Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Revan91

  1. WTF Obsidian, I understand this is probably Take Two's decision but still WTF. Epic Store is awful, I don't want to install that ****, at least until it becomes good/acceptable.
  2. I haven't said they used Fig money on it (although it's possible and other devs do things like that, see inXile and how they used T:ToN's money on WL2, but I think Obsidian is way more trustworthy than scam artist Fargo), just that I would rather have them use their money on something else. Also, you keep treating me like an idiot for saying that these games don't go well on consoles, but it's common knowledge. You know what happens when a game is successful? It makes the news, see every piece on IGN, Game Informer, PC Gamer (etc.) about how well D:OS and PoE sold on PC. Have you seen anything like that about the console versions? I'll answer for you: no. About a year ago, maybe more Swen said to the Codex that D:OS sold about 1.5 million copies on all platforms, then just looking at Steamspy the game was at 1.1 million, just there, and it's not counting GOG. Which means that both ps4 and xone sold about 300k copies together, about 1/4 of the PC version alone. And it's the most successful KS rpg we're talking about, PoE was less successful and its console versions were released later on and probably sold even less. It's a viable market? Probably so. It's worth to chase it? It depends, I guess, but compared to the PC market it's really small (and i provided some data to back my claims). And you say "if everyone thinks like I do then it's always gonna be a small market", well hopefully so. Because if it becomes the bigger market you can dream of having an rpg made with PC in made, and instead will get controls and UI studied for a gamepad. No thanks. And while I like your vision about having games on all platforms makes everyone happy and all, history tells us that it comes at a cost. Just look at BioWare and the constant decline in both quality and complexity, since they became more and more console-focused. Call me selfish, but I don't want a new BioWare, the old one is already enough for me.
  3. I get were you are coming from. I am just guessing, but I doubt simpler mechanics are reason why ME or Witcher3 sold better. It is not about simplifying mechanics - it’s about boosting presentation. No matter what you sell visuals are the best marketing tool. Even in music where visuals are pretty much meaningless and good cover album or an attractive artist has higher chances of success not matter how they sound. All those titles had great, expensive trailers. They sound and look great (well except Bethesda trash, but it’s trailer even made me dip into Skyrim). I havent seen someone who picked up PoE and said: it’s way to complicated. Most complains are: top down isn’t immersive, it’s not fully voiceacted, graphic look like 2003 etc. Now, boosting presentation does come with cutting complexity - full dialogue with recognisable cast will encourage less writing and reactivity. High quality model of main character and full voice acting him/her will limit character creation choices. Design becomes more about reusing the same animations and set pieces without player feeling constrained instead of giving player space to role play and designing game around responding to those choices. Deadfire seem to open up compared to POE1 with more choices and freedom of exploration so is that really the case? If PoE port made its money back and not much else... isn’t it worth porting it again? Even if gained just a bit of extra cash, from a narrow audience - that is still a gain right? Do they need to make (quoting Jim Sterling) not only some money but ALL OF THE MONEY? Couple sells last time, maybe more sales with Deadfire. If they don’t loose money by doing a port why not do it again? Nothing lost, potential future customers gained. If they hurry they could sell the DLC as well. I kinda agree with you: presentation is king and having great graphics helps really a lot of course. But in a game with top-down perspective you cannot have the visual appeal of, say, The Witcher 3. It can look good of course, and in fact both PoE and PoE2 even more do look good, but it cannot have the graphical impact that something like TW3 has. Besides that, complex mechanics are still a huge turn-off for some people (and a pro for someone else), so even with the best graphics possible if the game is complex and "hard" it won't sell as much as something that looks great and is also easy to play/understand. Which is why Dragon Age: Origins sold way less than Skyrim: DA:O is not particularly complex as an rpg (it's a lot more casual than PoE and even way more if compared to Fallout 1 and even BG2), but it was way more complex than the average AAA rpg those days, it sold pretty well because of marketing and pleasant enough graphics (although it wasn't the best graphics of the time, nowhere near), but more action-focused games, with less complexity sold way better. Ironically, BioWare then tried to make Dragon Age more and more casual and action-focused with each game, but it didn't translate in better sales, so there's a lesson to be learned too.
