kanisatha

CDPR is just investing efficiently in guarenteed returns which helps to attract long-term investment. It amortizes the performance of peoples investments and helps yield more consistent dividents. Thus people stay invested. (Many investors have to pull investments due to life needs when they really want to vote with their wallets.) As long as CDPR doesn't gut their heavy hitting development teams just because they have lower margins than some side team, the I think they'll maintain their current philosophy. A lot of devs when they lose the old guard start to let margins drive what the company produces, which is essentially shifting the business from funding something of high intrinsic value to something that has a return value through consumer wealth extraction via inflated pricing. I still trust the upper rungs of CDPR for the time being, and I think they'll be able to convince the shareholders to run the Rockstar production model (high/long investment for high return) for the foreseeable future. Albeit CDPR mostly references pre-GTAOnline Rockstar in their financial structuring back pre-TW3 when they were planning that game as the 2077 franchise. The whole, no annual always rotating through IP long dev cycle sort of studio. Their investment in that direction will give them a lot of locked in momentum to stay that course as well. Seeing as rpgs have such a strong history of storytelling, but with not everyone being hardcore enthusiasts over mechanics and gameplay, being able to split off a story-centric digital experience off of what was a split-off deep dive of a card game mini-game within a major rpg, is not a terrible business strategy. It also demonstrates that these sorts of products are highly dependent on a core reputable product that defines the IP. In the case of CDPR even their major titles are all further backed by prior art. We can breath for the time being. I've also read in multiple places online that CDPR already has another new RPG in development to follow Cyberpunk, a new IP that has nothing to do with the Witcher franchise.

Looks like he has been badly misled by youtubers, because though spells/abilities are often "the same", or seem so, PoE 2 differs from 1 quite substantially (unlike in case of BG1/2, let alone their EE versions). If that the only beef he has with Deadfire, he can buy it, no worries. Anyway, I would prefer starting from level 1 even if it did not differ, because RPG systems invariantly work best at lower levels and only get worse the further one progresses, so I am happy with Deadfire not mimicking BG2. ^This. Plus PoE1 took us well beyond level 9 in comparison with BG1, so in effect PoE1 did what BG1 and 2 combined did from a levels standpoint. One additional thing that I feel is important to this discussion is that Obs specifically did NOT title PoE2 as "PoE2". That is how we're talking about the game in these forums, but there is no "2" in the title of the game. So the proper way to look at the game is that it is a completely new game relative to PoE1 and you really don't need to have played 1 to enjoy 2. lol yes there is Fair enough. I stand corrected. But if you look at references to the game made by the devs including Sawyer they always refer to it simply as 'Deadfire' and not as PoE2.

Looks like he has been badly misled by youtubers, because though spells/abilities are often "the same", or seem so, PoE 2 differs from 1 quite substantially (unlike in case of BG1/2, let alone their EE versions). If that the only beef he has with Deadfire, he can buy it, no worries. Anyway, I would prefer starting from level 1 even if it did not differ, because RPG systems invariantly work best at lower levels and only get worse the further one progresses, so I am happy with Deadfire not mimicking BG2. ^This. Plus PoE1 took us well beyond level 9 in comparison with BG1, so in effect PoE1 did what BG1 and 2 combined did from a levels standpoint. One additional thing that I feel is important to this discussion is that Obs specifically did NOT title PoE2 as "PoE2". That is how we're talking about the game in these forums, but there is no "2" in the title of the game. So the proper way to look at the game is that it is a completely new game relative to PoE1 and you really don't need to have played 1 to enjoy 2.

Yeah I have the Alienware R2. Not as powerful but still extremely nice. Everything runs beautifully, especially with my 24" 4K display. And Dell's been awesome! Recently my GTX video card started misbehaving, and they sent a tech to my home to replace it on the warranty at no charge to me. It's PC 'til I die for me. I'm over 50 with no kids. Why would I ever buy a console? And people like me will happily pay FULL price for the games we love. It would be stupid of MS to throw customers like me under the bus.

