THQ Director Blames Piracy for Iron Lore Closure

GamesIndustry.biz reports on a post on the Quarter To Three Forums by THQ director of creative management Michael Fitch venting his frustrations with the state of PC gaming following the closure of Iron Lore Entertainment (story). The lengthy post outlines concerns about rampant piracy, how Titan Quest's reputation suffered when pirates reported crashes (which were caused by failure to properly crack the game's DRM), complaints about hardware vendors creating compatibility issues, stupid users and bad reviewers. He concludes trying to look at the bright side: "Alright, I'm done. Making PC products is not all fun and games. It's an uphill slog, definitely. I'm a lifelong PC gamer, and hope to continue to work on PC games in the future, but man, they sure don't make it easy."
View : : :
105.
 
Re: RE: PC game prices
Mar 4, 2008, 22:58
Re: RE: PC game prices Mar 4, 2008, 22:58
Mar 4, 2008, 22:58
 
So apart from the endless stream of WWII shooters and thoose oh so stunning need for speed games what exactly has pc gaming lost?????

Vehicular combat games? Space sims? Mech sims? cRPGs? Shooters with depth (like DX or SS2) or incredibly quick, high-flying action (Quake, UT, Tribes)? How about actual tactical shooters?


I may be mistaken here, Jerykk, but I think you're saying that we've lost all these types games on the PC, right?

Vehicular combat games - Ehhh, what are these? I can't even think of one.

Space Sims - The X series is doing fine. Their next title was recently announced. And while few here care for his games, Derek Smart seems to be going fairly strong still. I wouldn't exactly call this dead.

Mech Sims - Fair enough, but we lost those a long time ago, back when only a few idiots were whining about how PC gaming was dead.

cRPGs - Witcher? Mask of the Betrayer? Two worlds? That's just what's been released last year.

Shooters with depth - What's wrong with Crysis? It runs like a one legged whore with a broken back but I'd call it a pretty deep shooter? Large open areas, the suit powers that actually make a big difference on how you play. And what about Bioshock? Giant underwater station that you can walk back and forth in plus plasmids plus ton of weapons plus upgrades plus being able to use the environment against your enemies not good enough?

or incredibly quick, high-flying action - It's funny because you mention UT, and we just had the umpteenth iteration of that game released. Also, Team Fortress 2?

So many once great PC franchises have been consolized and brought to ruin while new PC franchises are growing increasingly rare

I'm not so sure. Off the top of my head, 3 long time PC Franchises are actually being restored this year. Fallout, Starcraft and Deus Ex. Whether or not those games will be any good is another matter entirely. And I also think that, as largely veteran PC gamers, we've all grown into a terribly jaded lot. I'll take full blame for being a jaded asshole myself, but I'm far from alone in that regard. It seems there's very little that can still satisfy us.

For an excellent example in that, see all the bile that Fallout 3 brings to these boards. From what I see, Bethesda is really trying to make the game fairly authentic to what made Fallout great, but because it's first person, it will automatically suck.

Any and all talk of PC Gaming being in decline, while ignoring fantastic sales numbers for games such as Sins of a Solar Empire, Galciv2, the Witcher, Bioshock (and even Crysis, if we believe the 1 million mark), seems a bit doom and gloom to me.

PC Gaming will never die. Ever. As long as there are PCs, devs will keep making games for them, even if only for the very simple reason that they don't have to pay a licensing fee to develop for the PC.

And as long as we get the occasional great game (such as the Witcher, or Sins of a Solar Empire), I'll be happy.

Creston


Avatar 15604
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
2.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
5.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
4.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
12.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
15.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
3.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
6.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
8.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
17.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
19.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
20.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
22.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
     Re: No subject
30.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
      Re: No subject
35.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
       Re: No subject
23.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
     Re: No subject
42.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
      Re: No subject
83.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
       Re: No subject
25.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
     Re: No subject
73.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
7.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
9.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
10.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
11.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
14.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
13.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
16.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
18.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
21.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
 ...
24.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
74.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
26.
Mar 3, 2008Mar 3 2008
27.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
28.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
29.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
31.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
34.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
36.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
55.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
32.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
33.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
72.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
37.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
38.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
39.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
41.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
54.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
56.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
     Re: No subject
57.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
     Re: No subject
58.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
      Re: No subject
59.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
       Re: No subject
61.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
        Re: No subject
76.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
     Re: No subject
80.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
      Re: No subject
82.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
       Re: No subject
87.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
        Re: No subject
89.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
         Re: No subject
84.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
       Re: No subject
85.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
       Re: No subject
90.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
       Re: No subject
88.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
      Re: No subject
94.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
      Re: No subject
95.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
96.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
98.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
110.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
106.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
     Re: No subject
45.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
53.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
40.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
43.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
47.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
50.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
44.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
49.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
51.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
52.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
 105.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
   Re: RE: PC game prices
112.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
124.
Mar 7, 2008Mar 7 2008
126.
Mar 8, 2008Mar 8 2008
115.
Mar 5, 2008Mar 5 2008
116.
Mar 5, 2008Mar 5 2008
123.
Mar 7, 2008Mar 7 2008
75.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
46.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
48.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
60.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
62.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
64.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
67.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
86.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
107.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
109.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
111.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
113.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
114.
Mar 5, 2008Mar 5 2008
117.
Mar 5, 2008Mar 5 2008
118.
Mar 5, 2008Mar 5 2008
119.
Mar 5, 2008Mar 5 2008
125.
Mar 7, 2008Mar 7 2008
127.
Mar 8, 2008Mar 8 2008
128.
Mar 9, 2008Mar 9 2008
122.
Mar 7, 2008Mar 7 2008
63.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
65.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
108.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
66.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
68.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
69.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
70.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
77.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
71.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
78.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
79.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
81.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
91.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
92.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
93.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
97.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
99.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
100.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
101.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
103.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
102.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
104.
Mar 4, 2008Mar 4 2008
120.
Mar 6, 2008Mar 6 2008
121.
Mar 7, 2008Mar 7 2008
129.
May 17, 2008May 17 2008