Sedrefilos

Yeah, IE games had the most boring lvl ups ever unless you were a mage, sorcerer, druid or cleric so you could at least slect spells and stuff. Then it was semi-boring PoE has numerous stuff at each lvl up.

I believe 12 lvls is not that bad in a party-based game 'cause you split skills and abilities between paty members. If it was a single character game, maybe you'd want more levels.

I believe Josh said it's around 8 if you go mostly critical path and 12 (lvl cap) if you go exploring.

I wasn't expecting any progress, PrimeJunta. I said I'm considering not helping in a next kickstarter because of the price, then people started to jump in and talking on behalf of Obsidian. The conversation spread, so I asked if Obsidian coulod explain that. Brandon Adler wrote a post pretty much saying "because" and that's it. Fans are ok with that, other people are not. Life continues.

I actually don't give a toot about the publishers. I have nothing against publishers. They provide a useful service. Publishing a game requires a whole different set of activities, skills, contacts, and what have you than developing one. I do of course have a whole range of beefs against specific publishers, but that's neither here nor there. I like Kickstarter because it lets developers throw things at the wall and see if they stick. A publisher has to take a best guess about whether something will sell enough to be worth publishing since it'll eat the loss if it doesn't. This means that pitching something new is going to be an uphill battle since it's inherently riskier. With Kickstarter, either the idea flies or it doesn't. We -- the people who will actually play the damn things -- get to decide, directly. I.e., the publisher can throw any damn-fool idea at us, and either we'll like it or we won't. This also makes for a much healthier power relationship. Instead of the developer being beholden to the publisher's best guesses about what sells and what doesn't, they, again, talk directly to us, their public. If a publisher is involved, there's going to be much less uncertainty about how well the product will do in the market, which means the developer is in a better negotiating position too. Less risk, better deal. And even the publisher likes it better, because, hey, less risk. If the dev chooses to bring a publisher on board at some point -- for marketing, distribution, and what have you -- I say by all means. I wouldn't even object if the publisher is in from the start. Some publishers are pretty damn cool actually, Paradox for example. If they were involved in a KS, I would not count that as a minus. Who said I have anything with any publisher at all? They're saying that, that's why they're going kickstarter. But this has to lower the price. They didn't do it so, I guess the no publisher blah blah was to hook more people into it. Shame This goes to several other companies out there, not only Obsidian, btw.

Well I don't intend of starting a movement for boycotting video games with high prices. The majority of those who are into video game culture are not of that mentality anyway, else they would 've done it long ago. Nor do I believe if the prices were lower the quality of the games would be meh. Again, the DA:I expample prooves it otherwise. I'm just dissapointed that the crowndfunding movement cares only about them not having publishers over their head and exploit the geekiness and wealth of people in video games to easy fund their games then act as publishers would do pricewise.

Nice to see Brandon answering. To those who ask where do we know Obsidian spent 0 money; well, the kickstarter campaign. "Give us 1 million to make the game - we won't go to a publisher". No prototype or alpha stage to show (like many others have done), just the idea of a game. And those who want additional money from kikcster, they say it beforehand "hey, we've made it thus far, we want your help to finish it. Give us money". Pretty straightforward. Obsidian never said anything like that. Content comes from budget also. A budget Obsidian got through crowdfunding. Of course I have no reason not to belive Brandon. If he says Obsidian poured much of their resources in, then I raise my hands. Brandon also says something I noted when I mentioned the DA:I example; companies price their games whatever they like, despite the cost because people are used to spend that money without question. Yeah, yeah I know, it's a luxury. We come from different worlds I guess.

If they talk, I'd love if they're voiced. Dragons talking was done so nice in IE and NWN games

I only mentioned Paradox because Ark Evensong brought it up. I have nothing against them. After all, Obsidian invited them over. If they need an extra distributor it's fine by me, although they were presented as publishers. The main price argument/question remains and this is my only concern. It is the only problem I have about the game. Actually not even about the game; about Obsidian's pricing policy.

