In a week that has been nothing but bad news for THQ, I’m sure that investors thought they could take refuge in a weekend devoid of trading. Unfortunately, in a notification of late filing of form 10-Q sent to the SEC, another bombshell has dropped. THQ has received notice from lender Wells Fargo of default on their $50,000,000 revolving line of credit. $21 million of that has been drawn according to the second quarter results released earlier this week, which sent the publisher’s stock into a tailspin.
Form 10-Q is a mandatory document that must be submitted to the SEC every quarter. It reports financial performance and relevant disclosures that impact how investors value the company. The notice of late filing is filled with information we already know, like the uDraw tablet failure and, more recently, the delays of three key titles slated for early 2013. It appears that the filing was strategically delayed to ensure release after the close of the financial markets on Friday, giving investors the weekend to cool down from the bad news.
This section from the filing says it all,
In connection with the Company’s Credit Agreement with Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC (“Wells Fargo”), which was amended pursuant to Amendment Number One dated July 23, 2012 (collectively, as so amended, the “Credit Facility”), on November 7, 2012, the Company was informed by Wells Fargo that loan availability on the Credit Facility was less than 12.5% of the maximum revolver amount on one or more occasions as of and after the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2012, and accordingly, one or more events of default have occurred under the terms of the Credit Facility, including the failure to comply with financial covenants for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2012.
The document goes on to indicate that THQ is in negotiations to repair the credit line. Were it to disappear, the publisher’s cash flow would be severely impacted. Additionally, they don’t have the funds to repay the credit right now. No other lender is going to bail them out, either. Were this to happen, bankruptcy seems like the only reasonable outcome.
I had the opportunity to speak with analyst Kevin Dent regarding his interpretation of this turn of events.
“Wells Fargo has THQ in a corner. They can either show leniency and grant an extension or call in the loan. Given that THQ is already in technical default, it’s unlikely they’ll be able to negotiate for more money or time,” Dent told me. “It’s like a bicycle playing chicken with a truck. It’s not going to end well for the guy on the bicycle.”
This week already saw an enormous drop in the stock value, with a 50% drop evidenced between close of business on Monday November 5, 2012, and the following day. The stock managed to stay above $1.00, but according to Dent,
“I expect material news by Friday of next week.”
As for the future, it is unlikely that a competitor will purchase any of the franchises that have been the foundation of THQ’s survival to this point. There is a lot of value in the Saints Row franchise, for instance. EA, or another publisher, will simply swoop in if bankruptcy is declared and pick up the IP for relatively little. It’s the same thing that WB did when Midway went out of business.
One thing that Dent shared was about how licensed arrangements typically work. In many cases, should a publisher declare bankruptcy, the developers involved will be entitled to any funds paid and retain possession of the code already developed. If this is the case here, should a publisher wish to continue the work on South Park: The Stick of Truth or use the existing framework for a new WWE title, they’ll not only need to negotiate with the license-holders, but the developers as well.
This tale seems to be winding to a close. We can only hope that those employees that may be affected find work quickly and the titles we love end up in loving homes. If you are interested in the full filing, it can be downloaded here.
Well that's probably going to be the third or fourth to the last nail in the coffin of THQ. They'll need a miracle. Maybe if they can get CoH out in time and it does really well but I'm skeptical the game has that much selling power.
Melissia wrote: So they're going down like Cavedog did, a good company with good IPs going down because of financial mismanagement?
Do we know is mismanagement? I mean, I can see THQ's death as the simple result of bleeding money over the past decade by never being able to make quite enough money from its products.
From what I've read about THQ it generally speaking wasn't mismanagement, it was just a streak of underperforming games. Not outright bad games, just a string of things that never quite sold well enough.
For example, I think the big thing that would supposed to have save them was Darksiders 2 being a smash hit, instead, like a lot of other games before (and some drawing tablet thingy), it was 'ok but not groundbreaking.'
It is basically a foregone conclusion now I think.
Compel wrote: From what I've read about THQ it generally speaking wasn't mismanagement, it was just a streak of underperforming games. Not outright bad games, just a string of things that never quite sold well enough.
For example, I think the big thing that would supposed to have save them was Darksiders 2 being a smash hit, instead, like a lot of other games before (and some drawing tablet thingy), it was 'ok but not groundbreaking.'
It is basically a foregone conclusion now I think.
Also Red Faction was supposed to be another big one - Red Faction Armageddon was supposed to be a smash followup to Red Faction Guerrilla, and was going to have a TV show and everything. When the game bombed that all went out the door. It's a shame; THQ has some excellent IPs.
Compel wrote: From what I've read about THQ it generally speaking wasn't mismanagement, it was just a streak of underperforming games. Not outright bad games, just a string of things that never quite sold well enough.
For example, I think the big thing that would supposed to have save them was Darksiders 2 being a smash hit, instead, like a lot of other games before (and some drawing tablet thingy), it was 'ok but not groundbreaking.'
It is basically a foregone conclusion now I think.
Yeah. I haven't been following this but its my general understanding of THQ's situation. For all the games they make, they just never manage to make quite enough.
Do we know is mismanagement? I mean, I can see THQ's death as the simple result of bleeding money over the past decade by never being able to make quite enough money from its products.
Read this article. Its quite long but it speaks volumes, indirectly at least, about why THQ is now in serious trouble. The Udraw debacle really didn't help either.
I think they expanded too fast, they tried to be one of the big boys but they ended up with a string of dubious games and it looks very much like they will soon be dead.
Hopefully CoH2's new publisher will drop its price
Palindrome wrote: Read this article. Its quite long but it speaks volumes, indirectly at least, about why THQ is now in serious trouble. The Udraw debacle really didn't help either.
I think they expanded too fast, they tried to be one of the big boys but they ended up with a string of dubious games and it looks very much like they will soon be dead.
Yeah, that's been my assumption. I wouldn't call that mismanagement, just a poor choice. They tried to edge in on the mega publishers but have nothing that completes with the likes of Halo, Assassin's Creed, or Mass Effect.