  4. Console players are not retarded and not capable of understanding vancian magic, but still they're used to action gameplay or cooldowns and other casual stuff, hence if they see something a bit more "hardcore" like PoE or even D:OS they don't exactly rush to buy it. In fact, the market for these kind of rpgs on consoles is less than 1/4 than what it is on PC. Now, that's probably enough to get the porting money back and even some more, but if a developer want to do well on consoles the road to follow is the BioWare and Bethesda's ones, aka easier, more casual games. Again, I like more casual and broader rpgs, like Mass Effect (1 and 2) or The Witcher 3 (which is a masterpiece imo, even if its systems kinda suck in some ways), but I want something else from PoE: I want something more in the veins of Baldur's Gate, which is a more hardcore and in-depth rpg focused on its PC roots. I'll admit I overreacted a bit initally, tbh, because it's true and I know it now that I cooled off a bit, but still I want the money that goes on PoE to be spent on the PC game and improving that, not on making console ports (even if I know that it doesn't cost too much it's money I'd rather see spent on something else, even VO - and I don't care much about that either) I don't care about and that are kinda useless for a RTwP rpg that is a nightmare to play with anything other than mouse and keyboard.
  5. I know you posted this in earnest so don't take this personally but... This is hilarious. Not only is this an insane over-reaction but they really have to say in their crowdfunding campaign that their sequel to a game that was on console is going to be on console or it is a betrayal? Oh my god I am dying laughing here. I don't know why I find this so funny. I was overreacting, you're right. Still, when you go to crowdfunding asking money in order to make an in-depth PC rpg that's what people is gonna expect, announcing a console version is not something I gave them money for. Then again, maybe it's a perfect world and the game will be great (I certainly expect it to be at least good) and not at all compromised for console players, but we won't know for sure until we play it. Having said that, some of the changes to the game kinda look in a different way, now that we know of the porting, since coincidentally they all happen to make it easier for console gamers. And anyway, PoE was ported to console more than two years after its release, I wasn't happy about it tbh, but obviously it never interfered with the PC version. Now they're announcing it even before the game is released. If they keep up this pace, PoE3 will be multiplatform from the start (which would definitely impact the game as well). This is crazy talk. Just by looking at all the beta streamings it's pretty much clear that the game has been developed with a PC in mind. The menus, the controls, everything screams "This is a PC game!". The changes they've made have been based on player feedback and also their own ideas. So nothing has been dumbed down, expecially not for consoles. Also, there was no way they could say during the crowfounding campaign that there was going to be a console port since they probably didn't even think about it, because they were busy developing the game on PC first. Besides, more people that buy the game = more money Obsidian gains = more likely they'll keep making PoE games. Also, there'd be more people with whom to share opinions and geek out about the game, that should also be a plus. More people buy the game = we're all happier isn't really true. Just look at BioWare and how going for consoles changed their games, definitely not for the better since we stopped getting BGs and we got Dragon Age II, Inquisition and ME3. Console gamers have different tastes, they don't like (generally, ofc a very very small number of them do) these games, and in fact you can look at the sales data to realize it: since D:OS (the most commercially successful rpg of this kind by far) sold more than 1,5 millions of copies on Steam alone, while on both consoles together it sold less than a third of that number. T:ToN flopped hard on PC as well, but according to Fargo its console sales were even worse, and I've never seen PoE on any console chart since its release on ps4 and xbox, and I would guess it sold pretty poorly as well (enough to get the porting costs back and maybe get a little profit, since porting the game wasn't expensive, but again nowhere near PC sales). If you want your games to go well on consoles you have to change them. If you port a somewhat classic rpg and leave it at that, basically no one will buy it for their ps4 or xbox. When they hear or read "rpg" they think of Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls, nuFallout, The Witcher 3 (which is a masterpiece even if it's pretty casualized, but it's rare), not Pillars of Eternity spiritual heir of Baldur's Gate, a game the 99% of them never heard of. So, if developers want to do better on consoles, the way is to casualize the games, make it more spectacular, cinematic, full of action and "awesome", and while I wouldn't have a problem if Obsidian wanted to make a multiplatform action rpg that can sell millions of copies on PC and consoles like the ones I named before (in fact Project Indiana will be multiplatform and not an hardcore rpg, and I'm fine with that, well actually I'm very hyped about it), that's not the direction I want them take with PoE, a game that was funded by fans to see something very different from that.