I don't know if they've decided the 42 price for the extra 3 months; noone knows. The big titles cost 50-60, yet I found DA:I for 48 in a retail store. In their own store, Origin, it costs 60. This means EA could have sell it much cheaper. I guess this could go for anyone. Anyway. I didn't back the game for Paradox to get involved. NO PUBLISHERS was one of their major points during kickstarter. The game costs about 20 if you back the project, yet it costs 42 if you don't. Some people made some points about this, I myself am not sure. Anyway, if Obsidian doesen't want to answer, then fine. But don't pretend you know as well as them by assuming things.

The reason I am jumping on you is your accusations are empty, your facts are wrong, and furthermore I want Obsidian to make a lot of money on this so I reject your entire premise. Part of the reason I backed this game was so that Obsidian could make 100% profit on any sales. I am completely 100% your enemy on this point. The last thing I want to see is some revolt against Obsidian undermining them at this important juncture. Further you are a backer so you already got the game at a discount. If you have a problem with the price, it will be onsale at some point. If Obsidian wants to give you an explanation that is up to them but I have every right and justification to disagree with you. Enemy on what? You haven't read anything I wrote except my last post didn't you? I never said I'm against Obsidian making profit. I find the price just too high and I don't see the reason for this. I'm also a backer as you obviously (?) see; I've already bought the game at a lower price. Anyway I've explained myself in detail in umerous posts before. Read 'em if you wish. You see as enemies anyone that dissagrees (?) with you so easily? What can I say.

The only one that can answer is Obsidian. I have a valid arguement. 1+1=2. People may say it's The Market, or I don't care it's luxury, or what did you expect or whatever, nothing of which changes the fact that this is a game with 0 personal money invenstment that costs as much as a game that someone put their money in to produce it. I don't understand why are people jumping to protect and speak on behalf of Obsidian like they know something more. If Obsidian wants to answer this, let them do it and here I am.

You can check this latest video series. You can pause whenever to read at your pace. The game heas a very detailed built-in encyclopedia (called cyclopedia) covering each and every aspect of its mechanics. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70742-here-is-my-first-video-of-a-series-of-video-of-the-backer-beta-for-those-wo-bb-access/ There are many other video series that may prove useful and also you check the official wiki for other information. heh, to be honest this is the first game I follow for 2 years and couldn't yet decide what my character would be. I think it has the most interesting character creation ever

I agree. However I don't think pricing has any bearing on morality at all... when we're dealing with a luxury good rather than a necessity, at least. Obsidian should charge however much they believe the market can bear. They didn't promise us anything different -- as far as I can tell -- and nobody's going to die out of not being able to afford to buy a license. Whatever they're able to make from this, they will have earned. (I do think that pricing, say, life-saving medicines to market is immoral. Which is one reason I think the pharmaceutical industry should be socialized. But I digress.) Of course. I didn;t say they promised anything about prices. I just had expectations about it. Not only from Obsidian. Being naive I guess.

Haha, Lord of Riva, my friend, worry not. I don't have racial prejudices I don't believe all germans are the same as I don't believe all greeks are poor victims To be honest, I mostly care about immigrants here, since extreme rightists found their opportunity to "shine". Finances can be fixed, human lives cannot

