alanschu

No I'm not, I'm asserting that investments don't occur based purely on NEED. Business investors still look for the maximum ROI based on their goals, just the same as an individual such as you or me. I know it's businesses that do that majority of trading, since that's where most of the capital is. At the same time, the good businesses understand the risks involved in investments, and unless they are willing to accept the loss of capital that comes with investment, they are not going to invest in anything high risk. It's looking to make maximum profit for their money. If a company needs that huge ROI on an investment, then that company is already in a world of hurt. Except that, even according to numbers man, there WAS profit for PS:T. My particular quote that your point 3 addressed was referring to a business model that could very well be used that does not require high sales in the first two months. Gromnir said it flat out would not work, when clearly it can. I was not talking about Interplay.

I bow before the Eldar.

Crowd control is important. Polymorph is one of the most useful skills I've ever seen.

How much experience do you have with investments??? Everybody I know makes investments more "for the hell of it" than based on need. They have additional money and would like it to be "put to work." Why do you think the classic advice for investing in the stock market is to not do it unless you're willing to lose your money. If you have a NEED for the money, you certainly should NOT be going and putting large amounts of money on the high risk stocks! If things were as cut and dry as you make them out to be, then any failed investment would mean financial ruin for any individual. You're saying that if someone were to invest 10 million in something, that coming at with ZERO money is exactly the same as coming out with 9.5 million. Both are failures, but if you think that both are failures of the same degree, then that's your problem. If I still have the 9.5, I can rework my portfolio and hopefully turn things around. If I have no money, I'm pooched, and there is NOTHING I can do about it except wallow in financial ruin. Hence, I am absolutely screwed, with no way out of it. It's not trusting the welfare of your business to other investments. The reason why risks are taken is because the other investments provide a safety net in case the gamble doesn't pay off (this is why people that NEED the money don't do risky investments). In fact, this is one of the major concerns with the gaming industry right now, because the rising costs of development are making it too risky of an investment to try something innovative. All I was saying is that the circumstances of Interplay is different than the circumstances of Troika. The game clearly failed in its expectations, but in using your own words, the game did make a profit in the long run. Since this happened, by your very own definition, PS:T was not an absolute failure. Furthermore, the situation of Interplay and Troika are very different. Interplay was the money, and financed its own games. Troika did not. This puts Troika in the bad situation of not being able to rely on long term income, whereas a company like Interplay could still utilize the revenue streams. The bulk of Troika's money came from the publisher paying for their product. Even if Troika had set modest goals for sales, and reached them and was able to break even and sell exactly the amount of games that they wanted, it's still not a guarantee from going out of business. They were dictated exclusively by the interests of the developer. Hit a bad patch, and there's no more outside money coming in. Continued sales of Bloodlines nets Troika zero additional dollars. However, when PS:T was made, continued sales were still possible. As a result, in the long run it was able to turn a profit, which like you say, means it wasn't an absolute failure. It certainly wouldn't be classified as successful, but it clearly could have done worse. Isn't that what happened with PS:T? It did turn a profit did it not? Or are you saying that it was a failure because the other investments were required before you saw the return on investment? Kind of like those companies that offer "Do not pay for 2 years" deals. They're failing their way to the bank. And Gromnir, I'm not saying it was a commercial success. But it would have been even worse for Interplay if it never broke even. It could have been a bigger failure. On a final note, if the game did indeed turn a profit, then they could have survived if that's the only ROI they ever got. It wouldn't be a particularly successful company, but if a product turns a profit and the situation works for it, then you can stay in business. In fact, if they released a game a year, and had to wait 3 years before it turned a profit, but had enough capital to continue making other games that would have the same 3 year ROI, then the success of the game three years ago would finance the current game, and continue the trend. I don't know if you guys have a company called The Brick in the US or not, but The Brick sells everything with "Do not pay until 200X." A customer rarely pays for anything initially in that store. The reason why they company survives though is that they are now making the money off of the sales from two years ago, and in two years they'll start collecting your money for the stuff you just walked out the door with today, while they sell stuff to a new person that won't have to pay for two years. The real problem comes when (ignoring Herve's total mismanagement of everything) games like Lionheart come out that don't make a profit at all.

Right, Handmaiden is "weak" all right Thank goodness there was no Bastila joining your party quests. Her time has past, moving on people.

There are still plenty of situations however, where it's possible to pull a single guy out of a crowded space.

