THQ may scrap annual UFC policy

Sounds like a good decision. Granted, I don't play a whole lot of sports games (I did buy both UFC games though, but I think I've finally concluded that they really aren't my thing), so maybe I'm just a bit out of touch, but is it really necessary with annual releases of every damn sports series?

I'm going out on a limb here, but it may have had something to do with the decision to make people pay for the online capability if they bought a second hand copy but NOT advertise this on the box. Word got round and people got fed up about that, especially when people realised that a lot of shops were not taking in pre-owned copies of the game due to the online code having been used.

Again, on a limb, despite some very bizarre positive reviews (cough), in the main the majority found it to be as buggy as hell, with fighters getting caught in cages, not responding to any button presses etc. the online play completely unusable (even to this day, despite the fact they claimed they would patch it) and the ridiculous submission difficulty. Oh and that it was, in the majority of cases, a less enjoyable game to play than the previous one.

@kentmonkey

That's a valid point you make about the the second hand copies of UFC... but that won't have any bearing on UFCs profit for this game.

THQ won't make money from 2nd hand copies at all?

i bought UFC 09 and UFC 2010 and in this case the game was improved instead of just revamping the roster but the game could get far more polish if it wasnt released so early after the first one so yes, longer dvelopment period would be better for gamers thats for sure.

On the other hand... the sales are far from low. Even without any negative effects form people spending their gaming money on RDR primarily 2,5 mil is freaking good

Red Dead really did a number on everyone else eh?

There's EA's MMA game out this October as well, although the two were probably too well spaced to be a direct threat to each-other's sales.

Played the demo, liked it and was aboutb to buy it, then played some more and the holding / floor rolling around type controls were a deal breaker.

You had simple 2 button arms, 2 button legs with shoulder mods...great.

The rest of the stuff was crazy....

It's horrific that some people will have [aiod extra for the online mode. Worst online enviroment of any game since the Dreamcast.

@geordiemp - thats whta you get when you play a MMA simulator. this is not a beat em up. Of course with friend you can "agree" on justs tanding up which is fun but MMA is mix of stand up game and ground game. It takes some time to learn to appreciate it and to be honest, i dont like it in the game all that much eirther

As for EA MMA - cant wait to play it ebcause of the different rule sets and different approach towards contols and I guess many MMA fans will be buying both

Easy now, THQ. We know you have Activision like ambitions, but Rome wasn't built in a day. IMO, a UFC game every two years would be better than every one. Then more focus could go one the IP below, and other new stuff.

I'm yet to get a UFC game, but I'm more excited about Homefront, Dark Siders 2 and Red Faction Armageddon.

Doesn't UFC 2010 require a code for multiplayer so 2nd hand buyers will have to shell out some money if they want to go online as well (buying said code)?

One could argue that less copies were sold because people calculated a lower used selling price due to the missing code.
Instead of buying it they bought something else.
If so this might bode very well for EA's "Project $10" etc.

Hopefully the gamers will stop those greedy fu..s from killing the 2nd hand market / getting a piece of the pie with their "codes".

I was gonna say the same thing, dingo. Kentmonkey touched on it, the online pass thing would have been a factor as people would be reluctant to buy the game new knowing that its trade-in value was significantly reduced because of the pass.

Personally I see no need for annual updates of sports games either.

The real life scenario leading to my post above was that a friend, a huge UFC fan (both in terms of the sport and of THQ's previous offerings) bought the game on release day. Nowhere on the box did it state that it had a one-time only online code. He played the game and, as usual, his son (still at home, about 14) wanted to play. Except his son can't go online and play it as he has to be signed in to his dad's profile to do that, and thus doesn't have the same friends list and the Dad doesn't want a load of school kids on his friends list.

Annoyed by this, and by the flaws, he goes to take it back to Gamestation. They refused as he had used the online code. Fair enough he thought, not their fault that THQ did this nor their fault that he hadn't understood the situation when he used the code, so he asked to trade it in and take the hit instead. They refused to trade it in as the online code no longer worked and it isn't there policy to trade in titles without full functionality (I'm sure I've seen copies of this game used in their store since, but this was shortly after release). He was then stuck with a £40 game he couldn't trade.

He did finally manage to sell it to somebody in a private sale (for £10, massive loss) but the damage was done. He felt cheated as nowhere on the box did it state the issue with the code and he vowed to never purchase another game from THQ again. He's the sort of stubborn person that will most likely follow through with that as well. He also posted on numerous forums about the situation, the code, the bugs, the trading in issue, and that, coupled with the other disgruntled customers doing the same thing, must have lost THQ quite a few sales.

With broken online gameplay, lots of bugs, a flawed submission system and the bad PR surrounding the stealth online code purchase scenario, I won't cry a river that they didn't make a decent profit on this game. I like UFC and I've enjoyed most of the previous UFC offerings (most...especially 2009) but I agree that a yearly update isn't required. It isn't actually required for any game as a roster update would suffice in most instances, and perhaps, in some cases, would lead to more profit in the long run. However I think they need to look further afield that a yearly development cycle being the only reason they didn't make good money on this, and include some of their covert business decisions.

Hopefully a two year development cycle may mean a better product next time around, with more QC, but considering that 2009's online was bad and that it got worse for 2010, I'm not entirely convinced.

I've enjoyed the game quite a bit playing MP with a buddy. We're both MMA fans, so we've tried to learn all the ground moves and transitions and submissions. I don't care about online at all, but yeah, the game is certainly buggy and the controls still aren't as responsive as they should be. Combos are very hard to pull off and blocking right after you've thrown a kick is impossible (which totally ruins my stick-and-move tactics in the stand-up).

Longer dev-time can only be a good thing. Hope EA MMA will be good. Then there'll be some competition, which can only benefit the players.

Sales may have been lower than expected, but surely they'd have still made decent profit on it considering it only took a year to develop? And a couple of months of that would have been submissions, so a 10 month development can't be that expensive.

So they expected to sell more than the first game! There estimates are almost as bad as Capcom's...almost.

Maybe a 2-year dev cycle would be enough to fix that atrocious menu...