Things in Greece must suck right now. I hope the Germans come to their senses before it's too late. My sympathies. Nevertheless, I get a feeling you're shifting your argument. Earlier I got the impression that you were arguing that Obsidian's pricing was morally wrong; now you seem to be arguing that it's a poor business decision. That's a different argument, and one I have no opinion on as I have zero experience pricing games. That said: P:E is a niche game. I'm pretty sure it would not shift Skyrim-like units even if they set the price at one cent, or zero. The market for PC/Mac/Linux party-based isometric top-down RTwP RPG's is limited, and expanding it is uphill work. I have no idea how big it is -- a million consumers? two million? five million? -- but it's certainly smaller than the Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Angry Birds, or Skyrim market... or the T-shirt market, for that matter. That means that setting the launch price too low is potentially more dangerous than setting it too high, as that'll saturate the market at a lower price than you could have had, whereas you can always lower the price later -- indeed, you're expected to do so. This is capitalism. You have to make profit if you need to survive and expand. The more profit, the best for you. That said, you can also be a moral person and make profit at the same time. Or at least be a reasonable person. Yes, I still believe the 42 euros price is immoral (call it greed, call it exploitation of the market standard, whatever) and a lower 20ish price would be more acceptable if they have to capitalize on the game. Note that the morality argument comes from the fact that Obsidian has poured 0 of their money in it, so profit is guaranteed even if one copy is sold (only it won't be much of a profit ) and not for wanting to make profit in general. Of course I don't expect them to do this for the love of the genre only. But you can be selling and be moral at the same time. Say, "hey, the game is out, we've been paid for our work, now, if we're to continue working on pillars, we must make a new sum. Because we owe no money to noone for the production of the game, we can set a lower price. Please try it out and support us for more self-published material - our vision-focoused only ". Or just go for low price and say nothing. People will learn why they did so and will appriciate it. For me, the most honest move by all croudfunded games would be offering the game for free (since they don't have to cover any expences) and then say "hey, you that played it. Price it and send the money; whatever you value it". But that's too utopic About the game being niche. Ok, that's a choice they made (I believe the game will sell over 500,000 copies easily, tbh). Niche games go with lower profit. This can't change the fact that the game is overpriced. I know a lot of you think I'm being rediculous, by I just can wrap my head around selling a 0 cost money as much as a blockbuster one. Sorry.

That's more money I'm talking about. Only it'll come by more sales due to lower (reasonable) prices, not by high initial prices. If you find it ok to buy a crowdfunded game at the same price as publisher-involved, please do. But I believe my arguements are reasonable and even if I might buy some games because I have the money at the time and want to play it, or back it because I want to play it when it comes out (at least I'll get the reasonable price there) it doesen't mean I find it ok and won't encourage others to do so. And of course I won't jump to defend the companies doing it as if It is my job.

I am working for-profit, I just don't overprofit. More money comes by more people buying my clothes, not by me overpricing them. btw, since you want to know, I live in Greece, a country suffering by a huge financial crisis since 2011. Everything is difficult at the time. Thankfully I didn't have to fire anyone; I just didn't hire more staff when others went on retirement (the company is 34 years old - belonging to my mother and uncle before me and my brother). I'm left with four emploees now and I mostly work with externals. Edit: I though that lowering your price will attract more people into buying your product instead of a similar more expensive, thus making you more competitive, not the other way around.

I can assure you this thing happens with my market, PrimeJunta, the clothes. A shirt might cost 14 euros (wholesale price) at the start of the season, during mid season it'll drop at 10 euros and at the end of the season it'll cost about 5 euros. The thing is, the shirt is not overpriced when it comes out. And I have a fixed price on it so the store cannot overprice it to the customers. And this happens with most fabrics. Tell me I'm an idiot for doing so. Edit: my previous example about Dragon Age Inquisition prettry prooves how companies can sell a game from their own store at very lower price than they do now and still have good profit. But they don't, just because they know most people will buy it no matter the cost. Because they mostly work with the geek majority who is willing to spend that money for the new hot game just came out, and not with me or you who wait for the low prices. But this doesen't change the fact that they can sell it much cheaper with no risk and they don't do it. As if the game HAS to drop to low price or else...

