What in the what? THQ Humble bundle? *head a-splodes*

[RobF]

You're just scaring me now, man.

[johnki]

Now I'm just more confused. x_x

[RobF]

You are? I'm entirely fucking befuddled.

[rasatouche]

People complaining about a great deal. I don't get it. A couple of indie devs riding their twitter high horses all the way to their empty bank accounts, which they occasionally get to top up with all they money they make selling their games on steam. With 'evil' DRM. Sure I could tell them to put their money where their mouth is, and if they really have a 'fundamental' issue with DRM that they shouldn't sell their game on steam, but really how hard is it to fit $17 and some change in someone's mouth. Though I suppose i'd be worried too if the AAA publishers caught on to one of the few ways I made money, and successfully turned it into an excellent marketing tool with their much larger, often much better games. Sure I could just work on making my games better, or make more games, or maybe I could just get off my ass and port a game I've already made over to PC in less time than it takes another indie dev to literally clone it and have it up and running from scratch. Or I could just bitch and moan on twitter.

So...THQ makes an awesome, awesome deal, Half a million bundles have already been snapped up, $3 million in the bank in two days, it's probably going to top humble bundle 5 in terms of sales, some charities will get a boatload of money, sick kids will get to play video games while sitting in a hospital bed, waiting for say, a liver transplant that is only successful 90% of the time. The red cross will get a bunch of cash too which will help a boatload of people.

Meanwhile on the internet a bunch of people complain that they're being 'forced' to use steam & it's 'evil' drm, and how the humble bundle have 'sold out'. Yeah, if you consider giving sick kids access to video games and helping the red cross selling out, it's pretty clear who has the ethical issues. Spoiler alert, it's not THQ.

Though bravo to THQ for using their back catalogue of IP to both help charity, give gamers cheap games, and also help market their new upcoming titles which now with Justin Rubin at the helm (You know, the guy who made that really important speech at a D.I.C.E conference years ago), might have a chance to be successful. You know what's happened to THQ's in development titles? Even though the company is on the wall financially, like, really on the wall, and they could really use the cash injection of releasing a game, they pushed back release dates on all their in development titles to polish them, told their investors basically to fuck off for a little while, and that they wouldn't be getting financial projections until next year. All so they can ideally release better quality games. What a bunch of assholes.

[Battlehenkie]

So...THQ makes an awesome, awesome deal, Half a million bundles have already been snapped up, $3 million in the bank in two days, it's probably going to top humble bundle 5 in terms of sales, some charities will get a boatload of money, sick kids will get to play video games while sitting in a hospital bed, waiting for say, a liver transplant that is only successful 90% of the time. The red cross will get a bunch of cash too which will help a boatload of people.

If anything, the moral white knight inside of me thinks it's a travesty how the average price is at $5.67. I realise that enough people are tight on cash, including myself. Nevertheless, as a gamer I believe it is in everyone's best interests that a studio like THQ keeps going (although perhaps in a more financially sound manner!). I'm completely baffled how the total sum is only at $3.1 million for 550k bundles sold. I'm not sure what it reflects, but it's not pretty.

[vinraith]

If anything, the moral white knight inside of me thinks it's a travesty how the average price is at $5.67. I realise that enough people are tight on cash, including myself. Nevertheless, as a gamer I believe it is in everyone's best interests that a studio like THQ keeps going (although perhaps in a more financially sound manner!). I'm completely baffled how the total sum is only at $3.1 million for 550k bundles sold. I'm not sure what it reflects, but it's not pretty.

I think it rather neatly demonstrates the same thing that most of this thread demonstrates: gamers as a group are largely cheap-ass horders with no concern about anything beyond their own wallets.

[NathanH]

I think that's being a bit harsh. I find the idea of choosing my own price for something really quite weird and confusing, so I've not bought any of these things before. But I can see why someone buying them will not pay very much. To the people I'm buying from, my money won't make an awful lot of difference. But to me, well, I'm unemployed, I have plenty of money stashed away but not so much that I shouldn't be careful where I spend my money. I wouldn't worry about "but if everyone thought that" arguments because I'm not everyone and have no power over them.

I think if I were to buy one of these things I'd just pay the average price because I don't want to spend more than I need to but I wouldn't want to spend much less than all the other people who are buying the same thing at the same time.

[LTK]

I think it rather neatly demonstrates the same thing that most of this thread demonstrates: gamers as a group are largely cheap-ass horders with no concern about anything beyond their own wallets.