In all seriousness though, at this point, Obsidian is probably happy about working on consoles. Look at the Retrospect video where Josh Sawyer said Pillars would never be on console because they couldn't stand consoles, now we all know they're gonna love Xbox because the fixed hardware is always better for developers. Add to that, the fact that the Xbox One X has a bit of power to it so it's not like it's a loss of tech going from pc to it. As we approach the new gen of consoles, it's looking even bleaker for pc users, this year's goty awards (from well, everyone) is more console exclusives and console oriented games than anything because this year cobsole gaming proved that hype and broad audience/sales doesn't make the game have high ratings but the love put into it, the content and story-writing determines the quality. I believe that if Obsidian puts out games like this but with better story-writing than Pillars and Tyranny - more depth, than they can be on the same level of today's top games. Sorry, but this goes against what the MS execs are saying, though. Again from those interviews I saw, Matt Booty and others were saying their mission is to strengthen the Windows Store, Game Pass, and the porting of XBox games to PC. They understand they have already lost the console battle to PS4 and even Switch, but that they have dominance in the PC market where tens of millions of gamers play their games exclusively or largely on their PC. So it is to this dominance they want to play. When they say "XBox exclusive," they mean XBox exclusive among consoles, not exclusive versus the PC. And btw, Bethesda also recently emphasized they will not be walking away from PC games anytime soon. So PC gaming is here for the long haul and is not going to be "replaced" by consoles. What I see increasingly happening is people plugging their PC into their UHD big-screen TV, whereby their PC becomes a kind of console.

Exactly. What I'm trying to imagine now is how would (will?) PoE3 look like. Would it still be isometric? Will they reinvent the rules? Will they go for a traditional setting (e.g. Aedyr)? For me, I can take third person, open world, and co-op/multiplayer if alongside single player. But it would be a resolute NO if first person, not party based, co-op/multiplayer only, console only, or Windows Store only.

Would you kindly stop making sense Sir?... it's unbecoming, unusual and it baffles people HAAAAA! Thanks. I needed that.

But what kind of game would that be? Oh, i absolutely agree this is not necessarily good news, just that it is now possible, maybe even likely. I'm pretty harsh in my criticism of inXile's handling of their T:ToN and BT4 projects (as a backer of both those projects), not so much the games themselves as their attude towards customers and post-release customer and game support.

For what it's worth, a couple of MS high-ups have been commenting in various interviews (i recall one guy named Matt Booty) that the whole reason they bought these two studios is because they want them to be MS's RPG-focused studios and it is for their RPG expertise that they were targeted. So i for one don't see any reason to be concerned that OE is going to stop making RPGs. If anything, they will no longer have to take on projects like Armored Warfare and Pathfinder Adventures to help pay the bills and instead can (and will) focus exclusively on RPGs. MS has 11 other studios to make those other types of games so why would they force OE and inXile to deviate from what they do best? The question is what kind of RPGs will they make? And what store options will customers have for buying those games?

The issue of what happens to these forums is also of great concern to me, and again something I hope we hear officially from OE about very soon. I have no interest in browsing the MS forums. The smallness and the community nature of these forums is precisely why I care to spend my time here. Relatedly, I imagine now we will never have anyone of significance from OE interacting with us core fans ever again in these forums. Some low-level person will be assigned the job of occasionally posting here and that will be it for us. After all, to the extent that any high-up person ever posted here, it has been almost exclusively related to one or another of OE's crowdfunded games. So, no more crowdfunded OE games must surely mean no more developer interactions with us.