They didn't pitch it to anyone. They said "if we'd pitch it, they wouldn't care". And I believe this would be the case. They never said anything about the final price anyway; and I didn't backed them for that. The thing is, when the kickstarter mania broke out (I backed other games too), I thought it was a great idea to cut out useless publishers and help some compnaies make something that is not out there, give a boost to the genre and have great games come out in lower prices. The last one was met only by the Banner Saga guys. Everyone else sold the games at the publisher price (I can only excuse the Larian people because they self-funded 3/4 of the game). So, it's "we're against publishers involved, only partially; only to the part it has to do with us". If this is the case, it is good to know. But I have to know by the companies themselves, not from their fans who only project their oppinion of how might the case be. And I believe the subject is not discussed at all. And this is because, imo, the majority of the people who buy games are people who have no finacial problems. So the price in not a problem. And companies can rely on that. But here we have an opportunity to have great games, no external interference to the vision of the creators and a lower price for more people. Edit: I love Obsidian work too. And Black Island and Troika. I wouldn't back them else. I believe they have the rightest (is this a word?) ideas about how pc rpgs should evolve. But this thing with the price... I don't know... The geekiness might overwhelm me if they kickstart a sequel and I might succumb, but I won't talk anyone I know into necessary buying a croudfunded project they made if they're sceptic about the price. I'll give them my own.

I think it is "because we can". You know what it'd also be great in addition to the "we don't need publishers to tell us what and who to make our games, the people who love them will" kickstarter attitude? "Letting fans fund us helps us drop less or no money into our game. This helps us lower the price and make them accessible to more people" attitude. At this point is "we don;t need you publishers, we have our fans to give us the money. And we're smarter than you because we can spend 0 money to make them and sell them at the same price as you do. And also we have our loyal fans defending us".

If someone believes it's ok to give 42 euros to buy the game, it's ok by me. I gave 26, which I believe is a reasonable price. But if I have the question "why, Obsidian, this game costs 42 euros since you didn't invenst your money in it?" then I'd want an answer from someone from Obsidian not their loyal defenders who have their own theories. If they want to answer, ofcourse.

This warms my blood-red Communist heart: Marx's theory of value is alive and well. Regrettably full Communism has not been achieved yet, though, and while I admire your revolutionary fervor, it is unreasonable to expect that a capitalist corporation functioning in a market economy knowingly price their goods in a way that does not bring back maximum profits. That's a fast track to bankruptcy. Even if Obsidian sold one copy for 1$ it'll be maximum profit for them, since the game costs 0$ to them. I understand that a video game is a luxury - it's not a necessity for living - but a price is something that has to do with the cost of production. And this goes to all products. If a thing is expensive to produce, it'll be expensive to buy. If a thing costs nothing to produce... well at least you'd expect it to be cheaper than other stuff with higher production cost. Again. I'm talking about someone that puts their money in a product and has to first cover the expenses, then make a profit so to continue. I make clothes for living. I don't put the same price to each t-shirt. I value the production cost of each single t-shirt, then I put a percentage on top - that's the profit I try to make. This is how things work in capitalism, if you want to be honest. You can be greedy of course and put the same max price to every product you make no matter what the cost of production is for you. In our case, we have a game that cost 0$ for Obsidian to make it (money from their pocket I mean), yet they sell it the same price like a product that costed a company 10 million (of their own money) to make... ok some might not care, but I do - so it might be a deal breaker for me. And about video games and market prices being standard as some people say, I guess they believe companies that sell their games for 10$ (because it took them few to produce) are the biggest idiots in the world since they could sell them for 50$ because, hey, this is the video game market so no blame on them... Oh, and just because I find this game overpriced, I didn't say there are not other overpriced products in the market. We're only talking about PoE here. People already mentioned opportunity costs, did they not? Or does one need to explain again what opportunity costs are? Obsidian said explicitly that they don't only want to succeed in making one game, ideally they want to break free the need for additional funding through Kickstarter or publisher. If Obsidian had enough profit from sales to make PoE 2 all by themselves without Kickstarter, that would be perfect for them. Being self-sustaining is very important in business. If you make a company that needs heavy investment every three years, but barely covers the initial costs, you may as well close it down. Same for Obsidian. If they just barely scrap by, but make no profit, what is the point of this company anyway? That is not secure work place, that is not lucrative and it would be very, very short-sighted to settle for that kind of business model. Where am I saying anything about not making profit? I only said that he game is overpriced. I don't expect them not to make profit, but here they don't have to cover expenses for production that costs money from their pockets. Each single copy sold is pure profit for Obsidian. And that's ok. I just believe, since the game costs ZERO bucks to them, they could use this for selling it at a lower price (say 20$). They're not losing, they're still profiting. It'll only be more accessible to more people and more honest by them. Okay, let's refresh what opportunity costs are. When you are working for 5 dollars an hour, you have opportunity costs, because if you put those work hours into something else, you could make perhaps 15 dollars an hour. If Obsidian makes Pillars of Eternity, it means they also have to compare how much money they would make if they worked on a different (perhaps more lucrative) project. Those opportunity costs are very important for businesses. If you ignore them, you make "invisible" profit losses. You say that Obsidian would still "win" even if they make no profit at all or very little profit. You really underestimate how much it matters for people losing out on other money incomes (like selling themselves to EA). Or maybe by making new games for publishers (who could give more money that Kickstarter ever could). Equally, lower price does not equal profit maximization. You don't make a lower price because "oh well, I can afford it". You set a lower price if you think this will sell you far more copies than you would sell otherwise (and thus make more profit). For now people are willing to pay a higher price. In half a year the game will be more accessible and cost less through sales. And... "honesty"? Really? Obsidian has extended development of the game, because they considered it not to be good enough yet. They have explicitly told us, that they just keep working till money runs out and now it has run out or will shortly. This is honest. But trying to push for lower prices, because you don't think their product is worth the money is insulting and dishonest, if you ask me. Well, they sold their product for 26 euros to me (when I backed it), a reasonable price. I don't see why they should sell it for 42 to other people. If they sold it for that price (again, game costs 0$ to them), and, after I played it, I saw that they've done a remarkable work (which I believe they did - I just have to verify by playing it ) then I'd bleed the ears of my friends "hey, man, buy this game don't dwonload it. It's been made by black Island veterans blah blah blah" or maybe I'd buy a copy for someone if I could. That's how I'd do to help them further. But when they say "hey, we want to go back to the late 90's, give us money, help, there is no other way, publishers treat us bad" etc, I give them the money beforehand and then they treat me like a publisher would (publisher put lots of money, sells expensive games) then, sorry, I can't help any further.

