart..
I understand that that kind of game is meant to be incredibly hard, and while I don't necessarily think I represent the modern gamer: the modern gamer doesn't have time for that anymore. They don't have time to restart games or even restart the last five minutes to beat a boss that's kicking their ass. Sure if you can expect your customers to swallow their pride (a big ask) they can switch to easy, but then these difficulties better be so well made to still provide a balance of challenge and enjoyment. Alas easy is too often super piss easy while normal and hard continue to be hard.
Is this the fault of balancing difficulty of the game itself? Hard to say but more often than not: YES. DMC3 is an awesomely designed game, but is let down by this exact system of difficulties, splintering ideas of perceived challenge and the worth of information and gameplay mechanics. Case in point - The Item System.
Not in any other game have I seen a more redundant system. In most games items are a hyper-ludic construct enhancing gameplay by either providing new gameplay options or augmentation of difficulty. You dying? Chug a potion. Where'd you get it? I found/looted/bought it. Ahh this system feeds itself and can be used as an option depending on the context the player is in. In DMC3 the item system actively discourages its own use by doubling the price of goods on each sale permanently, then counting each item as used permanently even if you die. In 10 hours of gameplay I have picked up 3 items which will never be there again. All this while the game tells me I can have a max of 30 of each item, which so far looks impossible to reach.
Looking for answers I found most die-hard players stating that using items was not the real way to play, of course these same players scoff at the easy difficulty. It's a terrible way to insult players who want to play the game and not master it.
Demon's Souls has only one difficulty and is highly praised by today's gamers including me. No system in this game is redundant (even if it still succumbs to Japanese games terrible inability to communicate function). If there's something wrong with this game then it will be in the game design since with only one difficulty they only get one chance to make the best possible game they can.
Yes but it's not an excuse for lazyness, you're basically saying "because I played a game that was developed poorly therefore we should all have one difficulty that is dumbed down to lowest common denominator" it's just stupid talk. If games as early as Doom could implement difficulties, there's no excuse for modern games. They are just lazy lets admit it. Not only that you could go one step further and just give players infinite health and ammo on 'easy' mode you get the same hand holding/don't kill the player style gameplay without all the fuss. Then leave the regular difficulties intact, just give the newbie masses cheats already since we are basically there with regenerating health.
if the top executives really cared about the company more than they care about their own pocket they could literally take money out of their own pocket to pay off their lenders and bring the company to good standing.
the sad thing is like most american corporations, once the whole company gets shut down, the only people who really suffer are the actual people who create the content. the top executive leave filthy rich either way.
http://www.polygon.com/2012/11/10/3628880/thq-in-default-with-wells-fargo-over-50-million-credit-facility
"Today THQ filed a notification for a five-day extension to file our quarterly report (10-Q). The delay in the filing of our 10-Q has been caused by certain issues under the terms of our credit agreement with Wells Fargo. We are in discussions with Wells Fargo and believe we will reach an agreement with them to resolve these issues. Wells Fargo has continued to fund requests from us while we attempt to reach an agreement. We expect to file our 10-Q within the five days, on Tuesday, November 13, as required by the SEC."
The point I was trying to make is that it's not laziness, it's actually difficult in itself to make a game any game work with multiple difficulties. For start, the variable in the game must be made to be adjustable in the context of gameplay. I'm not just talking about stuff like HP points and fire power rating, but animation responsiveness, collision distance, move timings and more; the stuff that gets tested and re-tested to the nth degree just to get the game to feel right. When you have only one difficulty this 'perfect feel' can be easier to attain and will expose the flaws of the game stronger, so get it right. Players who have a hard time of it will learn or give up but since the designer doesn't want players to give up they will make build up systems that enhance themselves.
When you have multiple difficulties you actually set up the design for more laziness. A game with 3 difficulty levels is now 3 different games. Unless the design team has tonnes of time or is really really good, I doubt they can make 3 different games at once. Lazy measures ensue, near the end of development they can just switch up some variables like enemy damage and health which they hope will retain the game 'feel' when they do or attempt to work properly on each difficulty from the beginning, but at risk that the overall design is never tightened.