  6. Your an idiot, they are not making a console game. Obsidian is making a pc game and console build is being ported by another dev team. I am not sure what is so hard to understand. Yeah sure, big man, that's why they've been dumbing the game from what we had with PoE1: because they wanted to make a true PC game, not to make it easier for console peasants. One PC less in the party, no more camp supplies, no health/resistance anymore, basically no more vancian magic with everything being per encounter plus empower. All for us PC gamers backers, sure. The game isn't even out and the porting has already been announced, with PoE3 I guess it'll be multi-platform from the start, and probably even more casualized to chase (and fail at that) the console market that typically don't care about these more in depth rpgs. If you actually followed the development of the last game and this, these changes are to do with player feedback. The change in party size is maybe the only thing you can point to, but Tyranny worked well with 4, and you can't claim that the change was done on account of making a console title. Already you can have many pets in your party, so it's not like the game is getting that much more simple. They did it for other reasons to do with the flow and design of combat instances, which makes a lot more sense. Just because there is change, it doesn't automatically mean dumbing anyhting, Some changes are subjectively good and some are subjectively bad. It has nothing to do with intelligence though. I liked PoE 1.0 and liked it even more with 3.0, I don't recall that many people wanting health/resistance bar or supply camps to be gone. I know some people played the game poorly and rested after every fight or so and then complained about the rest limitations, but I don't think it's wise to accomodate those player feedbacks, since it makes the game worse and go in a different direction than the one promised in the initial pitch (the heir of BG thing). Changing party size from 6 to 5 isn't a big problem to me, honestly, I may even like it more, but sure as hell it also makes it more console-friendly, and since it's not the only decision which goes in that direction it's not exactly a coincidence.
  7. Your an idiot, they are not making a console game. Obsidian is making a pc game and console build is being ported by another dev team. I am not sure what is so hard to understand. Yeah sure, big man, that's why they've been dumbing the game from what we had with PoE1: because they wanted to make a true PC game, not to make it easier for console peasants. One PC less in the party, no more camp supplies, no health/resistance anymore, basically no more vancian magic with everything being per encounter plus empower. All for us PC gamers backers, sure. The game isn't even out and the porting has already been announced, with PoE3 I guess it'll be multi-platform from the start, and probably even more casualized to chase (and fail at that) the console market that typically don't care about these more in depth rpgs.
  8. This is a ****ing betrayal of your player base, Obsidian. Next time you go to crowdfunding make sure to say it before that you're making a ****ing console game, instead of a more hardcore RPG made for PC. Also, you can do without my money in advance.
  9. Good post. Just two things: first, and it's not a really important issue, but how come you have 0 Italians showing in your surveys (even some African countries did better) when I know I did the survey and also some other friends of mine (all Italians) did? Second: about the DLC/expansion question I think you should've asked your fans how they feel about mid-game content and post-game content. I, for one, prefer Mask of the Betrayer-style expansions (not only because it was a masterpiece) rather than White March or New Vegas DLCs which force you to reload an old save or start a new game and play for several hours before you can enjoy the new content. I think it would've been useful to know this piece of information too.
  10. I've only just lurked GAF a few times, but it always seemed terrible to me: people getting banned for no reasons, thought police, hive minded users, everything needed to be political and if you had the "wrong" opinion about something you were deemed a racist/sexist/homophobe/etc piece of **** and banned (even if you didn't actually say anything offensive). It's funny that it's always these kind of guys (like the owner of GAF) who turn out to be huge hypocrites who say one thing while acting a lot differently IRL.
  11. Edit: WTF? The forum has deleted my post when I pressed "post" instead of sending it correctly. Edit 2: I'll write again. Well, I agree completely with the poster above. As much as I liked TWM (and it was really great, part 2 especially), I much prefer having expansions a la Mask of the Betrayer, that are instantly playable right from the start menu. Also, I think DLCs like TWM or the New Vegas ones feel like they're made for people who just buy GOTY editions of your games, and instead are kind of a pain in the ass for your most loyal fans who buy the games at day one and then have to start a new game and replay for 15-20 hours just to gain access to the new content, or reload an old save if they still have it which comes with other problems, like the fact that you have a strong PC that will not face any challenge since the DLC is made with level 7 PCs in mind.