This warms my blood-red Communist heart: Marx's theory of value is alive and well. Regrettably full Communism has not been achieved yet, though, and while I admire your revolutionary fervor, it is unreasonable to expect that a capitalist corporation functioning in a market economy knowingly price their goods in a way that does not bring back maximum profits. That's a fast track to bankruptcy. Even if Obsidian sold one copy for 1$ it'll be maximum profit for them, since the game costs 0$ to them. I understand that a video game is a luxury - it's not a necessity for living - but a price is something that has to do with the cost of production. And this goes to all products. If a thing is expensive to produce, it'll be expensive to buy. If a thing costs nothing to produce... well at least you'd expect it to be cheaper than other stuff with higher production cost. Again. I'm talking about someone that puts their money in a product and has to first cover the expenses, then make a profit so to continue. I make clothes for living. I don't put the same price to each t-shirt. I value the production cost of each single t-shirt, then I put a percentage on top - that's the profit I try to make. This is how things work in capitalism, if you want to be honest. You can be greedy of course and put the same max price to every product you make no matter what the cost of production is for you. In our case, we have a game that cost 0$ for Obsidian to make it (money from their pocket I mean), yet they sell it the same price like a product that costed a company 10 million (of their own money) to make... ok some might not care, but I do - so it might be a deal breaker for me. And about video games and market prices being standard as some people say, I guess they believe companies that sell their games for 10$ (because it took them few to produce) are the biggest idiots in the world since they could sell them for 50$ because, hey, this is the video game market so no blame on them... Oh, and just because I find this game overpriced, I didn't say there are not other overpriced products in the market. We're only talking about PoE here. People already mentioned opportunity costs, did they not? Or does one need to explain again what opportunity costs are? Obsidian said explicitly that they don't only want to succeed in making one game, ideally they want to break free the need for additional funding through Kickstarter or publisher. If Obsidian had enough profit from sales to make PoE 2 all by themselves without Kickstarter, that would be perfect for them. Being self-sustaining is very important in business. If you make a company that needs heavy investment every three years, but barely covers the initial costs, you may as well close it down. Same for Obsidian. If they just barely scrap by, but make no profit, what is the point of this company anyway? That is not secure work place, that is not lucrative and it would be very, very short-sighted to settle for that kind of business model. Where am I saying anything about not making profit? I only said that he game is overpriced. I don't expect them not to make profit, but here they don't have to cover expenses for production that costs money from their pockets. Each single copy sold is pure profit for Obsidian. And that's ok. I just believe, since the game costs ZERO bucks to them, they could use this for selling it at a lower price (say 20$). They're not losing, they're still profiting. It'll only be more accessible to more people and more honest by them. Heck, if the game sells a relatively low ammount, say, 300,000 copies (which I believe it'll easily do), that is 6 million PURE profit in their pockets. Way more than they gathered via kickstarter. Kickstarter is supposed to be what it says; give a kick to get started. Then it should move by its own. If you need a second (or a third, or even more) kickstarter campaign to move on, this might mean a) well, the game didn't go that well, but I have some dedicated people who don't care and I rely on them to fund me or b) hah, I found my easy way of persuading geeks to pour their money in me so I can make games infinately and paying nothing for them. Then sorry I don't want to participate in this. I backed several games so that the old-schoolish rpg games can come back and continue forward from now on on their own not to milk me by exploiting my geekyness. One other thing about game prices. I wanted to buy DA:I, so I checked at their origin store and saw it is sold for 60 euros; digital download. "Ok" , I said " I guess it's going to be a pirate copy for me". Then I checked at a retail store, here in my country, and they were selling it for 48 euros. Now, the company that makes the game sells it for 60 euros digital, yet a retail store at the other side of the world sells a physical copy (plus box, plus dvds, plus shipping, plus cost to buy from distributor) 12 euros cheaper. Now, should or shouldn't I think that EA steals me? That they could sell the same game, digitally downloadable for, say, 30 euros and still make good profit? And they still complain about piracy...