Their most successful franchise I think is Saint's Row which is just a poor man's GTA.
Hopefully CoH2's new publisher will drop its price
Hell no. Saint's Row is metric fethtonnes better than the most recent GTAs, which are running more on name recognition than actual quality at this point...
I didn't think the latest Red Faction game was all that great myself, mind you. Certainly it really should have followed more on the formula of Guerilla than on generic sci-fi movies.
While it's saddening, I look back at the latest iterations of my somewhat favorite franchises Darksiders and saints row.
Darksiders 2 was terribly boring, and Saints Row 3 was... well simply put it was a disaster. They took everything good about sr2 and threw it out, and decided to micheal bay what was left, as well as making it LOUD AND CRAZY BECAUSE MORE IS BETTER.
I actually cared for the characters in sr1 and sr2. I had a pretty good idea of how sr3 was going to turn out once they killed off Gat, and the gut feeling proved sadly true.
I wonder what directions DoW will take now. Hopefully we can get a firestorm mod for DoW2 some day.
Hell no. Saint's Row is metric fethtonnes better than the most recent GTAs, which are running more on name recognition than actual quality at this point...
I didn't think the latest Red Faction game was all that great myself, mind you. Certainly it really should have followed more on the formula of Guerilla than on generic sci-fi movies.
I mean in a financial sense. GTA is established and a power house. Saints Row meanwhile just isn't packing the same punch. Red Faction is a good example though a decent series of games that just doesn't have enough selling power.
Hell no. Saint's Row is metric fethtonnes better than the most recent GTAs, which are running more on name recognition than actual quality at this point...
I didn't think the latest Red Faction game was all that great myself, mind you. Certainly it really should have followed more on the formula of Guerilla than on generic sci-fi movies.
I mean in a financial sense. GTA is established and a power house. Saints Row meanwhile just isn't packing the same punch. Red Faction is a good example though a decent series of games that just doesn't have enough selling power.
Which is something that being owned by a larger publisher could solve. More money for advertising and greater resources to spend on the game itself.
Really I don't think we need to worry about our favorite franchies much, they are all pretty well established IP's and so would be a safe bet for any big publisher.
Melissia wrote: I rather liked saint's row 3, myself. Darksiders 2 really could have used some work though.
I just couldn't get over how they killed off Gat. That and nobody even cared about it. He'd been around since Julius, he practically helped create the saints. Aisha got a funeral, but not Gat.
That and if you become an arse and abandon your crew at the end you get the proper ending. Just...no.
Testify wrote: Does this mean the rights for 40k games could pass to another company or what?
I'm not entirely sure as I'm no lawyer and I have no idea what kind of contract GW made with THQ.
I would think that another company could buy the rights to the DoW IP and make as many games as they darn well want to.
I don't think GW could pull the rights back.
Again I'm not a lawyer but I would point to Marvel comics as an example in this case. They sold off the movie rights to a number of there IP's to several different studios. Then they got bought by Disney. And while they would love to have the movie rights to some of those IP's back, they can't.
This is why spiderman will most likely never appear in an avengers movie, because they don't own the movie rights to spiderman anymore.
Again I'm not a lawyer, but I have a very loud and deep seated opinion that I will profess to be correct even in the face of overwelming evidence against it.
Compel wrote: From what I've read about THQ it generally speaking wasn't mismanagement, it was just a streak of underperforming games. Not outright bad games, just a string of things that never quite sold well enough.
I'm still astonished by how badly the last Red Faction game was. Who was the genious that had the idea to turn an awesome open-world sandbox game into a tunnel shooter? This bomb was well-deserved.
Still sad to see them go down like this. I had tons of fun with the latest Saint's Row, and was looking forward to both the expansion as well as the 4th installment that was already announced.
Compared to GTA ... I think that franchise went downhill after San Andreas (which was still awesome). It may be a big name now, but that doesn't make the newer games any better.
Let's hope someone at least picks up on the Saint's Row IP and, if possible, the team behind it.
It had its good points, but it was more "one step forwards, two steps back" from Saints Row 2 than a sequel deserves to be. Things like losing the ability to replay favoured missions and losing a lot of character customisation options.
Granted, customisation - one of Saint's Row's main selling points in comparison to GTA - could have used some more love. Not to mention expanding the multiplayer to more than 2 people.
Still, loads of joy, both the missions themselves as well as the random stuff you do when playing with a friend. Ethical!
Well the main reason they got into trouble is because some idiot over at THQ thought it was a great idea to sink all their money into a peripheral. That drawing tablet thing for kiddy games. Obviously it completely bombed and since then it's all been down hill.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, if EA buys company of heroes, the series is dead.
"We decided company of heroes and dawn of war would greatly benefit from having more base building and no unit caps; oh and we're going to change the settings on them because no one likes WW2 or SciFi"
Melissia wrote: Yeah, if EA buys company of heroes, the series is dead.
"We decided company of heroes and dawn of war would greatly benefit from having more base building and no unit caps; oh and we're going to change the settings on them because no one likes WW2 or SciFi"
"Also, we want to make it more friendly to consoles, so we're going to scrap the PC friendly control scheme entirely for something that we haven't actually thought much about at all, but we're sure you'd like."
dogma wrote:Its a shame too, because the last Saints Row reminded me of San Andreas and Vice City in all the best ways.
GTA is caught between its old self and games like The Getaway.
So true.
Oh wow, Vice City. Dat disco music. Nostalgia hoo!
If EA secured the 40k license, every Chapter's color scheme would be DLC ... probably including the Blood Ravens. You'd buy the game and your marines would be invisible until you bought the DLC. It goes without saying that DLC would just unlock whatever was already on the game disc ...
The Foot wrote: If EA bought the rights to GW IP then we would see yearly releases of DoW with new skins every year charging full price each time. No thanks.
With EAs marketing machinery they will sell well though. GW isn't likely to turn away from that. The various CoD spin offs still manage to sell millions of copies despite them all being virtually identical yet significantly over priced.