  12. Yes, I mean old school ones. Dragon Age:Origins would probably make the cut, at least it had some effort. The sequels were EA rubbish. The console versions don't need to be huge successes, they are meant for extra profit, especially in PoE's case since the core audience will be on PC's for a long time. Although in some cases the company might have an existing fanbase even on consoles. if you look at Obsidian's portfolio there's plenty of multiplatform games there so having a customer base on consoles isn't far fetched idea in that case.. Yes, the core audience is on PC. That much is clear, as the games will be better on PC. I think it comes down to which company is making the game. InXile doesn't have much of a following outside the PC gamers, even there they are slipping. In Larian's case the IP is old, but still fresh unlike Wasteland IP. Divinity 2 was released on XBOX360, so there might be some existing fans on consoles as well. Well, DA:O had a way higher budget, so it's not fair to compare it with the likes of D:OS, PoE and WL2. I liked it and it's probably the last good rpg from BioWare, but with that budget and marketing it's obvious that it sold quite a lot, on consoles as well as PC. I agree with you that Obsidian is surely more known by console players than inXile and Larian, so there might be some fans there who could try more of their games, although PoE is very different than New Vegas, KotOR II and the other multi-platform games they made, so while a new NV-style game would probably be very successful I don't think too many of them will be willing to try PoE's console versions. On that note, maybe Cain and Boyarsky's project, which should be multi-platform, will be more welcome by console players, although of course it's too early to say anything about it, since we know nothing about that game right now.
  13. 1. What other western turnbased/proper RPG can claim numbers like that on consoles? It shows there's a viable market for such games and not only for Final Fantasy and Skyrim and it's clones. When you compare the numbers, you have to take into account that the PC version has been out much longer, has been on multiple sales and was part of the D:OS2 Kickstarter campaign. Yes, even without those it would still be in favour of the PC version. But the port is also cheaper to make than building the game from ground up on PC. In that sense the sale numbers are great. If the game had sold more... well it depends. Does Larian go all in and hire plenty of more staff members and do they skip the Kickstarter for D:OS2. I doubt they would want to skip the Kickstarter campaign even in that scenario. It's free marketing for a small company and I don't see Larian doing a Kickstarter for multiplatform version of D:OS2 since it would alienate PC gamers and the risk is just too big to take. If by proper RPG you mean "old-school" rpgs, probably nothing else. WL2 sold definetely less, T:ToN failed terribly and well, most of the other post-Kickstarter rpgs (or even some indies like AoD, Underrail, etc.) never released on consoles so we can't compare their numbers to Larian and inXile's titles. D:OS sold definetely enough to cover the cost of the conversion (which were probably low) and get some profit out of it, but it's also the most successful rpg of this kind in the last years. I don't know if WL2 made much of a profit on consoles, for instance (probably a small one). So, one fail (T:ToN) and two games that managed to get some profit, but none of them were huge successes, unlike D:OS and PoE on PC. Looking at the numbers I think it's fair to say that the audience for this genre is mostly on PC. Beyond that, we should also consider that to many console players D:OS was probably the first game of this style that they tried, they may have found a new genre that they like but they may also have tried out of curiosity and discover it's not really what they want, so It's not certain that next "classic" rpgs would sell even as much as D:OS.
  14. 1. For a game that was ported to consoles year after the PC release it is a good and solid number. It's a niche market even on PC, selling 300-400k on consoles is amazing and I'm sure they made a hefty profit with those numbers. They aren't releasing it as a multiplatform game because they asked money on Kickstarter and it would be just bad PR to do that, not to mention the company doesn't have endless resources. For them it's more important to get the game out on PC than release it on all platforms at the same time because their core audience is on PC. With the 300-400k copies sold, I'm sure they will end up releasing D:OS2 on consoles as well later on. 2. No, they didn't port the games because back then it would have been technically pretty much impossible to do that, so instead they came up with a way to bring the franchise on consoles. Dark Alliance games were one of the few succesful games Interplay released on consoles. Interplay was late to the console party and went under because of that, not because they focused on consoles. PC piracy was ridicilous back in those days, I'm pretty sure everyone at my school who played Fallout had it as a pirate copy. You can't succeed when 75% of your potential clients won't pay for the content but will get it for free instead. 1) How can those be amazing numbers when PC alone (one platform vs two platforms) sold about 1.5 million copies? Of course it's not a Witcher 3 which can sold like 10 million copies, but still it had great sales on PC, so there's a not so small audience there, while on consoles the audience for this kind of games is much smaller. I agree that D:OS2 will probably get ported to consoles about one year after PC release, as D:OS1, but the fact that it will be out for PC first proves that consoles are a secondary market for this type of rpgs. If it sold as much on consoles as it did on PC, D:OS2 would probably release as a multiplatform title. 2) You do have a point here, PC gaming back then was not at its best. Still, I don't think that making a spin-off for consoles like Dark Alliance means BG got ported to consoles too, and Interplay failed because of mismanagement more than anything else, Icewind Dale, BG and even Fallout all made profits (although BG made far more money than the other IPs) and those were PC-centric games, but their non-RPG departments wasted too much money and BIS' success couldn't save the company.
