THQ wants in on EA vs Acti FPS battle

By Fred Dutton Published 3 March, 2011

Bilson: "We’re in the conversation."

Barely a month goes by without EA boss John Ricitiello reminding anyone who will listen that he wants to snatch the FPS crown back from Call of Duty publisher Activision.

However, it seems a third challenger wants to enter the ring and take a shot at the title: Homefront publisher THQ.

"Yes. Absolutely," THQ VP Danny Bilson insisted when Eurogamer asked him whether he was interested in jumping into the Riccitiello/Kotick face-off.

"When we started Homefront, I said 'guys, if you want to build a first person shooter that deals with modern combat you're competing with Call of Duty.' The mission is - we just want to be in the conversation. With Battlefield, with Call of Duty, with Medal of Honor. And I like to think we're in the conversation.

"Can we beat them? Those are insane numbers for fantastic games, over many years. This is a franchise launch but so far so good. I think we have a really good game. And I think in particular in the multiplayer battlefield is as much fun as anybody's."

As revealed yesterday, it looks like the post-apocalyptic shooter has got off to a strong start. Bilson claimed pre-orders have topped 200,000 in the US alone – a record for a THQ title.

"That's as of now, and we're looking to do better to do than that. That's just GameStop in North America. That's not Europe. Europe pre-orders are different per country depending on the program they have.

"They're not Call of Duty numbers," he conceded. "But we're also a more nimble company, so a moderate hit will mean a lot to us. And a blockbuster hit would be ridiculously huge for us. All we can do is make the best game we can, sell it as well as we can and hope for the best."

Find out how well that gameplan works out when the title launches on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 on 18th March.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (34) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • chasejamie #1 1 year ago

    Bit burnt out at the moment after juggling COD, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, and Mag. This has stopped me buying Killzone 3 at the moment, so Homefront will have to wait aswell. Looks alright though, and the ad campaign is quite good. But with all these games out and Battlefield 3 now on the horizon I'm not to sure how long the online multiplayer will last after the initial release.

  • beastmaster #2 1 year ago

    If Homefront scores high then it way well be in with a shout. I really like the look of it but I'm waiting for reviews on this one.

  • Scopeh #3 1 year ago

    We gamers enjoy threesomes :D

  • Shikasama #4 1 year ago

    Interesting.

    Bulletstorm and Borderlands are better FPS games than any of those mentioned in the article. Brink looks like it well set a new standard.

    Moral of the story? Make a game that begins with a B and add some bloody colour.

  • emhaslam92 #5 1 year ago

    They need to get some good coverage in the mainstream media then. With CoD out at the moment, KZ3 just released, BC2 being such a good game and BF3 not too long away (hopefully), it could be hard to make folk part with their cash.

    Whilst the storyline looks good, I can't see what new innovation it brings to the table. If the price falls quickly, I'm sure I'll pick up a copy, but from what I can gather barely any casual gamers know about this game and getting them to buy into a new franchise could be difficult.

  • CaptainKid #6 1 year ago

    Read a preview of Homefront in Gameplay (a Belgian Magazine)

    There are going to be a lot of disappointed people I can tell you that.
    - Unoriginal 4.5 hour singleplayer.
    - Only Team Deathmatch and Domination in multiplayer.

    Stay clear and get Bulletstorm or whatever.

  • CaptainKid #7 1 year ago

    Or even better: Brink.

  • Mister-Wario #8 1 year ago

    Right, because the main thing we need is more shooters.

  • patchbox360 #9 1 year ago

    Last Guardian. Ahhhh

  • matrim83 #10 1 year ago

    I like the sound of Homefront. Just need a demo more than good reviews to convince me.

  • Daeltaja #11 1 year ago

    Boring. Bad move THQ. Stay clear of that warzone and watch them tear each other to shreds.

  • kadooosh #12 1 year ago

    Theres always one who's want to comment and put others off before they've even played. Fucking hate negative people. Get a grip miserable losers.