Players don't want hand-holding or incredulously hard games (unless they do then those hard games advertise it like Demon's Souls and Spelunky) You're treating their desire to enjoy a game in a timely fashion and without highly trained twitch skills as derisive. The masses are not some kind of other people trying to get in on your club. While a tonne of games use stuff like regenerating health incorrectly, it creates a vital difference in gameplay. Games are interactive which include action and reaction. Regenerating health is not bad in down-time (when you'd use a med kit anyway) but in battle favours reactions: allowing the player to adapt rather than pre-strategise, which is more immersive.
Remember, when you're throwing out ugly words like "lazy devs", or coming up with uninformed outsider theories on why THQ is struggling, you are talking about people who's jobs and livelyhoods are on the line - you are talking about fellow Polycounters, many who devote their free time making tutorials and writing critiques to help out the community.
Probably closer to eight different games because a player could switch difficulties in the middle of a game. What do you do with a weapon that appears in the expert mode but the player is now playing in beginner mode, or vice versa? Adds to QA test time also.
while you are making sort of a point here, you do realize, that call of duty modern warfare 2 sold 4.7 mio times in the first 24 hours? NMW3 did around 6.4mio in the first 24 hours. Battlefield 3 hit 10mio units sold in the first week. Not saying dishonored performed bad, but compared to the realistic shooters its peanuts.
GTA, COD, Halo and Fifa will always sell well and thats because they are marketed stupidly well and have a silly amount of money behind them that most studios couldnt afford as they struggle to make the game let alone market them. This is a publishers failing though, and not the devs. Also the games are ace which always helps pry peoples wallets open.
on another note, Halo 4 has done indredibly well to sell so much during the call of duty month. I think it was $220 million in its first 24 hours according to sky news. Very strange yet very brave to release it within the same release window but they pulled it off
Don't forget smartphone games where you have to scan packets of Mountain Dew and Doritos
You give marketing too much credit.
Marketing tends to sell our game like a commodity.
Game of the year nominee - lauded for its gripping narrative, about an engineer in space without any weapons, seeing echos if his dead wife. Marketed like its candy.
http://youtu.be/nKkPFDEiC6Q
Now ask yourself: imagine if the movie The Ring was marketed with a cheap gimmick such as: your mom will hate it.
It's a shitty way to undermine the talented people who made a great product by marginalizing it.
Wildly successful MMO Rift is applauded for being a very rich wolrd, great worlds, with deep lore. Marketed like this:
http://youtu.be/vTkyAtQarbc
Imagine if the Hobbit was marketed like that. You don't see any movie footage, don't see anything of the story or characters. You just see all the Hobbits in a tavern dancing to electro music.
Marketing has proven time and time again they refuse to market the talent that made the game, and shovel our games to consumers like they're a commodity like bottled water. So don't put them on a pedestal like anything they do has any bearing of relevance.
THQ's has been notoriously atrocious.
Fable: The Journey's marketing was diabolical. I was beginning to wonder if someone else, somewhere, was making a different game with the same name...
They already had a huge fan base and the eyes of the gaming world was on 343 to see if this up and coming studio could shoulder the Bungie halo legacy. I also imagine they probably had a higher than normal budget to pull it off and hire the crazy amount of talent they had working on it. In some ways they also had to set a quality bench mark for the studio and the 6 or so halo games they have in the pipe so it was definately a huge project for 343 and microsoft. You could argue that Halo is one of the most important franchises for the Xbox so microsoft probably backed it pretty hard.
An example where the marketing didn't really carry the title is Dark Siders 2. For what seemed like a month up until the release I saw dark siders ads on every gaming site I can think of as well as youtube and gaming magazines. While it's an awesome game, probably on par with all the rest of the best games this year, it's barely sold a million copies world wide as of now.
Brand recognition is becoming so important if you want to make some fat profits, which is why we most big games out has a 2, 3 or even 14 at the end of their titles.
New AAA ips are so damn hard to do if you want them to sell well as well, it's going to be intresting to see how Last of Us and Watchdogs does.
Although they did the same stuff for darksiders2 (tv, print, interwebs) it did it very badly. The CG trailer showed nothing of the game or story to draw new players or even existing players in, the print stuff again was uninspiring. They could of tried for more gameplay/story centric trailers coming upto launch, much like the assassins creed 3 adverts which show before every video on IGN at the moment etc.
its frustrating as the game has so much to it but the marketing portrayed a very different type of game to the uninformed. It came across as a more mature WOW for 12 year olds rather than an epic/dark adventure.