  15. And surprise surprise, it looks terrible to play with a pad, even if it's just the beginning and there are no more than three PCs to control in the party, and none of them is a caster. Who could ever have imagined that a game like, with a lot of micromanaging and and a gameplay precisely studied for m&k, this would've played terribly with a pad?
  16. 1. Well if DoS:EE sold 300-400k copies on consoles, I hardly call that disappointing. With those numbers a 10 month development cycle makes perfect sense for Paradox. The point is extra revenue, more brand recognition and catering to the rpg fans on consoles, obviously there are some or otherwise DoS wouldn't have sold so well. Also, it wouldn't be first time a developer doesn't dumb down their game, just because someone ports their game on consoles. 2. I must have missed the part where they promised that the game would be a PC exclusive for eternity. You are talking about a scenario that didn't even happen. None of what you said happened, none of it. The console port doesn't change anything, it's not a financial risk for Obsidian. PoE2 development will continue, PoE1 will still be playable in it's current state on PC. Oh, and even Baldur's Gate series made it to consoles. 3. Uh, the DLC didn't come out right after release and if they hadn't released it in parts it would have taken ~a year which is too long or at least with the info they had they thought it would be too long. Especially since they heavily tweaked the game when the expansion came out, making it a lot better. With Tyranny they have taken a different course, although they did release few DLC's for it to show the game is still being supported. So one could say that they've either learned from PoE or they are trying to see if 10 months without a bigger DLC won't have an impact on sales. Either way they are reacting to what went on with PoE's expansion. 4. I just don't care what Paradox does with these small packs. If they have a market for it, fine. I personally couldn't care less about any additional portraits for their games, hence I just won't buy them. If someone else is willing to pay for such content, fine. 5. It doesn't serve any purpose to YOU. Take the blinds off your eyes and look around, there's a world around you and everything doesn't revolve around you and your well being and needs. Since you clearly have some psychic abilities as well, why don't you look to the future and check EuroJackpot winning numbers for tomorrow. I'm not preaching, I'm just stating a fact that severing all ties with Paradox would mean job losses and one less publisher to work with in the future, when there's already too few to begin with. That is not the way to run a business if you want to stay alive. You don't burn the bridges, you try fix what went wrong and learn from the mistakes. If you look at Paradox's portfolio they haven't release games like PoE or Tyranny before. PoE had the Kickstarter campaign giving it a huge boost, Tyranny didn't. Paradox's marketing is heavily focused on streaming and they benefit a lot from streaming, crgp's aren't really streamable and now they need to figure out a different plan to promote games like Tyranny in the future. 1) D:OS sold that on console (which is not that much, btw), and 1.3 millions copies on Steam alone, which probably means the total PC sales are like 1.5 million if you include GOG and other stores, which means both consoles combined have sold like 1/4 or 1/5 of the PC version alone. Consoles were also so successful that Larian is making D:OS2 only for PC now, and maybe will bring it to xbox and ps4 later, instead of releasing it as a multiplatform game. Also, D:OS is also more successful than PoE (about 400k copies more on Steam) and was released on consoles two years ago, I don't think PoE will go even near those numbers on consoles today. 2) They also never said that they would only make classic top-down rpgs, so I guess it would be also fine if they make PoE3 an action rpg. And lol about BG, they made a ****ty spin-off for consoles, they didn't port the games. Also, what a fiffing example considering Interplay died just a few years after it decided to focus on consoles and failed. 3) I don't know why you're trying to defend their decisions, but look at facts: they suggest to split TWM --> it fails commercially; they handle Tyranny's marketing and business side of things ---> it fails commercially. Don't you see a pattern? 4) Fine, then let everyone come up with terrible and anti-consumers models, who cares right? 5) Again, you don't answer my point and make up excuses than have nothing to do with the fact that Paradox doesn't know how to market rpgs. Also, my "cut the ties with Paradox" proposal didn't mean that Feargus should've gone to a meeting and say "**** off" to them, he has talked about self-publishing and taking a more active role with PoE himself, I'm not making **** up. It's not like he can't do that because otherwise Paradox will react like a 4 yo boy and get offended, like you seem to suggest. By the way, I feel this discussion is pointless, none of us will change his position and we're also repeating the same sentences at this point. You have your opinion, I have mine. I guess we'll have to wait and see how PoE fares on consoles. My guess is it won't sell that well because the audience for this kind of games on consoles is almost non-existent, but we'll see.