But I didn't need 102 to save my life. You changed the parameters of the situation. Given that I'd still be dead at $101, it would be an "absolute" failure as well. Problems with Troika then. Fortunately Interplay had other revenue streams that they were able to turn a profit. Since they did turn a profit, by your own definition, it's not an "absolute" failure.

Just to make things clear, I never declared PS:T to be any more or less of a success/failure based on its critical success. I was indeed just looking at it from a financial standpoint. I still don't think I'm splitting hairs, but whatever. I would still consider PS:T to be a bigger failure if it actually sold less copies. Which is exactly where I'd put Planescape: Torment. For the record, I initially stated that Planescape: Torment was a failure. But failures and successes are still relative. If I invest $100 and come out with $99, then I failed in my investment, but I don't see how that can be considered an "absolute" failure, when clearly investing $100 and coming out with nothing is worse. Cutting losses makes failures less extreme, which is all I was trying to say. Just like there's varying degrees of success. Making your expected ROI is a success. But making many times more your expected ROI is clearly much more successful. That I can agree on. The only people that do stuff simply for critical acclamation are those that don't need to worry about money.

Then it's not a pull. You might as well just run up and start attacking. When I was referring to "pull" I was talking about having a ranged character using a ranged ability to pull a single creature from a mob, so that you don't have to worry about bringing in 20 guys into the fight. Most elite instances involve pulling a single character at a time to ensure the party survives.

The September 30th release date was the first release date, over a year before the actual release date. I don't remember hearing anything about the game being delayed because of VU/Valve disputes, although VU did officially delay the game, while Valve stated it should still be released. I have no idea if it was a Steam issue or what. I suspect the actual release also got pushed back by the subsequent hack into their system that leaked the media build all over the internet. The Vivendi/Valve conflict could have been part of this, but that conflict didn't come into the picture until 2004 however. The release candidate concern had nothing to do with the original September 30th release date though. It was the following year, shortly before the game went gold.

So even if it ultimately makes money, it's still an absolute failure. There's absolutely nothing that could be deemed any more of a failure? Sid Meier got into the games industry simply because he enjoyed creating video games. He wanted to make the games that he would enjoy playing. Becoming rich and famous was a bonus. The Linkin Park reference was directed towards the assertion that musicians get into business for "critical acclaim." Which would explain Linkin Park holding out for more money in their contract, or whatnot. I wouldn't hold musicians (or most artists) any higher than a game developer.

But in the long run, as you yourself conceded, it did still make money. Tell that to Sid Meier, as well as Linkin Park. I didn't mean zero copies, just an exceptionally low number, which Planescape: Torment does not seem to be a part of. Unless it has tiny production costs.

I knew it!

I know they aren't allowed to have a ranged weapon. I've never used the shield to "pull" but wouldn't it still aggro the guys you have to run up to that you aren't attacking?

Keep splitting hairs. If a game meets its sales expectations, it's considered a success. If it doesn't, it's considered a failure. If it fails to cover even development costs, it's considered a total failure, and the company has to rethink their strategy or they risk going down. It was an absolute failure. It only managed to cover development costs years after it was released. Most developers wouldn't be able to survive such a blow. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think it's hairsplitting or anything. However, as you say, it did cover development costs. It just took a long time. So in your own words, it wouldn't be a total failure. An absolute failure is a game that flat out doesn't sell IMO, but now we're just discussing opinions. In other words I'm running out of reasons to bash the game. Don't think less of people's opinions of the game content when you disagree with their interpretations of non-content related manners.

I think people were considering the release candidate as being "gold." Maybe I'm just patient and wait specifically for the gold announcement, I just don't remember being "let down" for a delayed release. Although I do remember being anxious about the release candidate. I had heard that the release candidate took a long time because VU was being anal retentive in its QA, which can be just as much a good thing as a bad thing. I don't remember them saying Half-Life 2 wasn't at an acceptable level of quality though.

Don't mean to be tooooo demanding, but would it be possible to get an updated map. It's difficult to consider the situations when I have to constantly remind myself that I'm not actually in the Aegean Sea and whatnot

I don't consider it to be much for "pulling" since it still requires you to run right up beside the guy.

I disagree. There are varying degrees of success and failures. If it made zero money, then I would be more likely to classify it as a "total failure," to use Sargy's words. The fact that it eventually did turn a profit would mean to me that it wasn't an absolute failure, but just failed given the demands of the industry.

I thought that because the support was against the MAO, then it isn't actually cut?

They never said all characters would have cameos. No producer ever talks in such absolutes. Words like "all" and "never" and whatnot are too absolute.

hahahaha