The main thing though is the game has to be good haha, otherwise it will sell nothing.
Dishonored is apparently this years best performing new IP aswell apparently
This is what I was thinking.
They might have not had game centric cg trailers, but correct me if I'm wrong here- I remember seeing practically the whole game up on gaming websites pre-release. Boss walkthroughs, playtest after playtest. I honestly was under the impression they were showing too much of the game.
Seriously, I went to a Medical/Law and even Science school for 2 years each, and not even I have such fine understanding of everything these two claim to have hand over fist understanding of.
Honestly, I tend to be a huge massive dick sometimes (no pun intended) but these guys are seriously giving me a run for the money!
thats fine but again you have to be looking for them and have a somewhat prior knowledge and also be a regular visitor to particular gaming sites. you have to want to click on it,
Im talking about sitting at home watching mythbusters or whatever and all of a sudden an advert comes up and you go 'oooooooo that looks good'. Or even looking at the new call of duty trailer on ign and a 30 second teaser loads up before the video shouting ass creed at you and it peaks your interest, you open up a newspaper and see a full page print of Halo or something and you say to yourself 'I didnt realise they have a new one out'. This is where you will find new customers and bring back old ones, although DS2 did have a marketing campaign I dont think they did a good job of showcasing just how awesome it was.
I actually think the gaming websites like you said did a better job of advertising the game by making their walkthroughs/gameplay vids compared to what the publishers actually did which was make a cg trailer that said nothing about the product.
Only until I bought the game and loaded it up did I hear Deaths awesome voice by Michael Wincott. That could have sold BILLIONS!!!!! haha
I hope you are not pointing at me (even though you are not since you stated that they joined about the same time.) Because I actually learned to read through the entire thread before deciding to post something. :poly122:
If I was being or have ever been a douche bag. I apologize.
While this thread has been derailed to an off topic discussion I would suggest you and anyone who is being irritated by such personnel to ignore and keep the discussion on topic. That actually makes you a better man. I've also learned from you guys that if you talk with the troll you are bound to be irritated and then become a dick and then get banned for your mistakes so best idea is not to get involved with them but continuing on with discussion by quoting the post before theirs (assumingly on topic post.)
So keep your heads clear, bright and stay in the game. Mr.Coo is wrong about many things and we know it.
This explains why this thread is about 4 pages long.
EDIT; ON TOPIC: I was seriously looking forward to DarkSiders III, and other games that THQ invested in (Atleast I thought it was Vigil Games that came forward with the idea of DarkSiders and THQ Invested in it majorly, Or if they were the same company.)
I hope things work out for all the artists and programmers at THQ.
Sorry. I really don't mean to be such an abrasive person. I just am, and I don't much like it, but I don't know how to be anything else. Being so consistently pessimistic about the media in question probably doesn't help either. I should probably get a life once I get off this course. I guess be glad you'll never have to work with me in this field?
Agreed on THQ's workers, best of luck!
Seriously, you guys are mellow.
@Gir: I'm trying man! But there is much one person can be a dick about! If only I could be a bigger dick, I would die happy then (pun intended).
On a related note, what do you guys think of this?
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/11/13/ubisoft-shows-interest-in-thq-assets/
Can I have my Dark Human Revolution please?
Hm, not sure if this other guy was maybe me, or you meant someone else.
If it was me afterall, I'm just saying from my point of view, why i think DS2 wasn't selling so well as it could have.
I liked the atmosphere and overall feeling of the game, visuals were great, and so on. But gameplay just felt a little reperative a little to early for me. Gameplay wise, it just felt like i was doing same, or similar puzzle over and over again, and while i liked those, i didn't feel any if this was advancing in any way that would keep me interested.
I did not mean any disrespect towards anyone, but i just wanted to point out to Coo, that it may not be the visuals that were guilty for "poor" sales, but rather gameplay, which imo didn't really stand out from the crowed or at least it didn't motivate me enough to keep playing it.
If i offended anyone with my comments, i'm sorry, but if are already talking about ds2 and it supposedly poor sales, i thought it's not a bad idea to give comment what i think may helped with that.
I understand people's jobs are at stake here, but i think that's why it's even more important to understand what led to this situation.
BTW, for me, Darksiders 2 is better than Darksiders 1.