  17. 1) Look at how every game of the so-called RPG renaissance has performed on consoles and you can understand that console players don't care about these RPGs, so what's the point in bringing them to consoles when at most they sell like 1/4 of the PC version if you combine PS4 and XO together? You do have a point in saying that Obsidian has more to lose here than BioWare and EA, sure. But it would not be the first time that a dev try to dumb down its games to reach a new, bigger audience (most of the time failing, but that's another topic). I don't even think it will really happen, but there's a slim chance now thanks to this useless porting and I don't like it. 2) You're right and in fact I'm sure that if they announce a console version of PoE right before their crowdfunding campaign people would give them the same amount of money sure, no one would be disappointing by seeing a dev that promised to make a spiritual successor of BG and a game exclusively made for PC would instead try to reach the console audience (and probably fail at it). 3) I don't follow you here. First you defend them by saying they were right to make a DLC right after release, now you defend their decision to do the exact opposite thing? Are you serious? Also, I never said it's bad that they released DLCs six months after release, I don't care about that, I only said that Paradox's policies about DLCs are bad and they didn't improve PoE nor Tyranny's sales with their clueless decisions. 4) I don't know why you feel the need to defend Paradox's DLCs, what's next? Microtransactions? Freemium games? I'm happy to support a good company when they do something worthwhile, but a Portrait Pack should be given for free, not charged 4 euros. Look at CDP Red, The Witcher 3 sold a lot of copies, but they didn't start to milk their loyal consumers with useless DLCs, they gave all the small ones for free, that's something I can apreciate and support, not Paradox's way. 5) I'm pissed off about this port, because it serves no purpose and cannot bring anything good in the future of the series (at best, it will fail and everything will stay the same, stop). Tyranny was mediocre, and what's the point about your preaching about some poor people losing their jobs? It's not like I have money to waste at games I don't think are even that good (and I did buy Tyranny at d1, btw) just because otherwise someone gets fired. By they way, I was talking about how Paradox handled Tyranny in a bad way, which is quite objective since the game sold less than expected, and their decision to split PoE's expansion wasn't fortunate as well. I don't care to talk about how no other publisher would work with Obsidian, or "but what about devs losing their jobs", since they have nothing to do with what I said, which, and I'll repeat myself here, is that Paradox proved to be a bad publisher for Obsidian. Can you really say they did a good job and that Obsidian should continue to work with them, so that we might have the great benefit of seeing pointless and overpriced DLCs and see their Steam ratings drop because Paradox thinks itself so genius to raise the prices of their games and that players are too stupid to notice that?
  18. Lol, the game is not even out and console users are already asking to dumb the game down. GG Obsidian, this will turn out nicely. Can't wait for multi-platform, 4 team member sized, with cooldowns, and hugely dumbed down in everything PoE3. Are you handicapped or something? In addition, I clearly backed the original game on Kickstarter (i.e. I play on the PC) since the icons are front and center under my user name. WTF does "allow to control the amount of experience required to level or this is a total no-play on consoles" even mean? That console users care about this, as opposed to PC gamers who don't? (not true) Also, how should the players be allowed to determine their experience and stuff? Like, "mhm, I completed a quest, now let's choose how much XP I get from this"? It's Obsidian who should balance the experience given by quests, not players. And Obsidian isn't even working on this, Paradox (which know nothing about the game systems design) is, so if they even try to touch anything it will probably be for the worse. 1. Yes, Obsidian has the final say. Why does it matter if someone releases a console port for the game when it's not Obsidian? Because console players shouldn't be allowed to play games like Cities:Skylines and PoE? Just because they are allowing PoE to be ported to consoles doesn't mean they would go all InXile on us and make the next game with consoles in mind from the get go. If their plans on PoE IP goes as planned they will make an open world game like Skyrim in the setting (not PoE 3), which would make it quite important for their IP and brand to have some recognition before hand on the console crowds. Not to mention any financial gain they get from this deal will help them get there, as well going to that self publishing mode Feargus has been talking about. 2. And how exactly are they giving the finger to backers? They are allowing someone else to port their 2 year old game to consoles. They are not making PoE2 with consoles in mind or creating console version of that game either. How much it sells is quite irrelevant depending on the deal. Obsidian isn't using their own resources or funds to create the port, hence it's Paradox that is taking the risk. InXile did all the work themselves. 