The Foot wrote: If EA bought the rights to GW IP then we would see yearly releases of DoW with new skins every year charging full price each time. No thanks.
Quite frankly, I would rather EA and its development pool have the rights to GW's IP than Activision-Blizzard and its lackluster developers.
Why?
Despite the constant vitriol hurled their way over Origin or the release 'schemes'...EA, as a publisher, has a wide number of developers under their umbrella.
Look at BioWare. Look at DICE.
Now imagine either one of those two doing a 40k game.
The problem with EA published games is that they become succesively more bland and 'mainstream' with each succesive sequel. Thats not unique to EA of course.
I very much doubt that GW will have much of an issue with EA, after all the money is likely to be good and GW needs licensing money.
The Foot wrote: If EA bought the rights to GW IP then we would see yearly releases of DoW with new skins every year charging full price each time. No thanks.
Quite frankly, I would rather EA and its development pool have the rights to GW's IP than Activision-Blizzard and its lackluster developers.
Why?
Despite the constant vitriol hurled their way over Origin or the release 'schemes'...EA, as a publisher, has a wide number of developers under their umbrella.
Look at BioWare. Look at DICE.
Now imagine either one of those two doing a 40k game.
Pretty nice, right?
True. Blizzard hasn't had a new thought in over a decade.
Palindrome wrote:The problem with EA published games is that they become succesively more bland and 'mainstream' with each succesive sequel. Thats not unique to EA of course.
My feelings as well - in regards to both EA as well as Blizzard/Activision.
They don't have "new thoughts" because "bland and mainstream" unfortunately sells better to today's audience, and the bigger a company becomes the more of its creative idealists are replaced with beancounters with a background in the banking sector etc. I mean ... what's topping the charts every year again? Oh, right, Football Manager 20XX.
These days, innovative niche games are made partially because smaller studios know they cannot compete with the big names, so they try to cater to an audience that's interested in something else anyways. At least this way, we still see some cool new ideas every now and then.
I mean ... what's topping the charts every year again? Oh, right, Football Manager 20XX.
Actually last week the number 2 game was a Farming Simulator, at least in physical sales. I bet no one saw that one coming.
EA is only a rumour and to be honest its very early in the day for someone 'in the know' to be leaking stuff like that on public forums. Its entirely possible but then again I woun't be surprised if it doesn't happen.
Yeah, not sure where you're getting "EA made a WFB RTS." The only Fantasy RTS was Mark of Chaos, developed by Black Hole Entertainment and published by Namco Bandai. There are two MMOs out there, both published by EA, but neither is an RTS.
Yeah, not sure where you're getting "EA made a WFB RTS." The only Fantasy RTS was Mark of Chaos, developed by Black Hole Entertainment and published by Namco Bandai. There are two MMOs out there, both published by EA, but neither is an RTS.
Yeah, not sure where you're getting "EA made a WFB RTS." The only Fantasy RTS was Mark of Chaos, developed by Black Hole Entertainment and published by Namco Bandai. There are two MMOs out there, both published by EA, but neither is an RTS.
I wouldn't mind seeing Ubisoft pick up the license for any of THQ's games. They make a lot of stuff I like, and their uPlay thing is fairly unobtrusive these days.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, if EA buys company of heroes, the series is dead.
"We decided company of heroes and dawn of war would greatly benefit from having more base building and no unit caps; oh and we're going to change the settings on them because no one likes WW2 or SciFi"
"Also, we want to make it more friendly to consoles, so we're going to scrap the PC friendly control scheme entirely for something that we haven't actually thought much about at all, but we're sure you'd like."
Don't forget the obviously forced Homo/Heterosexual sideplots and massive plotholes.
Although I'm amused at the "obviously forced" thing. Most heterosexual relationship sideplots in RPGs are "obviously forced", to me-- they don't fit in to the greater game at all.
Melissia wrote: Most heterosexual relationship sideplots in RPGs are "obviously forced", to me-- they don't fit in to the greater game at all.
I'm gonna up that to "Most romantic relationships in mass media are obviously forced." Cause you know. No one would go see a movie, or play a game, or read a book unless someone was trying to bone some else apparently
Melissia wrote: Yeah, if EA buys company of heroes, the series is dead.
"We decided company of heroes and dawn of war would greatly benefit from having more base building and no unit caps; oh and we're going to change the settings on them because no one likes WW2 or SciFi"
"Also, we want to make it more friendly to consoles, so we're going to scrap the PC friendly control scheme entirely for something that we haven't actually thought much about at all, but we're sure you'd like."
Don't forget the obviously forced Homo/Heterosexual sideplots and massive plotholes.
The Foot wrote: If EA bought the rights to GW IP then we would see yearly releases of DoW with new skins every year charging full price each time. No thanks.
So? No reason you can't play your original version.
I play FIFA '09 because it's a good game. The fact that EA release identical versions every year is no odds to me
Lynata wrote: I'm still astonished by how badly the last Red Faction game was. Who was the genious that had the idea to turn an awesome open-world sandbox game into a tunnel shooter? This bomb was well-deserved.
EA turned the last C&C game into... well... I don't think anyone knows what the hell that game was meant to be, but the point is there appear to be a lot of rampant morons in the video game industry who don't understand that people buy sequels because they kinda want a better version of what came before, not an utterly different game with the same name.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I didn't say 'more of the same'. I said 'better version of what came before'. Pay attention.
DoW2 is a sufficently different game that it can't really be classes as "a better version of what came before". Perhaps its you who should be paying more attention?
Lynata wrote: I'm still astonished by how badly the last Red Faction game was. Who was the genious that had the idea to turn an awesome open-world sandbox game into a tunnel shooter? This bomb was well-deserved.
EA turned the last C&C game into... well... I don't think anyone knows what the hell that game was meant to be
I think they were going for something more like world in conflict.
Dunno why, the game was kinda meh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote: DoW2 is a sufficently different game that it can't really be classes as "a better version of what came before"
Not really. DoW2 used the same basic format as DoW1, but made it better in almost every way.
