thefncrow's forum posts

  • 12 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

Why the recent focus is pretty simple. The two very visible mass shootings we've had, coupled with the latest one being targeted at rather young children, has awakened an urge to do something politically about the ridiculous level of violence in this country, something that had been just tolerable enough when it was just a constant stream of minor incidents and not moving up to mass shootings.

With the political wind changing, the NRA wants to take the focus off the proliferation of firearms, so they need a scapegoat, and video games are it. Things like Biden's comments aren't because Biden's been secretly biding his time waiting to strike at video games, but because the NRA is a big enough organization with enough clout that you can't just ignore whatever topic they want to demonize. It requires a response of some kind, and for anyone (including the ESA) to just outright dismiss the accusations is to make yourself look as extremist and out-of-touch as, well, the NRA.

#2 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@pw2566ch said:

@LordAndrew said:

@pw2566ch said:

I'm curious as to if Double Fine were to purchase their own games from this auction.

Double Fine already owns the rights to their games.

They don't own the rights to Costume Quest or Stacking. It was mentioned in one of the Giant Bombcasts.

From my understanding, Double Fine owns the IP to both Costume Quest and Stacking. What they were supposedly interested in from the THQ sale was to buy back the distribution rights that THQ had as the publisher for Costume Quest and Stacking on 360/PS3.

#3 Edited by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

$500,000 for Vigil? THAT'S A STEAL! Darksiders 1 and 2 BOTH sold harder than that. While Darksiders 2 wasn't ZOMFG BEST GAME EVAR, the game was competent and the team most likely learned from any mistakes made on it. To honestly believe that someone would buy HOMEFRONT for $500k and not AN ENTIRE FUCKING STUDIO WITH AN IP ATTACHED...that's just insanity to me.

When you make a bid on a studio, you have to factor in the cost of running the studio which you become responsible for. Vigil was an 80 person studio, last I heard, so before you make a bid, you have to factor in paying 80 people for however long it takes them to develop a title. Given that Vigil just released a title early this year and was early in the process on a new IP, that might be a solid 2 years of paying 80 salaries before it starts to return any money.

Now, you can cut positions at the studio once you own it, but if you cut too much, you might as well have not bought the studio in the first place since you pushed the talent out the door.

Homefront, as noted, was sold because Crytek was deep in development of Homefront 2. If complications arise with the Homefront IP as a result of THQ's bankruptcy, Crytek could be left with a mostly complete video game that either has to be substantially reworked into something new or just scrapped entirely. $500k to secure the rights and make sure that you have a package that you can now shop to a new publisher is a good deal for Crytek. Homefront doesn't come with a bunch of development studio salaries you have to pay. The only cost assumed in buying the Homefront IP was that Crytek was apparently still due a $1m payment for development costs (which gets written off because now Crytek owes Crytek).

#4 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@Nyhus said:

500k for a game licens isnt that much, but i still dont get why crytek went for homefront.

Crytek had been contracted by THQ to make Homefront 2, and given that the game was announced a year and a half ago, that game is probably fairly close to completion and on schedule for release late this year or early next year. With THQ's implosion, who knows what would happen with the Homefront IP, which means Crytek's left with a game that's most of the way towards completion that they either have to substantially rework into a new product or just scrap entirely. By buying the Homefront IP, now they have all the rights secured. They can finish their game and go hunting for a new publisher.

#5 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@SkullcrusherMountain said:

@thefncrow said:

@Korwin:

No, the creditors are still better off under this. The real value of the Clearlake plan was apparently actually $50m, but even if you take it at $60m, they're still better off.

The way the Clearlake plan works is this:

Clearlake establishes NewTHQ, which Clearlake owns entirely. NewTHQ buys everything of worth from OldTHQ for $50m/60m. OldTHQ now sits around as an entity stripped of any worth aside from the $50m/60m they got from NewTHQ, and uses that money to pay out creditors and investors. No one who was owed a dime of OldTHQ gets any stake in NewTHQ at all.

The auction brought in $71.3m, and THQ estimates they have $29m in remaining assets, so right around $100m for creditors and investors to split. The Clearlake deal would have been the $50m/60m and not a dime more.

The plan was $60 PLUS $10 for creditors.

That's incorrect. The $10m was included in the $60m figure, and the $10m wasn't cash, it was a promissory note to pay them $10m in 7 years. The creditors basically regarded the promissory note as worthless, and so Clearlake dropped it from their offer and it became $50m.

#6 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@Korwin:

No, the creditors are still better off under this. The real value of the Clearlake plan was apparently actually $50m, but even if you take it at $60m, they're still better off.

The way the Clearlake plan works is this:

Clearlake establishes NewTHQ, which Clearlake owns entirely. NewTHQ buys everything of worth from OldTHQ for $50m/60m. OldTHQ now sits around as an entity stripped of any worth aside from the $50m/60m they got from NewTHQ, and uses that money to pay out creditors and investors. No one who was owed a dime of OldTHQ gets any stake in NewTHQ at all.

The auction brought in $71.3m, and THQ estimates they have $29m in remaining assets, so right around $100m for creditors and investors to split. The Clearlake deal would have been the $50m/60m and not a dime more.

#7 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

Awesome. I'm actually heading out to QuakeCon this year because of Idle Thumbs panel. I was thinking that while I was out there I might get a chance to see Dishonored and, maybe, some Borderlands 2. I'll have to add this to the list.

#8 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@lokey013 said:

Instead of us paying for dlc that's already on the disc....just include it in the frakkin game already....FREE!! Thanks

What leads you to believe that if DLC revenue suddenly dried up you'd still get all that content they were charging you for but now it'd be free?

Less revenue coming in means smaller budgets, which means less content. The end of DLC isn't going to mean that stuff gets wrapped into the main game, it just means the content that was once sold as DLC will either get left on the cutting room floor or get held for expansion packs or sequels.

#9 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@Telekenesis said:

@sins_of_mosin:

They should have to say clearly on the box then what on the disc is being purchased and what is not. Claiming and presenting the item as a complete product purchased with the price displayed is fraudulent when in fact it is not, and how can someone be held liable when they unlock that content as it is not made clear what was purchased for $60 and what was not *before* your purchase.

Do you have any examples of a company advertising features on the box that weren't included in the game but were actually a paid DLC purchase? Because unless you have that, I don't exactly see the problem. If the advertising only points to actual content that's in the main game and included with the base game purchase, then who cares what DLC items are additionally included on the disc?

The base game is a complete product. If you don't want to go beyond the base game, that's fine and good and you've got a complete game experience (except of course for the Asura's Wrath nonsense which I completely agree is incredibly gross). But what's the rationale for requiring them to disclose items on the disc that aren't part of the base game experience?

#10 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@sins_of_mosin said:

What is the difference if the first DLC is on the disc or is ready to be downloaded on day 1? Either way you still have to buy it. I tell you if the Assassin's Creed 2 DLC was on the disc and ready to go from day one, I would of bought it. But since it came out too late in my opinion, I never got around to playing that game again.

Well, the AC2 DLC was DLC precisely because the development team realized that they couldn't finish the game on time, and so they ended up cutting those 2 chapters and a few game features (like the ability to replay single missions) so that they could finish it and get a polish run to stomp bugs.

The fact that DLC was an available route just made it an easy way to continue work on those sections of the game post-release so that the content could get into AC2 eventually.

  • 12 results
  • 1
  • 2