  • TheEarlOfZinger #13 1 year ago

    "THQ wants in on EA vs Acti FPS battle. Bilson: "We’re in the conversation."




    No, no you're not.

    The rest of my year (fps-wise) goes like this: Brink, then BF3.

  • ISmoke #14 1 year ago

    "And I think in particular in the multiplayer battlefield is as much fun as anybody's."

    I read that line wrong so many times.
    Quite looking forward to Homefront really. I would have bought it today but it wasn't on Steam so i bought Crysis 2 instead.

  • DRUNK3N-_-DRAGON #15 1 year ago

    THQ compete? hahahaaa

  • Mr_Brown #16 1 year ago

    Well I'm buying Homefront off the back of how good Feontlines Fuels of War was. Still a great online shooter today, it's a shame it didn't get the attention it should have got. I hope Homefront puts that right.

  • makeamazing #17 1 year ago

    So hold on, the game gets more Pre-orders than any other THQ game, but the company who making it are getting rid of staff? Me is confused.

  • lucky_jim #18 1 year ago

    I'm filled with horror at the thought of playing online games with the sort of Americans who'll be playing this.

  • CaptainKid #19 1 year ago

    @Mr Brown.

    I was hoping Homefront would do the same; put Frontlines Fuels of War right.
    These are the guys who made that BF42 mod (Desert Combat?) and changed the old conquest mode to have actual frontlines and not being scattered all over the map in Frontlines Fuel of War.

    But I wasn't making stuff up, according to the preview I've read in my favorite magazine, multiplayer really only has two gamemodes. Team Deathmatch and Domination. (plus Domination command whatever)
    No Fuels of War, Battlefield game play to be seen.

    Previews can be wrong, stuff could be hold back but I would wait for actual reviews of the multiplayer before buying it.
    Edited by CaptainKid at 03/03/11 @ 23:40

  • RedSparrows #20 1 year ago

    Funny how Halo trounces them all.

    /floatsaway

  • king26 #21 1 year ago

    Killzone 3 then Battlefield 3 as far shooters go for me in 2011. I'm half way there towards a brilliant year already!

  • Mr_Brown #22 1 year ago

    @CaptainKid

    Hmmm, thanks for the heads up, I may wait for reviews then. To be honest, I have yet to see any actual gameplay yet, especially for the multiplayer, which is worrying considering how close it is to release. I'm not expecting it to be completly like Frontlines, but I would be surprised (and disapointed) if they didn't keep some of the bits that worked and mixed them with a COD/Battlefield style to open it up to the mainstream.

  • GibboMayhem #23 1 year ago

    I had this on pre order but cancelled it when I saw BF3. Crysis 2 and BFBC2 will cover my FPS needs for now. I may pick this up in a few weeks after a price drop though if the reviews scores are decent.

  • captainrentboy #24 1 year ago

    Whenever any review source states 'this title takes X amount of hours to finish' I can basically ignore it, as it's never the case with my personal playthrough:/
    Bulletstorm being a recent one

  • captainrentboy #25 1 year ago

    .... Four hours! One crazy review claimed. To me that seemed impossible, they must've just legged it around each level, ignored the skill kill stuff and skipped all the cutscenes.
    So I really don't believe that this game will only take me 4.5 hrs either.

  • metalangel #26 1 year ago

    Given Kaos' track record, I'd say they are in with a chance. Certainly Frontlines was a better Battlefield game than Bad Company 2.

  • Murton #27 1 year ago

    Ah Bilson, so wrong. You can't hope to defeat the CoD juggernaught with a new franchise, it has too much momentum and you can't beat Battlefield 3 because it has vastly superior tech. Your aim shouldn't be to defeat the current CoD as much as it is to create the next big thing, and from what I've seen, Homefront definitely is not the next big thing. Brink however, may just well be. It can command fans of Team Fortress though both gameplay and art style, fans of Borderlands through setting and art style and most importantly, it can inherit the forgotten fans of Mirror's Edge who still long for a sequel, on paper Brink can be the biggest selling game of 2011, it won't be obviously, but it could be, and it will definitely sell enough to become a franchise that will one day be a challenger to the games you long to equal.