The game is on sale for 13 euros in amazon.com, and the season pass for 5 euros. THQ must be desperate to earn money selling the game with such ridiculous price, and more considering that Darksiders 2 was shipped on september 28, nor 2 months has passed. It's incredible, and i paid more than 50 euros for the game, items and season pass.
I personally blame the piracy as the main issue here, because the torrents download charts are insane for Darksiders 2 (pc and xbox 360 version).
Another great game that didn't sell well is dishonored, and all because it's one player!. If you don't understand this fact, you must be blind, and more arguing about the cons of the game.
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 have outdated graphics and it's a cutre port, and it sells millions of copies, and all due to its multiplayer.
Why the heck don't they use a bnet system for their games?. In that way, piracy would be killed with one shoot. You put your starter edition or demo, and if you want to play... connect to a server like with all the mmos. If the market is totally fucked by piracy, let's take extreme measures.
Hm, didn't know Dishonored sells poorly too? It got very good reviews as far as i could see.
In any case, hopefully everything turns out ok for the devs...
I'm just curious, where do you find these charts?
Because it can still be cracked, why spend money designing something like battle:net but for singelplayer games when it will do no good against piracy and only hurt the customers, I mean we all know how it went for Ubisoft and their always online DRM. Just take Blizzards Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. Both requires an internet connection to play, yet they both got cracked.
Call of Duty sells because it's Call of Duty. Seriously. It's a name people know and connect over and they buy it automatically, and while the fact that it has multiplayer helped get it to build up like it has, if the game released for the first time today it would probably have incredibly modest sales in comparison.
On the idea of piracy being the reason sales went to shit, that's bullshit. For one someone who pirates a game wouldn't have necessarily bought the game, and even if the did they'd probably have got it used or something because they're clearly against putting the full price towards it. Keep in mind a lot of kids/teens/college students who play these games don't have a ton of money to just dump on games they think might be vaguely interesting.
Darksiders 2 did not have enough of a name and enough buzz to go beyond the curiosity that would make someone want to try a game but not go out and pay full price. A game like Dark Souls, while I personally don't like, got its shit right, it knew to play up the 'hardcore' marketing and it got a lot of buzz for a relatively obscure Japanese game.
Well unfortunately for Blizzard, that's the entire reason I'm haven't played Diablo 3 at all. They miss out on my money but I suppose since it would be a drop in the pool for their revenue they don't care. In the case of a lesser known game could they afford to miss out?
Which is the crux of the problem now, unless you're Assassins Creed or Call of Duty or FIFA then it's too big of a risk.
Unfortunately, sometimes the blame has to hang entirely on the publishing arm. Rushed schedules to meet fiscal quota, poorly coordinated release dates against industry giants, ineffective and low budget marketing.
The publishing half of THQ has a tough task of properly funding, marketing and releasing their relatively unknown IP's in genres dominated by competitors. Warhammer Spacemarine vs Gears of War 3? Take your pick.
I don't think "Call of Duty sells because it's Call of Duty", because you just need to see the steam stadistics to see the current players playing the multiplayer. I don't know people that buy the game just for its short one player mode.
If you want to see numbers about illegal downloads, just google it
Assassin's creed, FIFA and COD are famous for their multiplayer, and we all must know that fact.
I'm wondering now if ubisoft will help THQ buying some IPs.
The pc gaming scene is going towards online gaming with server/client DRM like battle.net or Arena.net. Just google "Bless mmo" or "Black Dessert online". I paid 130 euros for the CE of gulild wars 2, and i don't care about if i need a permanent online connection. Who cares about a conection nowadays? i think just only pirates and a few ones.
And if a kid can't afford to buy a game... he can't ask his daddy to buy him a game. Btw, the daddy is already paying the internet access bill. And as far as we all know, internet access = free games, free music, free films, free porn, free ALL.
Call of Duty does sell because it's Call of Duty. It doesn't matter if it's about the multi-player or not, in fact it's probably a bad example because it's one of the few game brands that would sell in this day and age on name alone. Call of Duty to me is not at all famous for its multi-player, I know that's one of its biggest features but if I'm at all some random bloke on street I played its single-player for a big of bombastic fun and that's what represents the brand to me.