Certainly it wasn't like the last CnC game, which was a complete 1640 turn on all three axes.
"I agree with Palindrome. DoW2 had a very different playstyle to DoW1, and only bore limited resemblance to the first game," screamed htj hysterically.
While there were changes, they weren't to the scale that C&C4 was. Melissa is pointing out that the changes between DoW 1 and 2 were fairly small compared to that.
htj wrote: "I agree with Palindrome. DoW2 had a very different playstyle to DoW1, and only bore limited resemblance to the first game," screamed htj hysterically.
I'll also scream in agreement with this.
Meanwhile, this thread has made me want to play Farm Simulator and read a HH novel about (at least) one of the Primarchs undertaking romantic escapades.
The squads were bigger (some of them), but they were still squads.
The first game had all the hallmarks of a traditional RTS game from resource collection to base building to unit caps. The second game had squad commanders with levels, abilities and selectable equipment, which are normally the domain of RPGS, but it features none of the genre standard mechanics.
Technically it is a real time strategy, but it is nothing at all like C&C, Starcraft, Homeworld or any other 'RTS' game that I have ever played or heard of. The best way that I could describe it is a squad based RPG without character interaction. In fact the game that it most closely resembles is the original Starship Troopers game, even if that only had 1 squad.
Huffy wrote: While there were changes, they weren't to the scale that C&C4 was. Melissa is pointing out that the changes between DoW 1 and 2 were fairly small compared to that.
It changed stylistically but gameplay wise C&C have gone from spam to spam. DOW1 was large scale epic battles, DOW2 was squad-based.
The way I heard it, the reason for the massive difference was that it was around the same time that Starcraft 2 was first slated to be released, so Relic **** themselves and decided they were never going to compete, so tried going for a different market - the RPG crowd.
Compel wrote: The way I heard it, the reason for the massive difference was that it was around the same time that Starcraft 2 was first slated to be released, so Relic **** themselves and decided they were never going to compete, so tried going for a different market - the RPG crowd.
I very much doubt it. As I recall Relic just wanted to do something different. After all its not as if people only buy a single game of any given genre and DoW itself was well received (and well made).
CoH 2 will almost certainly be released. Its a big name, its nearly finished and people have already pre-ordered it. It may not be as polished as it could be but it will see the light if day.
Palindrome wrote: CoH 2 will almost certainly be released. Its a big name, its nearly finished and people have already pre-ordered it. It may not be as polished as it could be but it will see the light if day.
Most likely, yeah. If they do go under it'd be a way for the creditors to recoup their losses somewhat, so it's unlikely to not see the light of day. It counts as an asset to be liquidated after all. Poor old THQ.
The squads were bigger (some of them), but they were still squads.
The first game had all the hallmarks of a traditional RTS game from resource collection to base building to unit caps. The second game had squad commanders with levels, abilities and selectable equipment, which are normally the domain of RPGS, but it features none of the genre standard mechanics.
Technically it is a real time strategy, but it is nothing at all like C&C, Starcraft, Homeworld or any other 'RTS' game that I have ever played or heard of. The best way that I could describe it is a squad based RPG without character interaction. In fact the game that it most closely resembles is the original Starship Troopers game, even if that only had 1 squad.
I guess this makes Warcraft 3 a RPG too then, heroes level up and gain abilities.
The squads were bigger (some of them), but they were still squads.
The first game had all the hallmarks of a traditional RTS game from resource collection to base building to unit caps. The second game had squad commanders with levels, abilities and selectable equipment, which are normally the domain of RPGS, but it features none of the genre standard mechanics.
Technically it is a real time strategy, but it is nothing at all like C&C, Starcraft, Homeworld or any other 'RTS' game that I have ever played or heard of. The best way that I could describe it is a squad based RPG without character interaction. In fact the game that it most closely resembles is the original Starship Troopers game, even if that only had 1 squad.
I guess this makes Warcraft 3 a RPG too then, heroes level up and gain abilities.
By that logic you could claim that Dragon Age is an RTS because it allows you to control up to four characters in combat. Rather than get into pointless arguments about which genre it fits in, we should agree that it straddled genres to some extent. Whether you consider it an RTS with RPG elements, or an RPG with RTS elements is really going to come down to personal opinion.
I guess this makes Warcraft 3 a RPG too then, heroes level up and gain abilities.
You mean like how Neverwinter Nights 2 was a god game because you develop and maintain a castle? Or how Dungeon Keeper was an FPS because you could directly control your minions?
It seems that things aren't quite as bad as was originally reported. THQ only defaulted in a technical sense due to their poor finiancial results (I think thats what happened anyway ). While they aren't dead yet if they do as badly next year I don't think that will be any coming back for them.
I'm really crossing my fingers here, Relic+THQ did the 40k games so well, and they are part of the reason I got into the hobby in the first place. The epitome of it was when 40k: Space Marine came out. Yeah, i love SM, and the best part was getting immersed in the 40k environment and universe firsthand, and actually seeing the true scale of it all was spectacular. I just hope that THQ can pull through this, because THQ, again, did the 40k games very well, and I don't want to see it ruined by another developer, especially how EA ruined Generals and C&C4 Imho.
I actually liked C&C generals.
Relic didn't do an especially good job with DoW and DoW 2, they were technically proficent games but their plots were dreadful (such as they were).
I have no real fear of the IP going to another studio.
Palindrome wrote: I actually liked C&C generals.
Relic didn't do an especially good job with DoW and DoW 2, they were technically proficent games but their plots were dreadful (such as they were).
I have no real fear of the IP going to another studio.
It was really Generals 2 i was referring to, regardless I liked DoW. Its true that the plots were weak at best, but I liked the RTS and the imagery of the 41st Millenium a lot.
Well I guess this scuppers chances of a Darksiders 3. Which is a shame, because Darksiders was great and Darksiders 2 was totally awesome.
I can think of worse things than EA doing DOW though. They did bring us Spore after all. Heh. Sporehammer 40,000.
For example, Infinity Ward could get their greasy mitts on it and turn it into yet ANOTHER first person shooter where you can't see anything because everything is grey.