If that was true, this bundle would have around a thousand sales and the other 549k would already have most of these games pirated on their hard drive.

Look, if I want these games and I can't afford to pay what this bundle is worth, I'll pay what I can afford to miss, and there's nothing wrong with that. Without the humble bundle, many of their customers would be paying zero dollars to developers/charity. There's an unlimited number of copies for Saints Row 3, and if the alternative is THQ going bankrupt, it matters that people are buying their game for $5 instead of not buying anything at all.

[vinraith]

I think that's being a bit harsh.

Probably, but seeing an entire thread of "it's cheap, so nothing else about it matters and anyone that says otherwise is just being contrarian!" hasn't put me in a generous place with respect to assessing gamers or humanity in general.

[gwathdring]

Probably, but seeing an entire thread of "it's cheap, so nothing else about it matters and anyone that says otherwise is just being contrarian!" hasn't put me in a generous place with respect to assessing gamers or humanity in general.

I usually pay far above the average (not for the sake of it, but because it's what I feel like paying), but I didn't pay much more here. The trouble is that I own all the Company of Heroes games and am interested in trying the others ... but not interested enough or sure enough about how I'll like them to have even spent money on them during the Steam sales. If I really like one of them enough, I'll buy it again later through some other venue at a price that makes sense to me.

Buying games isn't a charity cause, and the Humble Bundle doesn't make it one. I think it's great that they give you that option, of paying a charity instead of them and still getting the game, but when I really feel like donating to a cause I do that on my own. Here? I'm here for the games, and I'm being asked what I'm willing to pay. If I come across a bundle of games that isn't worth a few dollars to me then they probably aren't worth playing in the first place. But otherwise ... they asked me how much I wanted to pay. I told them, and then they said "Sure. Have some games." They're welcome to put a minimum payment of whatever they want in there--it isn't $5.71.

It's really not fair or reasonable to look down on people who don't pay what you think the games are worth. I guess I'm with you on being a bit miffed that so many gamers prefer having cheap games to having quality services and quality games (which isn't quite what's being said on this forum, for the most part--there are legitimate reasons to prefer Steam over DRM free), but beyond that ... THQ approached the Humble Bundle folks and knew what they were getting into. They were getting millions of sales at a cliff-steep discount. It isn't as though the results of past Humble Bundles are private--they were always right at the top of the page on a live ticker. You can see the operating system breakdown, too, which would be relevant to a Windows only HB like this one. THQ doing this is, as far as I'm concerned, them saying "We're ok with you paying what users have paid in the past for these sorts of things." I find it really hard to see taking that at face value as depressing or morally reprehensible on the part of customers.

I do, of course, see it as a Good Thing when people go beyond that. I look favorably on all the higher-paying customers and feel good about myself when I'm one of them.

[Fumarole]

I think it rather neatly demonstrates the same thing that most of this thread demonstrates: gamers as a group are largely cheap-ass horders with no concern about anything beyond their own wallets.

That's one hell of a trite and insulting dismissal of an entire group of people based on a handful of bad examples.

[Heliocentric]

That's one hell of a trite and insulting dismissal of an entire group of people based on a handful of bad examples.

I think that THQ dug their own hole, so I am one of those bastards, I hope the developers are bought/rehired but the publishers deserve all the failure they have reaped.

[vinraith]

That's one hell of a trite and insulting dismissal of an entire group of people based on a handful of bad examples.

Well played, sir, well played (though I think the color and the bolding is probably a bit much).

You're entirely right, though, and I won't try to defend that statement, being as it's really directed at a very specific crowd (as previously discussed) and shouldn't be aimed at all, or even the majority, of gamers.

[Matzerath]

I'm mostly interested in a post mortem of this particular bundle, though it likely wont happen. Is the money to THQ really gonna help them, or is it to be immediately consumed by their massive debt? Can they do what they want with the money, or are they obliged to appease Wells Fargo? What kind of donation split did people make? Was it different than the previous not-so-corporate bundles? And is that donation average actually pretty pitiful, and indicative of the mindset of those attracted to this bundle? And lastly: will this experiment be considered a 'success', and repeated in the future by some other AAA game company (probably not quite as on the precipice of the abyss as THQ, I'm guessing).

[alms]

If anything, the moral white knight inside of me thinks it's a travesty how the average price is at $5.67. I realise that enough people are tight on cash, including myself.