I don't need to see download figures I fully believe that piracy is rampant, so rampant it will never be stopped. Popular games like Call of Duty and The Sims have figures astronomically high in comparison to those that fail in the marketplace, correlation is not causation even if it helped. Alas this is not a line of discussion we can continue on if I'm sure about polycount rules...
PC gaming going online is fine if online multi-player is the point but I lament it as a person who enjoy single-player and I don't have to be a pirate to feel that way. It's already enough to separate my dollars from Blizzard and so it's my opinion that developers should be doing everything they can to remove reasons for people to not buy their game; I mean that psychologically not physically.
I don't know what that last part meant. On a side note: Assassin's Creed multi-player is actually pretty fun anybody who hasn't tried it should I mean especially if you're sick of just shooter deathmatch and stuff.
In which world do you live? Don't say me... you only play the single player LOL
I'm not generalizing, i'm just pointing to a FACT.
The unique and possible way to combat the piracy is what blizzard was doing since diablo 1. And that's battle.net DRM. Just look Diablo 3 and starcraft 2 sales. Blizzard is one of the few companies selling very well in PC, and what's wrong if they force you to connect to a server? what's wrong?. In every mmo you need to connect to a server in order to play. So, if they do this to protect their product, you CAN'T complain.
And Blizzard does not make videoconsole games... and look, Activision-Blizzard... take that!
I don't understand why there are pro-piracy people here (and assume that reading the unfortunate comments you say), in a forum with industry professionals. You should show your real names in the signature as minimum, and not shield yourselves behind a nickname.
There's a reason they removed it... take that!
What's up, do you play their games illegally?, because with the 1st Assassin's creed i didn't notice anything, just one time with Prince of Persia: Sands of time when i lost connection. They put a patch, and solved, no worries.
Funny eh?
Features like this come at the expensive of the paying customer (what happens when the server is unavailable, or the player is offline?), comes with a massive research and development cost (and it's the customer who has to foot that bill, and that money could certainly be better spent elsewhere covering marketing or development costs).
I have games on my shelf that require online activation, but the servers are already offline.
Features like this almost literally never put a dent in piracy at all. Pretty much any singleplayer game with 'always-on DRM' or server-side authentification gets cracked on or before release day; the games that don't are the games that weren't going to sell in the first place; therefore there's no interest to create a crack.
Multiplayer games don't count; you have to connect to something in order to play, so that's not a part of this debate, and most people don't have a problem with having to connect.
In short:
1) It doesn't actually protect the product anyway.
2) Millions invested in ineffectual software could have been spent on development or markerting.
3) Those millions have to be recuperated from the paying customer.
4) It hampers the user experience.
P.S. - I'm not hiding behind an alias, I'm easy to find. The first page that comes up in google is my ModDB profile
http://www.moddb.com/members/ambershee
The problem here, and in my opinion, if you read me well, is that their games are SINGLE PLAYER. And as i already stated, nobody will pay a shit for them because they are cracked days before the launch. Multiplayer is what sells.
If the server is unavailable, i don't play. Today there's a server mainteneance for Diablo 3, and i can't play. The same happened with guild wars 2 and all the mmos i play. The world will not end, so that's is a stupidity to consider in this matter. Another nonsense.
Too many studios launch low cost mmorpgs (korean), and they have their game with their client. A client based DRM is not so expensive, and when you have less players, you do a server mergue and that's all. Tera Europe did one a few days ago.
With multiplayer games you need to have connect to something, you said id ambershee. And that's why people buy these games, because they are forced to have a valid key in order to play. And that's my point. With Blizzard's Games, you want to play... you NEED to pay yes or yes. You don't have the option of the ilegal download to "fully try" or finish the game.
Another thing, Ambershee, are the people playing a pirated Diablo 3 with all its glory?.
And which games do you have on your shelf that requires online activation, and that you can not activate. As far as i know, all my games with online activation are activated only once, one unique time, and they are associated to an account, and i repeat you, ALL. What you said is another nonsense for me, so you will need to say me which games you can't activate now because that is not very credible.
I have all the assassin's creed games, and too many ubisoft titles, and my user experience was not hampered. Furthermore, i support their efforts to protect their product, and i demand stronger measures anti-piracy.
I would like to see too many pro-piracy guys from here working in the industry, and then, being fired so they could taste their medicine. I'm sure their perspective would change drastically.
THQ didn't do a great job protecting their games. That's all.