I'd be surprised if many games that are "xbox exclusive" aren't eventually ported to the PC. By and large the two markets aren't competing in the same way that xbox and playstation are, so not porting to PC hurts overall profits. Of course you'll likely have to wait before it happens, and more bothersome for me is the tendency for UIs not to be properly adapted when ported from consoles to PCs.True but not sure if that will be exactly true for the future. I mean, Sony doesn't port their games to pc and they're making for more with 1 game on PS4 alone than Microsoft does with 3 Xbox exclusives which are also available on pc. Xbox titles don't particularly sell well on Windows Store as many have demonstrated here in the comments with "We don't want console ports" or "Casualized games, no thanks" and "I wouldn't touch Windows Store with a ten foot pole". So it's more of a waste in the end really. My hope is that Microsoft is doing is preparing to take the Xbox exclusive road by getting actual console exclusives again (non-pc) and get Xbox players to put their consoles first again for games rather than just owning a an Xbox One and treating it as a secondary pc. I think they're starting to give up on hoping to beat Sony and Nintendo their "Crossbuy" way and doing things how they used to last gen - which was working far better for them. Besides that Xbox loyalists hate when Xbox "exclusives" get ported to pc/Windows 10 so perhaps Spencer is pulling that plug and Microsoft will start to acknowledge that. Actually, a MS executive, maybe actually this Spencer chap, has a YT interview where he says exactly the opposite. He says he is personally taking charge of strengthening the porting of games to PC and also strengthening the MS Store because the company acknowledges those are areas of weakness for them right now.

For what it's worth, inXile's been actively responding on Twitter at many of the questions asked to them about their own acquisition by Microsoft. On the question of online stores and GoG, their response is: "We're keeping our backer commitments for BT4 and WL3. Beyond that, it's hard to say. It's still very early in this new relationship." This would suggest other platforms are not out of the question, at least for the community-backed stuff currently in the works. On the other hand this suggests Win/Xbox exclusivity may be a part of the deal for future non-backer games for them. So, assuming the deal with Obsidian was similar, sad times. Yeah this exact line is also what someone from inXile posted on their forums which I also browse. But it doesn't really tell me anything about what happens to new games in the future, which is what I am concerned about.

It's pretty clear to me that the dismal sales numbers for PoE2 must have played a significant role in convincing OE's owners to sell to MS. I would not be surprised if, given just how dismal those sales numbers truly are (I would even use the word catastrophic), OE was once again facing a very grim financial outlook.

I'm willing to wait and see, but "Microsoft exclusive" is what bothers me. I will never ever buy a console, and I will also not buy my games from the Windows Store. So will I still be able to play future Obsidian games? I hope someone from Obsidian will answer this question very soon.

Well, with the news of inXile being bought by MS I can now believe inXile indeed may be the studio working on BG3.

I think the claim that people prefer TB over RTwP is not supported by any evidence. TB preferring people tend to be more vocal about and more insistent on their preference but that cannot count as representing more people. Also, a similar claim is that the D:OS games are very popular, and they are TB, so TB games are popular. Not so. The D:OS games are popular because they are co-op games, though it is also the case that co-op games by their nature have to be TB because RTwP co-op games, while possible, are complicated. That's the bottom line for me for how I see things (even just within the RPG niche). Games have to be co-op/multiplayer to score big sales numbers. It sucks for me because I have no interest in co-op/multiplayer, but that is what a lot of today's gamers want.

https://www.space.com/42352-oumuamua-interstellar-object-alien-light-sail.html Fascinating ....

This is something I've often brought up myself to explain why I don't care for 2e D&D. I love playing fighters, and it was only with 3.5e that fighters finally got some respect. Not only the feats but also some really cool fighter prestige classes made playing fighters finally fun.

I much prefer RTwP than TB but I'm going to back it.

See, this was actually one of the (many, many) things I disliked about D:OS. How come these elements were always very available exactly when you needed them and very conveniently positioned exactly how you needed them? It was very fourth-wall breaking for me.

Yep, very sad news. I can see that many of you want to look for the rainbow in the dark clouds but I tend to be a harsh realist, and my realist senses tell me this will spell the end of our Obsidian, the Obsidian who's games we've loved all these years. Heck, you can even tell from that very terse statement from Take Two how palpably worried they are about what happens to Project Indiana. This kinda' explains the exodus of people from Obsidian in recent months. Bottom line for me, I won't buy from the Windows Store, and I won't buy console games. So if that's the direction a Microsoft-controlled Obsidian takes, I will sadly have to cease being their customer after all these years. Now I guess we just wait for that canned statement from Feargus telling us all how wonderful the future's going to be because everything will be just the same only better. HAHA.

