The sales thread

[illathid]

I hate to think this game won't sell well, especially compared to DOS 2. I bought both DOS's, finished the first one, but not the 2nd. I don't get why those games are so overhyped and overrated. DOS 2 just seemed to be missing something. The combat was just an experience in frustration and reloads. If anything DOS 1 is better. I doubt I'll ever finish DOS 2, but I'm on my way to finishing Deadfire. Deadfire is the better game.

 

Agreed. Divine Divinity was the best in the series, and even that was only mediocre.

[flamesium]

Continuing the story of The Watcher was always shooting themselves in the foot as far as sales are concerned.

 

I swear every other studio figured this out over the last decade or so: you establish a setting / franchise but you always make it so new people can join in any time a new game is released, without having intimate knowledge of what happened in the previous games.

 

Elder Scrolls, Fallout, GTA... take your pick. They go to great lengths to make sure everyone knows they don't need to have played any previous game in the franchise. Larian 'got it' when they made D:OS2.

 

The Witcher gets away with it by treating each game as 'A new adventure, starring Geralt of Rivia'. He's more like James Bond, and people get that. If that franchise expected you to have played and finished the previous games to understand what was going on it would be completely dead instead of going from strength to strength.

 

If you want to break this rule and have a sequel which expects the player to have played the previous game/s, you need to be certain enough people bought and finished the previous game/s. 

[morhilane]

Continuing the story of The Watcher was always shooting themselves in the foot as far as sales are concerned.

 

It's driving POE1 sales up, doesn't look like they are "shooting themselves in the foot".

[Sarakash]

Continuing the story of The Watcher was always shooting themselves in the foot as far as sales are concerned.

 

I swear every other studio figured this out over the last decade or so: you establish a setting / franchise but you always make it so new people can join in any time a new game is released, without having intimate knowledge of what happened in the previous games.

 

Elder Scrolls, Fallout, GTA... take your pick. They go to great lengths to make sure everyone knows they don't need to have played any previous game in the franchise. Larian 'got it' when they made D:OS2.

 

The Witcher gets away with it by treating each game as 'A new adventure, starring Geralt of Rivia'. He's more like James Bond, and people get that. If that franchise expected you to have played and finished the previous games to understand what was going on it would be completely dead instead of going from strength to strength.

 

If you want to break this rule and have a sequel which expects the player to have played the previous game/s, you need to be certain enough people bought and finished the previous game/s. 

 

While your last statement might be true, I wouldn´t say they shot themselves in  the foot. It´s not necessarly bad from a financial standpoint.

 

Mass Effect was very succesful until Andromeda for instance. It´s a formula which can succed.

[Tagaziel]

If that franchise expected you to have played and finished the previous games to understand what was going on it would be completely dead instead of going from strength to strength.

You do realize that Witcher games can't be joined part-way through, right? You're missing out on huge chunks of the story and vital character development. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Tagaziel

[Mikeymoonshine]

POE is also ahead of Deadfire on Gog atm (Tyranny is too actually) , so yeah it seems like Deadfire has attracted a lot of new players who have decided to try out the first game as well.

 

 

 

Continuing the story of The Watcher was always shooting themselves in the foot as far as sales are concerned.

 

I swear every other studio figured this out over the last decade or so: you establish a setting / franchise but you always make it so new people can join in any time a new game is released, without having intimate knowledge of what happened in the previous games.

 

Elder Scrolls, Fallout, GTA... take your pick. They go to great lengths to make sure everyone knows they don't need to have played any previous game in the franchise. Larian 'got it' when they made D:OS2.

 

The whole point of Kickstarting POE was so that they didn't have to cowtow to big publishers and make some shallow sandbox rpg. It doesn't need to have mass appeal I feel like some people are forgetting this.

[Masticator]

 

If that franchise expected you to have played and finished the previous games to understand what was going on it would be completely dead instead of going from strength to strength.

You do realize that Witcher games can't be joined part-way through, right? You're missing out on huge chunks of the story and vital character development. 

 

 

 

Agreed, I had a hard time remembering what happened in Witcher 2 when playing through Witcher 3. A lot of those political events are mentioned throughout Witcher 3. There's quite a bit of political dialogue in Witcher 3 if you pay attention to it. Most people like it for the combat, but the game is more than that.