    Better luck next time.

  • geeza2020 #28 1 year ago

    Battlefield is better than any other fps out there for multiplayer action. And it doesnt look like this game is going to change that. The tech being used, even in BFBC2 seems so far ahead of all the other modern fps games out there I cant believe that THQ thinks they're going to even get any scraps from the table that the new CoD (which will sell well no matter how stale and how much like the last seven games it is) and BF3 leave behind this autumn/winter.

  • Toothball #29 1 year ago

    @patchbox360

    Yeah, I'd much rather see people trying to compete with Team Ico to create something different, instead of trying to catch up to this modern themed FPS race. Homefront sounds like it'll just get swallowed up at this rate.

  • LittleRiver #30 1 year ago

    1.Plenty of game footage on youtube.

    2.Ground Control is not simply Domination with a different name.

    KAOS CHEFS:

    "Ground Control

    Hopefully you all took a look at last week’s post about Homefront’s exciting innovative feature, Battle Points. This week, we are going to focus on our new Game Mode called Ground Control & how it works.

    One significant design philosophy which translates directly into Ground Control is the desire for Infantry-Shooter style intensity on the map with large scale feel & behavior. Ground Control offers a line of objectives (usually 3) which teams fight to control. Once a team holds them long enough, they will end up winning the Round, which will move the line to a new area on the map.

    This creates some cool scenarios & behaviors inherent in the Game Mode. First off, it goes back to that design philosophy of focused high intensity in a large scale theater. Having these control points focuses the action and keeps it revolving & evolving. This is because the spawns are lined up on either side of the line, so there’s not, “this team has C & the other has A,” where only B is really fought for. Instead, think of it more as a merry-go-round, where teams are constantly circling the map from objective to objective. It keeps it intense and ever evolving!

    Speaking of evolving, that brings me to the next point – since the line on the map moves, the game stays new & fresh while the match develops. So, if you’re in a wide open area good for tanks & snipers (grrr!), when the Round is over the map shifts to a new area with completely different site lines and cover points. So, that campy sniper will now have to deal with close quarters run ‘n gunners & drones galore, serves him right dammit! :D"

    --

    Two key game mechanics:
    Battle Commander: When individuals get on a killstreak they are given a wanted rating which increases as they progress; players on the other team are assigned to take them out and shown (roughly I believe) their location. Target and hunters earning bonuses.

    Battle Points:Everything you do earns in-game currency which can be spent on weapons, drones, air-strikes, vehicles.
    The more you get involved the more toys you get to play with.


  • kongzi #31 1 year ago

    I expect a sharp drop in interest in modern warfare games. A lot of the hype was due to the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the prevailing mood in the States (and to a lesser extent europe) at the time. It was basically a lot of chest beating army propaganda. But it becomes less and less effective when real people start coming back in bodybags and the political realities behind it are coming more to the fore. We're almost 10 years into this conflict and there's not even a solution in sight, we thought military force was it, but that failed too. Not to get into a discussion about the merits of the war on terror, but I think that mood had a big role to play in the succes of games like MW.

    Now, there's more games than ever that deal with that same kind of theme, so the market is pretty saturated and the bar for quality is set pretty high by the top titles. I think some of these newer games might be succesful, but it's more likely that they start crowding each other and people will just buy whatever their friends are buying. EA and THQ might take Activsion's throne in the end, especially if CoD refuses to innovate, but it would be a bit of pyrrhic victory.

  • HL706 #32 1 year ago

    I'm sorry but if any multiplayer FPS wants my money in the future I want dedicated servers and/or the COD option of filtering out Americans (mainly them, but anyone outwith Europe really).