This warms my blood-red Communist heart: Marx's theory of value is alive and well. Regrettably full Communism has not been achieved yet, though, and while I admire your revolutionary fervor, it is unreasonable to expect that a capitalist corporation functioning in a market economy knowingly price their goods in a way that does not bring back maximum profits. That's a fast track to bankruptcy. Even if Obsidian sold one copy for 1$ it'll be maximum profit for them, since the game costs 0$ to them. I understand that a video game is a luxury - it's not a necessity for living - but a price is something that has to do with the cost of production. And this goes to all products. If a thing is expensive to produce, it'll be expensive to buy. If a thing costs nothing to produce... well at least you'd expect it to be cheaper than other stuff with higher production cost. Again. I'm talking about someone that puts their money in a product and has to first cover the expenses, then make a profit so to continue. I make clothes for living. I don't put the same price to each t-shirt. I value the production cost of each single t-shirt, then I put a percentage on top - that's the profit I try to make. This is how things work in capitalism, if you want to be honest. You can be greedy of course and put the same max price to every product you make no matter what the cost of production is for you. In our case, we have a game that cost 0$ for Obsidian to make it (money from their pocket I mean), yet they sell it the same price like a product that costs a company 10 million (of their own money) to make... ok some might not care, but I do - so it might be a deal breaker for me. And about video games and market prices being standard as some people say, I guess they believe companies that sell their games for 10$ (because it took them few to produce) are the biggest idiots in the world since they could sell them for 50$ because, hey, this is the video game market so no blame on them... Oh, and just because I find this game overpriced, I didn't say there are not other overpriced products in the market. We're only talking about PoE here.