@IndiraLightfoot, I feel the same way! I love FR first and foremost, but love 5e so much that I will take a 5e D&D game in any of the D&D settings, including the newest one - Ravnica from MtG which has now been made a D&D setting. Seems like you have about a decade of D&D experience over me. I started playing PnP D&D in the late '80s.

I can't say I know, or follow much the D&D tabletop stuff. You might have a point and a better insight. Sadly I don't actually get to play PnP D&D anymore because I don't have a gaming group, but I still very closely follow what's going on in the D&D/WotC world because I just love the Forgotten Realms and especially source books and novels from that setting. And what 5e has done for D&D is truly phenomenal. D&D has never been more popular than it is right now, thousands of people tune in to watch PnP groups playing D&D on live streams, and 5e D&D sales have been through the roof for WotC. Chris Cox, the CEO of WotC said in a December 2017 interview that they want to do big things with their D&D franchise, including making D&D games in every type and genre of video gaming including mobile, tablet, and console. And yes, there is at least one and possibly two big screen movie projects involving D&D underway. For me, if the only way I can get a video game set in the Forgotten Realms is one that is a AAA ARPG, then so be it. And I'm pretty sure that a D&D video game that is similar to Skyrim/DAI/Witcher 3 will literally sell millions. As I said in my previous post, many of the folks on a forum such as this one are just not the target audience for WotC anymore.

Larian and Beamdog have both confirmed they are not involved. This is what I wrote in another forum as my personal take: It won't be a prequel, nor will it be a direct continuation from where ToB left off. It will follow Realms canon involving events in the city of Baldur's Gate in the 5e timeline. The "Murder in Baldur's Gate" 5e PnP game module could very well even be the jump-off point for the game. "Adrian Abdel" and other canon characters from the old games (including of course Minsc) may be featured in the backstory for the game, but the game will have nothing to do with any of those characters. It will be a completely new story with completely new characters, but because it will be set in the city of Baldur's Gate WotC will claim it justifies the labeling of the game as BG3 (or perhaps "BGNext" in today's WotC-speak). There is precisely zero chance that WotC allows a new Forgotten Realms game to be made that is not set in the current 5e timeline. ZERO. They are extremely happy with how things have turned out with 5e and where the D&D franchise is at the present time. 5e is by far the best-selling D&D edition of all-time, and the new PnP game modules WotC has been cranking out on a frantic pace in the past several years have actually generally been very well received. Why would they not capitalize on all of that newfound enthusiasm for D&D? The target audience for a new BG game would NOT be old-timer fans of the original BG games. The target audience would be the literally millions of NEW D&D fans WotC has managed to generate in recent years for whom the old BG games are a quaint anachronism. BG3 will be open world. It will likely be third person, definitely not isometric. It may be party-based, but only because it will also be co-op/multiplayer. It will be AAA. Why? Because these are the game elements that the current D&DNext generation of gamers will want. And WotC will be looking to sell millions of copies of the game, not just a few hundred thousand copies along the lines of the IE EEs or even games like PoE or Pathfinder or D:OS. That's why I feel CDPR is the odds-on likely candidate for the studio working on BG3. They have recently announced that they are, in fact, working on a new AAA RPG game that is not from the Witcher franchise. And Witcher 3's record of 35 million copies sold worldwide has got to be super-attractive to WotC. The game being AAA, along with it being set in the current 5e canon timeline, are the two things I feel extremely confident that WotC will insist on. If you've followed, as I have done very closely, WotC's statements and actions in the past couple of years (since the release of D&DNext) you can't miss that they badly want "big" things from their D&D franchise - big screen D&D movies and AAA video games.

Surprised nobody's yet commented on this story in these forums: https://www.usgamer.net/articles/baldurs-gate-3-is-reportedly-in-development-by-an-unknown-studio-rpg-news-brian-fargo https://www.rpgsite.net/news/7843-report-brian-fargo-may-be-working-on-baldur-s-gate-3 Personally, my money is on CDPR as the studio working on this, assuming such a project does exist. They recently dropped hints on what they have in line to follow Cyberpunk 2077, saying effectively that their next project is a AAA RPG not involving the Witcher franchise.