    I'm sick of latency deaths because I'm not from the right country.

  • 32768Colours #33 1 year ago

    So I suppose if Homefront does approach COD's success, we'd just have yearly updates of Homefront as well; some THQ suit justifying each increasingly tiresome release on the flimsy basis that there's "much more story left to tell" or some other hyperbole we've all heard hundreds of times before.

    Don't get me wrong Homefront doesn't look too bad, but it just screams "me too!" and that's not a good message to send out. This article simply highlights THQ's only real motivation for green-lighting this game; increased market share. Pretty obvious and not all that big a deal I suppose, but as someone who doesn't read about gaming as an investor or shareholder, these executive announcements really suck the excitement out of gaming as a hobby.

    I wish there were more announcements and interviews with the creatives in the industry - not just loud mouths like Peter Molyneux and "Cliffy B" all the time (90% of what they say is just hype anyway) - but the people who work 100 hours a week in a crunch period to make the games we love so great. Those aspects of a game would be far more interesting to me as a gamer, but instead we're treated to an endless stream of press releases really only aimed at people who give a damn about share prices.

    Enough of the suits, more of the artists dammit!!

  • Murton #34 1 year ago

    ^ so true

    So Randy Pitchford then. He's one of the few producers who doesn't put me off after the first two questions of an interview. He's the one who brings what you're looking for. No PR bull, no over-hyping his game, he just tells you what the game is about and how much work went into making it, and above all he sounds genuine in his excitement, which as you say makes for a refreshing change from the near constant press release mode that makes these guys feel more like mouthpieces than creators.

    It seems to me that there are four types of company mouthpiece in the games industry.

    1: Molyneux/Cliffy B - seriously over-excited and over-hyped. Often say that their game is "re-writing the rulebook" for the given genre and often promise "Moon's on Sticks" and discuss features that either don't exist or otherwise don't make it into the game for whatever reason.

    2: The Todd Howard - neutral calculated tone that sounds sincere, but his words tend to gloss over the real detail. For example we hear that X, Y and Z are "improved" but no detail as to how they've been improved. Also greatly over uses the word "fans" as an all encompassing term while releasing massively different software on each platform.

    3: Kotick/Bilson/Pachter - clearly don't understand the creative processes behind games development but do possess a detailed understanding of the business side of life. These guys are constantly describing and comparing games like a consumer analyst would compare two brands of the same product. Oddly enough, games development has moved in such a way that these guys are correct in thinking that way, CoD and Homefront are to games what Walkers and Seabrooks are to crisps.

    4: Pitchford/Dr Marks - the diamond in the rough. For every dozen of the above there's a man who simply creates something worth shouting about, and then says "check this out" and stands back. Give a Gearbox game or piece of Sony R&D to any of the above men and you'll get buzz words and raised voices and exaggerated promises until they turn blue in the face, but not so much with Pitchford or Marks, they're happy to let their work do the talking for them. Sometimes this works, Borderlands, PS Move, other times not so much PS Eye and I suspect Duke Nukem Forever, it doesn't seem to have that wow factor that Randy's previous work has had in such abundance.

    As much as we might dislike the first three personalities, we do need them. Their unique outlook is very important to development. Molyneux screwed the pooch when he promised a load of stuff in Black and White and Fable 1 that turned out to be false, but his vision of a persistent game world that changed based on player's actions is an important inspiration for other developers. Todd Howard, while a little disingenuous is very keen on details and this is what creates the enriched game worlds offered in Bethesda's games, and therefore provides a target for other developers to hit. Your businessmen like Bilson and Pachter, may know nothing of creativity, but they keep developers on a set path and grow franchises, which is required to keep the industry steady and central and allow for innovation around the edges. But the most important job that these guys hold, is behave like complete tools during interviews and press releases so that the few that conduct themselves well, are recognised for it.