And Melissia, something being console friendly doesn't make it bad. Not all of us have the time or money to construct a decent PC.
But people should need a PC anyway for other things, so turning something into a gaming platform you already will need is just the efficient thing to do.
A consol does games and nothing else. Plus they get outdated easily, a PC can just swap a couple parts out to remain up to date.
Meanwhile buying a PS3 or an Xbox 360 takes about 5 minutes and £200.
Yes, PCs are good. I'm building my own PC. But they aren't for everyone. You have to know a fair bit about what bits to use, which combinations of chips and graphics cards and so on work with what, and in order to get a PC with considerably more power for gaming than a console, you have to pay around £800 minimum. The PC I'm building is going to cost over £1200. For your average joe, consoles are much easier and cheaper to use than a PC. Also, not all PC games are compatible with all PCs, whereas when you buy a PS3 game you know it is going to work with your PS3. I bought Fire Warrior, for example, and it isn't compatible with our PC, and on top of that the PS2 version is, from what I have heard, superior anyway.
Plus, to be honest, the "superiority" of PCs for gaming is massively overhyped. I played Portal 2 on the PC we have at the moment and my PS3, and I can safely say the graphics and performance were vastly better on the PS3.
And you don't really need to upgrade it that much either. Many console fanboys exaggerate the need to upgrade to the point of stupid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Squigsquasher wrote: in order to get a PC with considerably more power for gaming than a console, you have to pay around £800 minimum.
Not really no. Well, maybe if you include the monitor and sound sytem. But then you'd have to get those for the consoles as well.
I think you're mistaking "better than console" with "high end". "Better than console" is not really all that expensive. Modern consoles weren't that advanced when they were first released, and they're all very much old now, technologically speaking. They aren't MEANT to be top of the line things-- they don't need to be, that isn't the point, and that would make consoles too expensive anyway. But, conversely, you also don't need top of the line computer hardware to play games at the same level as consoles can, not even close to top of the line stuff.
Don't fool yourself about the costs. In the end, it's really just a matter of taste. Let's drop the stupid console war bs now.
Squigsquasher wrote: I played Portal 2 on the PC we have at the moment and my PS3, and I can safely say the graphics and performance were vastly better on the PS3.
Yeah, I hate it when games automatically set themselves to wierd settings.
Speaking of wierd, I put KOTOR on my new computer and for some reason it would crash about 75% of the time midgame. Until I disabled the movies, at which point the game worked fine. It wouldn't even crash when movies were played WTF???
Melissia wrote: And you don't really need to upgrade it that much either. Many console fanboys exaggerate the need to upgrade to the point of stupid
A lot of PC players do it too actually. The die hard will upgrade their machine with the newest hardware every year and any PC that isn't such is 'bad.' I mean go to new egg and look at the user reviews. The PC hardcore can be pretty vicious when it comes to hardware
Melissia wrote: And you don't really need to upgrade it that much either. Many console fanboys exaggerate the need to upgrade to the point of stupid
A lot of PC players do it too actually. The die hard will upgrade their machine with the newest hardware every year and any PC that isn't such is 'bad.' I mean go to new egg and look at the user reviews. The PC hardcore can be pretty vicious when it comes to hardware
Yeah, but I like to ignore the "hardcore" crowd of either side.
I mean hell, I have a wii alongside my PC. If I had the money I'd have a PS3, too (and the only reason I'd not get an xbox is that I simply have no use for a second microsoft gaming PC, which is all an xbox is in the end). Diversity is better than brand loyalty.
Grey Templar wrote: But people should need a PC anyway for other things, so turning something into a gaming platform you already will need is just the efficient thing to do.
It's even more efficient to add a cheaper console to the TV you already have.
LordofHats wrote: DMO is for sure dead as an MMO. They were converting it to a single player game when their financial troubles hit and no word on it since then.
Probability exists that the game is dead :[
Well... at least it won't be a disappointment. Now it can always be a glorious perfect game that never was.
-Loki- wrote: It's even more efficient to add a cheaper console to the TV you already have.
No it's not. You still have to have a computer alongside the console because the console is not able to do most of the things that a computer can do. You'll still spend just as much money, if not more, if you opt to go that route.
Stop acting like it's anything other than a matter of taste. That's all it is. Console wars are stupid.
Squigsquasher wrote:Yes, PCs are good. I'm building my own PC. But they aren't for everyone. You have to know a fair bit about what bits to use, which combinations of chips and graphics cards and so on work with what, [...]
Or you just need to know someone.
Rule #1 of IT: "You don't need to know everything. Just where you can find out."
Grey Templar wrote:Speaking of wierd, I put KOTOR on my new computer and for some reason it would crash about 75% of the time midgame. Until I disabled the movies, at which point the game worked fine. It wouldn't even crash when movies were played WTF???
KotOR as in KotOR1? Or SWTOR?
In case of the latter, the game switches into a sort-of "high definition" mode with improved textures and additional detail, which of course puts additional strain on the GPU (which is the reason why it's normally deactivated in standard gameplay). Maybe check how you can lower the settings further in your options and see if that helps - then you at least know what's causing it. And if this is it, you can start experimenting with driver updates, temperature check, etc.
As in KOTOR1, and I did tone down graphics first(which shouldn't have been a problem with my PC) but that didn't work. So then I switched off movies and it runs fine.
Welp, THQ's director of finances just threw in the hat. Meanwhile the company did get an extension for their loans untill the 15th of january and their stocks went up from 1.15-1.20 to 1.29.
Lynata wrote: I'm still astonished by how badly the last Red Faction game was. Who was the genious that had the idea to turn an awesome open-world sandbox game into a tunnel shooter? This bomb was well-deserved.
Agreed.
I've enjoyed a lot of THQ games over the years. I hope they find a way out of this.
It's actualy a very brilliant move. They're unloaded a mountain of games that aren't going to sell much on their own anymore at a bargain price that will attract just about anyone. While it's not necessarily giving them pure profit, it is allowing them to generate some income to finish up their current game lineup and possibly save themselves.