3. Well, Paradox is right about timing. Most games get first DLC quite fast after the initial launch date, if Obsidian had waited until the whole expansion pack was done, it would have been one year after the game came out which is far too late for most people. I had trouble getting into the expansion even after the shorter wait period and I'm not alone on this. 4. If Paradox has customer who want to buy such things, then let them buy such things. I would hardly call it exploiting if there is demand for such packs. If it was force fed with larger DLC packs, then it would be exploiting. 5. Sure, cut all ties. Lose whatever Tyranny based projects they have going on and possible future publishing deals such World of Darkness game. There are soooo many publishers just waiting to publish CRPG's. 1) I don't give a **** about console peasants, these games don't work on their ****ty consoles, they don't even like this genre, so **** no, they shouldn't get portings for PoE and similar titles. Also, maybe it won't happen to PoE, but you're quite naive if you think that developing games on console changes nothing and doesn't affect the PC version as well (and in a negative way). Just look at Dragon Age: first game developed mostly with PC in mind --> good game, even if a bit dumbed down to appease to console users; other two developed with consoles in mind --> utter ****, no sense of tactic whatsoever. 2) Backers backed PoE and PoE2 to have a PC game, made for the PC audience. If you start bringing the game to consoles you're letting those people down (most of them, at least). Many people wouldn't even back (or back at a lower pledge) if they knew Obsidian would start considering a console version of this series. How much it sells is quite relevant, instead: if the port goes well, you might as well say goodbye to a good, future PoE made with PC in mind and say welcome to a multi-platform, dumbed down **** no one wants from this game. Luckily, I think PoE on consoles will sell almost nothing, so we'll probably avoid that terrible scenario. 3) Splitting the DLC into half didn't improve anything, in fact it wasn't successful. Also, they don't seem to care so much about timing for Tyranny, since they are releasing DLCs after more than half a year. 4) Who cares if they fraud morons out of their money, yeah sure. Totally a sound business model that should be supported, can't wait for other companies to start filling their games with endless, useless DLCs too. 5) Tyranny, lol. First of all, the game was not that good from the start so if they don't make a second one I'll not lose my sleep over it. But if you care about it, then okay let's just say I hope Obsidian cut their ties to them in regards to PoE, since I don't want Paradox to damage this IP as they've been trying since the announcement of the publishing deal.
  19. That's the thing, they didn't do the port themselves. Instead Paradox did it and Obsidian gets some money out of the deal that they can use on their other projects. T:ToN port was made by InXile while they were making the game for PC, Mac etc. , this is a completely different case as Obsidian didn't have much or anything to do with the development. Sure they've probably went through some design choices and okayed a bunch of ideas, but actual work that takes longer times of periods. Uh, I doubt it. So, no. I don't see this is going the same road as InXile. I think they said it early on, that they would not work on any console port themselves but were open to an idea of someone doing it for them, if a good opportunity comes up. Can't remember if this was even asked during the original Kickstarter campaign as well. But the idea has been there for years as far as I remember. Are you sure it was Paradox's plan to cut the expansion in two? From what I've read the decision was made because it would have otherwise taken them too long to get an expansion out and this was from Obsidian. Don't like the portrait pack? Don't buy it, pretty simple. Obviously there is a market for such packs or Paradox wouldn't have those out for pretty much every single game they've created. I guess Paradox's marketing studies disagree with your assesment on the market for rpg's on consoles. Otherwise they would not dish out money to port the game to consoles. While they might not make millions, I'm pretty sure they've got better info on the actual market for such games than some random guy on forums. One does not just simply go for self publishing. It takes time and guess what partners don't really grow on trees either. 1) Paradox may have asked for this porting, but Obsidian had the final word since they own the IP and they accepted to let them do this abomination for peasants. It will probably fail, but if it won't be ready for PoE3: Inquisition, which will be made with consoles in mind. 2) inXile is worse, yeah, but that doesn't mean I want to see Obsidian giving the finger to their backers and supporters like this and trying to chase the mythical console audience (spoiler: they won't since they don't care about these games, see how WL2, T:ToN and D:OS sold on consoles vs how much they sold on PC) 3) I remember someone from Obsidian, probably Feargus, saying that they were going to listen to Paradox's business ideas and use their expertise in how to expand the game. Cut to a few months and you got a two-parts dlc that failed commercially, despite being very good, even better than the base game gameplay-wise. 4) Of course I won't buy that ****, that doesn't mean it's okay to sell some ****ing portraits for 4 euros, it's exploiting your loyal consumers and fans and milk money out of them, which is not something I want to see in games that I care of (which Obsidian's games usually are) 5) I'm not suggesting them to start self-publishing right now, even if it did work for Larian, just that they cut their ties with Paradox, that has done nothing but harm to both PoE and Tyranny.