Let's just oversimplify a little here and point out that this time there are no Linux/Mac users to bring the average up.

[Gorzan]

And is that donation average actually pretty pitiful, and indicative of the mindset of those attracted to this bundle? And lastly: will this experiment be considered a 'success', and repeated in the future by some other AAA game company (probably not quite as on the precipice of the abyss as THQ, I'm guessing).

The pitiful average is not surprising at all. On every humble bundle, windows users have the lowest average, ususally ranging the 5$ area, since this is for windows only, it makes sense.
About other companies, I doubt it. I'm pretty sure the only reason this happened was because THQ are diyng, so they were desperate and the Humble guys were charitative. Also, THQ isn't that much of an AAA company, more like AA.

[Boris]

I think it rather neatly demonstrates the same thing that most of this thread demonstrates: gamers as a group are largely cheap-ass horders with no concern about anything beyond their own wallets.

Yeah, or those gamers already have the games in the bundle. Personally, I own 4 of the titles in this bundle (Darksiders and all the CoH). And I'm guessing I'm not alone in this. I don't get extra keys for games I already own (and I don't want to). However that is going to lower what I feel this bundle is worth because for me it's a 3 game bundle, not a 7 game one.

[Fumarole]

(though I think the color and the bolding is probably a bit much)

That was an embedded link fail.

[Bankrotas]

Well played, sir, well played (though I think the color and the bolding is probably a bit much).

You're entirely right, though, and I won't try to defend that statement, being as it's really directed at a very specific crowd (as previously discussed) and shouldn't be aimed at all, or even the majority, of gamers.

Meh, your description is actually more general and fits large part of human population, large enough to make it majority.

[rasatouche]

Personally, as far as THQ are concerned, the sooner the board and Brian Farrel (CEO)'s merry band of yes men get fired, who over the past 5 years have absolutely thrashed a good company into the ground, the better. You can bet that with that if they find any major investors in the near term, the one condition of any investment will be sacking the board & getting some fresh blood. Jason Rubin as 'President' (essentially 2IC to Farrel, has taken over all game development responsibilities), seems like a guy who both knows what he's doing, and is passionate about developers getting the time & credit for their games. If there's a man for the job it's this guy.

I mean in 2004 he did an awesome speech, here, about how developers should get their names on the box, among other things. Not to mention he was one of the guys who founded naughty dog, sure they make console games, but they make good ass console games. Not to mention he's the guy who pushed back all THQ's in development titles for polish.

As for THQ making money off this, it's going to be tiny, absolutely minimal, I mean they only have 6 or 7 teams going, but just on that there would be easy 8 - 10 mil a month to keep them going. If anything it's a marketing exercise, sure they'll loose a little bit of future revenue (steam sales & the like), where they could sell each game at $5 each rather than 7 for $5, but tail revenue is still tiny for games. However, in terms of building hype for their sequels, it's genius. The bundle looks like it's on track to easily move a million copies or so, so for example if only 10% of those people say, play metro who otherwise wouldn't, and enjoy the shit out of it, then are pumped for the sequel and buy it during launch, 100k sales that otherwise wouldn't have happened is money in the bank. Not to mention COH & Saints Row, plus the potential SR3 DLC sales. So compared to spending money on advertising, they'll get a way better return on this. I mean thanks to this bundle I bought a few for some mates & have spent the last few nights smashing out SR3 co-op after work, good times.

As for gamers being cheap asses, I sure am. I'd rather have 50 games for $5 each than 5 games for $50 each. I've been gaming for a long time, and have learnt the lesson of 'pre-ordering' the hard way. Unless i'm super psyched for a game, I'll pick it up a few months later. The sooner the devs & publishers learn that they move more volume at a lower price, the better.

Games should not cost $60. Some games should, most shouldn't. What happens now is your cods & GTA's get absolutely monster budgets, cod probably gets a higher marketing budget for a week than the average game gets for it's whole dev cycle, and then all the pretty good but not amazing games, try and fail to compete with the blockbusters. Lesson here? Leave the huge moster $60 blockbusters to the 500 man teams, & make your game shorter, more focused, and better, and release it cheaper, and make more money. I mean why are there not more $20 - $30 games on release? I don't mind spending $20 on a game I might only kind of like, but I won't spend $60 on something, that as soon as I 'activate' has no value if I want to sell it, on day one, unless I'm pretty sure before hand that I will like it.