I'm glad to hear it! I actually went to Best Buy and got a copy of Saints Row the Third after reading this thread. I want THQ to pull through. That said, I have not really enjoyed Saints Row the Third.
Manchu wrote: I'm glad to hear it! I actually went to Best Buy and got a copy of Saints Row the Third after reading this thread. I want THQ to pull through. That said, I have not really enjoyed Saints Row the Third.
How come? I really enjoyed it, but I only played it co-op, which influences my views.
Manchu wrote: I'm glad to hear it! I actually went to Best Buy and got a copy of Saints Row the Third after reading this thread. I want THQ to pull through. That said, I have not really enjoyed Saints Row the Third.
How come? I really enjoyed it, but I only played it co-op, which influences my views.
There are too many steps backward from Saints Row 2.
In Saints Row 2 you could call a taxi if you didn't want to drive all the way across town. Now you can't.
In Saints Row 2 there were male and female police. Now there are only males.
In Saints Row 2 you could replay missions whenever you liked. Now you can't.
In Saints Row 2 you could choose whether to wield one pistol or two. Now you can't.
Even little things like not being able to wear a pinstripe suit become rather frustrating when you think you finally found an idea that the stripped down customisation options allow.
Oh, and both sets of tank controls suck for the place they're used. If they'd switched them, it would have worked a lot better.
I didn't play Saints Row 2 so I can't compare. I just haven't enjoyed the gameplay or storyline yet. I think the weirdness of breaking into a military complex and killing dozens of soldiers having zero repercussions on your standing as a media darling just kind of overwhelmed me with its ... stupidity? I suppose I might just be getting old. I know the bizarre OTT scenarios are the whole point. It just feels like the game was made by a fourteen year old who thinks Michael Bay is the best director of all time.
Saints Row 2 and Saints Row 3 are, in a way, very different games, even though they follow the same idea (cars 'n guns!) and have a recurring cast (the Saints).
Where SR2 and its Robocop-style evil megacorporation theme was still rather serious, SR3 is much more whacky - perhaps in an attempt to move this series away from the label of being a "GTA clone". I did not like the OTT silliness at first myself, but eventually came around and dropped all pretense of realism, instead embracing the crazy that is Professor Genki and the idea that the whole game is pretty much supposed to be your personal playing ground rather than a living world where you are supposed to adapt and fit in.
The two things that continue to upset me are the scaled-down customization, and that you still can't do co-op with more than two players. But at least the multiplayer is running more stable than in SR2, which was, in comparison to SR3, a really bad console port.
Does anyone know if there's still hope for the SR3 expansion, by the way? :/
It sounds like I stepped in on the wrong sequel. :/
Lynata wrote: Does anyone know if there's still hope for the SR3 expansion, by the way? :/
I'd say not. The version I bought was called "Saints Row The Third -- The Full Package," which is what I believe you call a GotY edition when you dare not contend that it was the game of the year.
Lynata wrote: Does anyone know if there's still hope for the SR3 expansion, by the way? :/
Last I heard it was being turned into Saints Row 4, and that the higher ups were rather peeved about SR3 overdoing the wacky hijinks. This was before the default, though.
In Saints Row 2 you could call a taxi if you didn't want to drive all the way across town. Now you can't.
In Saints Row 2 there were male and female police. Now there are only males.
In Saints Row 2 you could replay missions whenever you liked. Now you can't.
In Saints Row 2 you could choose whether to wield one pistol or two. Now you can't.
I never did any of those bro. They're pretty small fry. Hell I didn't even know you could call taxis, and I couldn't tell you that there were female police.
Not being able to replay missions seems odd, if only because it'd be so easy to impliment. But I only ever did it for certain very awesome missions so meh.
Lynata wrote: Does anyone know if there's still hope for the SR3 expansion, by the way? :/
Last I heard it was being turned into Saints Row 4, and that the higher ups were rather peeved about SR3 overdoing the wacky hijinks. This was before the default, though.
Right. Shame it couldn't be as sensible as Saint's Row 2, a game that had you driving around a financial district in a seweridge truck (pretty sure these don't actually exist) driven by a French existentialist and spraying gak over capitalist icons.
As long as I can walk around the university beating up and gunning down the students, i'm happy.
edit - gak apparently the average contribution was $6.64. And I gave $10 like a sucker.
Yeah, I couldn't play GTA4 for more than 10 minutes because of the "look how serious and cool we are". And I'm sick of *every* fething game trying to be an action movie. I don't want to be "in the action", I want to wreck gak up.
YEah, that was my big complaint about the last Red Faction game.
RF:Guerrilla was awesome, the fun and freedom of it, and the destruction you could do in it, made it fun and replayable. The game does sandbox right, and it works out well for the setting.
RF: Armageddon however... I played once, got bored, never played it again, and even forgot I had it until I saw this bundle. Trying to play "Total Recall: THE GAEM" doesn't work for me. Total Recall sucked anyway.
I've only played SR2. It made me laugh enough to enjoy it. You just have to go in knowing that it's stupid. Literally, maximized stupidity.
Of course I haven't played SR3 so maybe there really is another level of stupidity that's too far.
Just booted up Saint's Row 3. Yeah it's just stupid now. The opening mission has you rob a bank with typical waves of guards. "Action" consists of holding down the left mouse button.
Then there's a section where you have to press buttons/keys in combos like you'd get on a console. That's just weird and unnessesary. Then you do a parachute jump (yawn).
Oh and your gang has basically taken over the world anyway. There's no semblance of normal society any more, the Saint's Row gang are like the Communist Party in the USSR. Just...yawn.
Phht. If you want to complain about an overload of crazy in SR3, I would expect people to reference Professor Genki's contests, mutant clones, the laser VTOLs and flying aircraft carriers, or some of the weapons ...
Still like the game - it's fun for what it tries to be, even though I would still prefer something more along the lines of SR2 as far as the (more down-to-earth) story and customisation are concerned.