  20. Lol, the game is not even out and console users are already asking to dumb the game down. GG Obsidian, this will turn out nicely. Can't wait for multi-platform, 4 team member sized, with cooldowns, and hugely dumbed down in everything PoE3.
  21. What the **** is this ****, Obsidian? If you start making useless console ports I'll stop giving you my money in your next crowdfunding campaigns. You saw how well the console **** has turned out for inXile, with their T:ToN selling nothing on consoles and failing hard on PC as well because their supporters were disappointed by their idiotic decisions, don't go on their same road or be prepared to lose your fans and their money. Edit: also, I think it's high time that you part ways with those hacks at Paradox. First, they decide to split White March in two parts, which resulted in a dlc that sold less than what was expected and would have probably performed better if it was release as one, big expansion, then they publish Tyranny in the worst way possible, making a terrible marketing campaign for it and the game performed poorly, in the last month they announced some terribly overpriced DLCs for Tyranny (a ****ing portrait pack at 4 €, I mean WTF?) and now they push for this useless console port that will be a gigantic fail since no one on consoles wants to play these kind of games. Find a new partner, or start self-publishing your games before you're dragged down by their ineptitude.
  22. Paypal will probably be set up only after the end of the campaign, so I don't think they'll count those backers toward the Fulvano's voyage, and I'm fine with it. They went overboard with Od Nua's Endless Path, which would've been better if it had only 5-6 levels, and I hope they don't do the same mistake here.
  23. Sure you can. You can carve him up the same way you would any commoner or backer character when you meet him outside Caed Nua or later on in Brighthollow. I haven't tried it while he's an active member in your current party as opposed to just hanging around the keep, but it probably just takes longer since you'd have to work your way through Endurance and Health. Yeah well, you're right. I stand corrected.
  24. Won't happen that way because you can't kill outright kill him in the game, he can just die in battle or die in the blood pool as a sacrifice but no one knows it's your choice in that case, so you won't be held responsible for his death. Still, it will be interesting to see how she reacts if you import a save in which Kana is dead.
  25. Romance aside, the deeper character relationship is an interesting goal, but I have some doubts regarding characters traits. For example, Eder was used by JES to explain the system in the video, and while I can understand his "love for animals" and "dislike for zealots" traits, I don't think a generic "racist" trait fit him very well. First of all, he doesn't really seem to have problems with other people/cultures/races/whatever in the game, he only made some comments that highlight a mild prejudice against orlans (wild orlans in particular), which fit his uneducated farmer background quite well and is also a very common thing among Dyrwoodians (and actually we've also seen evidence of orlans not being well regarded even in Glanfathan), so it's not like he's any worse than his countrymen and women. At most he could be considered a guy with some "prejudice against orlans", even though that doesn't stop him from trying (albeit without any social grace and thus failing quite miserably) to be friendly toward Hiravias, nor that mean he treat orlans unfairly/in mean ways in the course of the game. I actually thought that make him a better, more believable character, and his banters with Hiravias in which he says the "face of skin let 'em in, face of hair best beware" was pretty funny, so I wouldn't consider "racist" one of his defining personality traits honestly. Besides, if he's racist for such minor comments, I guess pretty much anyone else should get the racist trait as well. Even Hiravias himself makes a lot of jokes and even some mean comments about Dyrwoodians and their culture, making clear that he has a prejudice against them (although it's quite obvious given his background), does that makes him racist as well? The only one that actually seem racist to me in PoE was Durance: he thinks orlans are little more than beasts, he hates other cultures and deities/religions (Aedyr, Raedceras, Eothas, etc.). He was also a great character who fit the setting well, even if he wasn't what most of us consider a "good person", so I'm hoping we're not moving towards political correctness with the writing of this sequel, making every character bland and without a real/believable personality, just to avoid being offensive toward "some people". Having half of Tyranny's writing team on board for PoE2 doesn't exactly looks good on this regard either, given how was it filled with politically corrected BS that was detrimental to the quality of its characters.
  • Create New...