Jason Rubin defends 4A Games yet fails to explain why THQ did not offer an optimal environment

DSOGaming writes: "Which brings me to another series of questions. Why did THQ originally forced 4A Games to such a thing? As the president of THQ, why didn’t he interfere? Why was 4A Games allowed to waste so much time into this MP bullsh*t (that’s a rhetorical question. We know why THQ wanted an MP mode. It’s for the same reasons why all publishers want an MP mode in their games)."

[NYC_Gamer]

THQ didn't give a damn about 4A developers or Metro

[zeal0us]

They wanted to minimize cost as much as possible. Its don't right sad and mortifying how some companies treat their employees just to get a quick profit.

I hope Deep Silver/Koch Media don't follow down the same path.

[MrBeatdown]

"Why did THQ originally forced 4A Games to such a thing? As the president of THQ, why didn’t he interfere?"

Rubin joined THQ as president in May 2012. Unfortunately, the President of THQ lacks the awesome power of time travel. Much to Rubin's disappointment, this left him unable to travel back in time, and override the decision of the game's original producers.

Crap article. Someone's just trying to stir the pot, and couldn't be bothered to do some basic research.

It's worth a read though if you like hearing a clueless writer complain about Rubin not doing something he had no control over, and making THQ out to be a bad guy for not buying 4A a whole new building when the plan to buy some office chairs didn't work out.

[john2]

you do realize that the interference part was for when Rubin was president and not before that, right? It's obvious, come on. Neither 4A Games nor Rubin have claimed that the MP work stopped when Rubin joined THQ (in fact there have been rumors about the MP getting released as a standalone game). You also realize that the article blames mainly THQ and not Rubin, right? If you did realize all these (which you didn't but let's assume you did) and still believe that THQ did everything it could for the game's development then...

[MrBeatdown]

Rubin was saying 4A could have produced an even better product if they didn't have to deal with the multiplayer demands placed on them by the original producers.

Given that, you questioned why Rubin didn't interfere.

In October, it was confirmed that multiplayer was put on hold, so 4A could focus solely on the single player.

http://www.gamespot.com/new...

So you're questioning Rubin for not putting a stop to the multiplayer for the benefit of single player... when someone put a stop to the multiplayer for the benefit of single player?

That makes sense.

If you weren't just stupidly criticizing him for something that occurred before he joined THQ, like I thought, you're doing something even stupider... criticizing him for not doing something that was obviously done. Sorry for not seeing the "obvious"... that your criticism is just flat out idiotic, as opposed to just oblivious to the fact that Rubin had only recently joined THQ .

"You also realize that the article blames mainly THQ and not Rubin, right?"

If you actually paid attention to my comment, I never said you were only blaming Rubin. I was only defending Rubin because YOU specifically questioned why he didn't interfere in the multiplayer situation.

For the other half of my comment, I referred to THQ, not Rubin.

"If you did realize all these (which you didn't but let's assume you did)"...

[john2]

@MrBeatdown: Rubin joined THQ in May. 4A Games dropped the MP part in October. If I'm not mistaken, that's six months (including May). In six months other studios create full length games. We're not talking about 1-2 months since Rubin joined THQ (and I'm pretty sure he was already aware of the MP part and the whole situation). We're talking about half a year. Even that announcement was made by 4A Games and not THQ, so how come Rubin put an end? 4A Games made the decision. Now if you think that Rubin put a stop to the MP and that decision wasn't made because 4A Games could not hit the deadline, then you are obviously delusional. Moreover, the damage has already been done. It was minimized (and the damage would have been smaller if - let's say - in June THQ forced 4A Games to drop the MP mode), but that had nothing to do with Rubin's actions.

[MrBeatdown]

Now you're just grasping at straws, and you don't even have your facts straight (surprise, surprise).

Rubin joined THQ on May 29th. 4A announced there would be no MP on October 12. That's about a four and a half month window, not six. And even then, you act like someone ran to the computer to post an update the day someone came into the office and said to put it on hold. For all you know, the decision could have been made well in advance or the announcement.

But all that is irrelevant. You act like you know who is and isn't responsible, and what Rubin should have been doing, but wasn't, but you have nothing but speculation to go on. You act like 4A made the decision, purely based on the fact that the news was posted on the Metro website. You act like Rubin needed to be on a hilltop, proclaiming 4A didn't need to do multiplayer.

Making your theory all the more stupid is the fact that Rubin claimed in the very story you were writing about, that multiplayer was "the irrational requirement of THQ’s original producers". So, it was THQ's "requirement", yet 4A had the authority to override them and make the decision to ax it? Oh yeah... that makes sense.

The fact is, you don't know when or how the decision was made, when it was made, and who's hands the decision was ultimately left in, yet you still try to pin blame on Rubin, as you you know for a fact that there was something Rubin needed to do, but failed to do, just to stir up some bull**** controversy.

[john2]

Actually, you don't have your facts straight. Let's see what 4A Games claimed when the MP mode was cancelled, shall we? ( http://www.xbox360achieveme... ):

"Q: Why did you commit to a multiplayer mode in the first place?

A: We are gamers at the studio and really wanted to bring the world of Metro to life in a multiplayer environment. It was a decision made by us at 4A from the outset and THQ have since been supportive every step of the way, including our decision to put multiplayer on hold."

So 4A claimed that it was their decision to put it on hold. Here is your solid proof. Surprise surprise. 4A Games also claims it was their decision to even implement an MP mode, while Rubin claims that it was forced by THQ. In short, we have a black and white statement here. And the truth (as always in such situations) is somewhere in between.

Of course 4A Games would not come out and say <<Hey guys, THQ is forcing us to include an MP mode>>. Of course Rubin would not say <<Well the MP mode was crap but it was a deal that could be profitable for us. Why on Earth would I cancel it?>>. Of course THQ won't say <<Hey everyone, we are not supporting this game because we have so many titles in the pipeline>>. Of course Deep Silver won't say <<Hey guys, we want more money so we're keeping the Ranger Mode DLC>> (I mention Deep Silver as a mere example of PR). That's what PR is all about. And while it may hurt some, some people can see right through them. Similar case with Bethesda's "brand new engine, built from the ground up, for Skyrim" statement, when in fact it was an evolution of the Gamebryo engine and nothing more (that was also plagued by the very same technical issues).

All in all, nothing - and despite what proof I present you or what I'll say - will make you change your mind. It seems that we simply agree to disagree on this. Which is understandable, as we can't agree with everyone on everything.

[MrBeatdown]

So, you found something that contradicts what Rubin said, but what good does that do? My facts aren't straight? My argument was never dependent on which party was responsible for the cancellation of multiplayer. My argument was that you had no basis to question Rubin's involvement, and ironically, you've just proven that for me.

As I said...

"So you're questioning Rubin for not putting a stop to the multiplayer for the benefit of single player... when someone put a stop to the multiplayer for the benefit of single player?"

4A put a stop to MP after E3, according to what you just posted.

That goes to show Rubin's involvement wasn't necessary, making your question... "why didn’t he interfere?" completely pointless.

Thanks for proving my point.

[AKS]

This makes 4A's work even more impressive. You'd think with these horrible conditions of the publisher going under, insisting in features they did not want to include, and having a lousy working environment would lead to a disaster. To the contrary, the game has been quite good, and I'm extremely impressed with their efforts to dramatically improve optimization. I'm also very impressed with their game engine, especially considering they have a much smaller budget than their competitors. I hope things improve for them now.