Squigsquasher wrote: Except that some people like quick button combination events in games?
Not on PC they don't. I don't mind them on the 360 since it has a rumble bad so you actually get feedback but as far as I'm concerned on the PC it's the gameplay equivilent of being smacked across the face by the game developer's flacid membrum virile. (Edited by moderator.)
THQ are now filling for bankruptcy but it seems to be some kind of financial hocus pocus to keep them afloat for the next few months rather than actual bankruptcy. One interesting thing that has come out of this is the names of some unannounced but in development games. Atlas by Relic for example, Homeworld 3?
Speaking of THQ, you can buy the entire THQ collection on Steam right now.
You get Company of Heroes, CoH Opposing Fronts, Darksiders, Darksiders II, DoW 2: Retribution the Last Standalone, Homefront, Metro 2033, MX vs ATV Reflex, Nexuiz, Red Faction, Red Faction 2, Red Faction Armageddon, Saints Row 2, Saints Row the Third, Supreme Commander, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance, Titan Quest, Titan Quest Immortal Throne, Space Marine, DoW 2 Retribution, DoW 2, and DoW 2 Chaos Rising.
why would you do that to THQ, they'll just lock up all the IPs in a vault, and kill of what remains. just like when they aquired Pandemic, Maxis, Westwood etc.
why would you do that to THQ, they'll just lock up all the IPs in a vault, and kill of what remains. just like when they aquired Pandemic, Maxis, Westwood etc.
I hope someone competent gets the SupCom series. Unless we're just going to stick with only spiritual successors and say that planetary annihilation is the only worthy successor.
Activision does NOT own bungie, they just happen to be in a very generous publishing agreement ATM. Bungie's independent again.
TBH, as much as I hate COD, a Activision guardsman game would be cool, becaue it would be 18 rated and not as cartoony graphics as other warhammer games (maby)
It's sad because if I had won the lotto, I would buy THQ outright, consolidate Relic, Vigil, 4A (the guys who made metro 2033), Volition (Red Faction), and sell the rest to make the best 40k games ever. FPSs, RTS's, RPG's, you name it. If I got enough money, I'd buy Guerrilla Games (Killzone) - which is owned by Sega... so I guess if Relic is owned by them, then maybe we'll still see some great games from them... "fingers crossed" SM 2 perhaps?
Its already in development (probably). There was an announcemnt about 2 months ago that CA are working on a warhammer game, it may not be Warhammer:Total War but the chances are good.
Now that makes perfect sense for sega to do. Plus, since they already have the fantasy licence it stops any south park style bun fights from happening.
Sega agreed to purchase Relic
Koch Media agreed to purchase Volition and Metro
Crytek agreed to purchase Homefront
Take 2 agreed purchase Evolve
Ubisoft agreed to purchase Montreal and South Park
It looks as though most of THQ's games will live on and it is still possible for the rest to be bought.
DemetriDominov wrote: That's not certain. Vigil was a stand alone studio that practically self published Darksiders 1 out of almost nothing.
They will be closed down and thier staff made redundant, THQ has said that all their studios that do not find a buyer will suffer this fate.
They could of course reform and buy back the rights to Darksiders if no one else does.
There has been no mention of the 40k license and in all likelyhood it will have simply been terminated by GW. As Sega already have the WHFB license and now own Relic its quite likely that Sega will also acquire the 40k rights and carry on the DoW franchise but thats not guaranteed.
It seems that Sega may well end up with the 40K license.
"Lawyers for companies like 505 Games, South Park Digital Studios, Viacom, Crytek, Games Workshop, Yuke's, and others — all companies that had business relationships with THQ — were either present in person or on a conference call to acknowledge the resolution of their objections. Many will carry over to new relationships; for example, Games Workshop will "work in good faith" with Sega — the new owner of Relic, the studio that created titles based on its intellectual property — in order to satisfy its objections to the sale"
DMO died a long time ago. Though Sega may certainly in the future show interest in a 40k MMO, and they'd be in a better position to publish it and market it than THQ.
Unfortunately it may end up being too Asian in style to appeal to a western market. Grindfest HOOOOOO!
For those wondering what has happened to Vigil games this pretty much sums it all up.
My name is Ben Cureton, and I was the Lead Combat Designer at Vigil Games. I'm sitting at my desk among... what appears to be a warzone. The walls look bare. It's quiet.
The seats are empty.
We've all been on edge for the past couple months... and more so, the last couple weeks. I mean, I'm sure you can imagine what it's like to wonder if you will have a job tomorrow. Most of us here joked about it just to keep the mood light, but we all knew what could happen. Now I look around and I realize... it did happen.
Am I sad? Well yea. I've been in this industry for 20 years. Seriously. Two decades. I've been laid off more than once. It sucks every time. But am I sad I don't have a job? Not really... I'm sure I'll get another one eventually. I'm sad because it won't be THIS job. It won't be at Vigil. That's why I'm sad. The people I waged war with are no longer together. The people that I bled with, vented with, argued with (often times LOUDLY), and kicked back with... these people will never be together again in the same combination.
Not that it was perfect. But what is perfect? Did I like coming to work? Yes. Was I proud of the work that I did? Yes. More importantly, was I proud of the work that WE did? Absolutely. I knew, without a shadow of the doubt, that the project we were working on (Codenamed: Crawler) was going to blow people away. In fact, it DID blow people away. We did, in TWO months, what many companies haven't done in a year. The pride of knowing that no one was doing anything like us was so satisfying, it kept us coming to work and giving 100% every single day, even through the dark times.
... so maybe you can imagine what it feels like when you read the list of who bought what only to discover your name is not on the list. Why? Did we do something wrong? Were we not good enough? Were we not worth 'anything?' Imagine that.
Vigil was filled with people that I would put up against the best in the industry. People that made my work better, people that made me a better designer, and people that made me a better person. And now they are gone.
Their seats are empty.
It's OK, though. I guess this post makes it sound a bit melodramatic. Seriously... if you work in the video game industry you have to be resilient. Doing what you love often comes with a price - anyone who has been around for a while can tell you that. Today, that price has been paid. That being said, I'd still never dissuade anyone from following their dreams if their dream is to make video games. While it's not as romantic as it sounds, it's sure a hell of a lot of fun.
So don't cry for the people at Vigil. We made games for game players. I have no Horror stories from working here... only Honor stories. Through both praise and critiques alike, our goal was always to make a product as if we, ourselves, were the end-user. We may have gotten pushed and pulled in certain directions by forces out of our control, we were always in it to make games for game players. And that's what we did.
I can only hope that those spared from the other companies remain employed long into the future. There is not much worse than false hope, and these people deserve to continue making great games. You may not know their names, but they exist, and they bleed, sweat, and cry for your entertainment. I mean that honestly, with no negativity. They do it... no, WE do it... because we want you to have a good time.
In closing, I can only say thank you to the fans of Vigil games. Your support means more than you can imagine. Your feedback (both positive and negative) gave us long-lasting insight that we will all take with us, wherever we may go. You are the reason we made Darksiders 1 &2... and you are the reason we will continue to make games.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Uhh... Crytek was developing Homefront 2. That's why they bought the IP.
It's still quite unfortunate.
The Homefront setting needed a sandbox game, not some generic military shooter. Then again, the entire release was unfortunate.
That would be nice. Something like stalker, or far cry 3. Cry tech is the dev to do that though.
Actually I was more thinking like THQ's sandboxes (saint's row series, RF:Guerrilla, etc) instead of something gakky like the stalker series.
Oh something like that. I don't know of homefront would really work as a GTA like sand box. The styles just don't really mix. Home front is to realistic too grounded to pull off a proper sand box.
It does kinda suck that no one went for Vigil. It’s one thing to get a low price (like some of them did), but to get no price is a real kick in the teeth.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Uhh... Crytek was developing Homefront 2. That's why they bought the IP.
It's still quite unfortunate.
The Homefront setting needed a sandbox game, not some generic military shooter. Then again, the entire release was unfortunate.
That would be nice. Something like stalker, or far cry 3. Cry tech is the dev to do that though.
Actually I was more thinking like THQ's sandboxes (saint's row series, RF:Guerrilla, etc) instead of something gakky like the stalker series.
Oh something like that. I don't know of homefront would really work as a GTA like sand box. The styles just don't really mix. Home front is to realistic too grounded to pull off a proper sand box.
I disagree, but then again, realism never was an important factor for me.
I loved it back in the day but don't know of it still holds up now. It was Russians that time. What you did actually effected the resistance movement. Like if you blew up a helipad you didn't have to deal with Hinds anymore or destroying a bridge stopped APC reinforcements.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It does kinda suck that no one went for Vigil. It’s one thing to get a low price (like some of them did), but to get no price is a real kick in the teeth.
If one were to ask my two cents, I'd say its because Vigil had no brand recognition first off. Sure, we've all heard of Darksiders, but as far as most people are concerned Darksiders was made by <random game company #5>. Their name just doesn't seem to have gotten out or have earned much credit. Second, I'd propose that their real star, the Darksiders series, doesn't really have a future. The games are decent and fun, but at the end of the day doesn't have the selling power (for some reason). The less than amazing sells of the Darksiders games do kind of confuse me, but its very possible no one went for them because no one believes in them. Not with choice cuts like Relic and Saints Row on the table.
My experience of STALKER involved walking through a grey empty sludge, trasitioning to a new map at random points, then upon loading the new map being shot in the face by an enemy. That game was awful.
Some interesting little titbits of information have surfaced.
THQ (presumably Relic) were working on a game called Atlas, basically the DoW 2 Last Stand expansion/whatever but expanded upon. Set in the 40K universe with 'recognisable' characters (I assume special characters). They also had the license for Necromunda and Gorkamorka linked to this game which presumably would have been in the form of a DLC.
DoW 3 was in early development and was to have gone back to its roots in terms of scale, possibly even bigger, ( "a traditional base building model but at apocalypse scale") and would also have been F2P.
Relic were also supposed to have very tentative plans in place for Homeworld 3 but these were in a very early stage.
Some, none or all of this could be true. There has been rumours about Atlas for a while though.
For some reason the rights to DoW 1 (and DoW 2: Retribution) didn't transfer over to Sega so they may well end up in licensing limbo. You can still buy them on Steam though.
My priority concern is frankly that Relic is going to stay staffed....preferably even acquiring its former talent that was laid off as a cost-cutting measure by THQ. They need to be fully staffed, full strength, and fully supported and I think they are a success machine.
That press release on SEGA's website said that CoH sold 4 million copies and Dawn of War sold 7 million copies....that is a buttload, even by the standards of a premier studio and there's no reason that that studio should not be flooded with talent ASAP upon purchase.
If SEGA pretends Relic can be successful without support, they're doomed to take a loss on the purchase...
This gives Sega Creative Assembly, Relic, and both 40k and Warhammer licenses.
He is reading too much into that statement. Sega now owns the DoW IP, but that only covers games that have already been made and it doesn't automatically grant them the 40k license..
GW deliberately withheld the 40K license when Relic was sold, apparently because they will only work with developers that GW can trust. GW have stated that they are receptive to granting the 40K license to Sega and as they already have the fantasy license its highly likely to happen but its not 100% certain yet.
I think that its highly likely that Sega will get the 40K license, Relic is supposed to have already been working on DoW 3 and the DoW and Space Marine games sold well so Sega is likely to be keen to pick up the license and GW is highly likely to want to revenue that will create for them.
Its premature to say that it will definately happen though.
GalacticDefender wrote: Who finally took up Metro Last Light? I hope this doesn't lead to too much of a delay, as I cannot freaking wait for that game.
Koch media (who used to be Deep Silver), development will be unchanged apparently.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/15620/ Have a look at who is listed as the publisher, its the same story with all the 40k licensed games, the only exceptions that I have found are some of the DLC packs. It looks very much like SEGA and GW have come to an arrangement with the 40k license.