[Mikeymoonshine]

The witcher games also reference the books an awful lot and if you read those it makes a lot of things in the games easier to understand. Especially Witcher 3.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Mikeymoonshine

[Elerond]

I'd wait a bit... still don't have any serious numbers. But I will say, marketing is not Obsidian's strength. Things have also changed a huge amount of the last few years  - people's buying habits, youtube, social media etc. If I were them I'd definitely look at bringing in someone more up to date with the relevant marketing skills.

 

Marketing for Deadfire is done by VersusEvil, which is its publisher/distributor. They are also the party who release sales numbers if they have desire to do so.

[Tagaziel]

The witcher games also reference the books an awful lot and if you read those it makes a lot of things in the games easier to understand. Especially Witcher 3.

Assuming the translators did not **** the bed and do something stupid, like change Mousesack to Ermion, thus breaking whatever connection might have existed.

[Jayngo]

With regard to sales, do we have a hard number on how many units sold during the FIG campaign? The game brought in almost $5 million in funding, but I know a portion of that was extras, like the book, pen and paper game, minis, etc.

 

Seeing that the second game brought in more than the first, I would assume PoE 3 was green lit a while ago...

[Mikeymoonshine]

With regard to sales, do we have a hard number on how many units sold during the FIG campaign? The game brought in almost $5 million in funding, but I know a portion of that was extras, like the book, pen and paper game, minis, etc.

 

Seeing that the second game brought in more than the first, I would assume PoE 3 was green lit a while ago...

 

Hard to say, I am pretty sure they went over budget for POE but then it did pretty well so they made money from that game. They were working on Deadfire for a year before fig and did stuff after like full VO even though the stretch goal only doubled the VO budget so I doubt it was enough for full VO. So it's not easy to know how much money they would have to make for a sequel to be viable. I find it unlikely they have not made any sort of profit though, but I am hardly an expert.

 

There is also fig investments to consider.

[the_dog_days]

I remember watching a dev diary from Ninja Theory where they were talking about how most games don't go into the black within six months of release.

[morhilane]

With regard to sales, do we have a hard number on how many units sold during the FIG campaign? The game brought in almost $5 million in funding, but I know a portion of that was extras, like the book, pen and paper game, minis, etc.

 

Seeing that the second game brought in more than the first, I would assume PoE 3 was green lit a while ago...

 

The total was actually $4.7m. Of that, $2.25m is investor money and the rest, $2.45m, is pledges. The extra would not cost as much as people pay for them, so hard to say their final total cost. I don't think we even have the final amount of backers either.

 

Fig investor doc estimated the game total budget at $14m (I believe that included the crowdfunding and double VO, but not full VO) with a break even at 500k copies from what I remember. I remember a mention that Deadfire budget was about double POE1 final budget during the Figstarter. 

 

POE1 reached 500k sales in October 2015 (released in March 2015) and Sawyer commented on direct sequel usually selling less. I don't think Obsidian expected to break even in the first week of release...

[flamesium]

 

If that franchise expected you to have played and finished the previous games to understand what was going on it would be completely dead instead of going from strength to strength.

You do realize that Witcher games can't be joined part-way through, right? You're missing out on huge chunks of the story and vital character development. 

 

 

I think you can quite easily play any TW game without playing the previous ones, and if anyone asked me that's what I'd tell them. Each entry selling about twice as many copies as the previous one supports the idea that this is generally accepted. A comfortable majority of people who played TW3 have never played TW1.

 

I just don't see too many people playing Deadfire without playing PoE 1. I certainly wouldn't recommend it. The story in Deadfire is pretty convoluted even when you have played PoE 1.

 

 

Mass Effect was very succesful until Andromeda for instance. It´s a formula which can succed.

 

 

Mass Effect is an interesting one because, while it was successful, I don't think even that franchise expanded to the levels they were hoping for with the amount of money they were throwing at it and the reception it got. I think they were always hamstrung by what ME1 sold, and ME1 sales were hamstrung by not being multi-plat to begin with.

 

They tried to limit the necessity of playing ME1 by largely jettisoning the main storyline in ME2 (the main storyline barely moves an inch in ME2) and telling a bunch of short stories with the companions instead, and the game was much better for it. This eventually came home to roost with ME3 however, because ME2 had completely neglected its duty to be a second act in a trilogy. ME3 ended up having to be both act 2 and act 3, and the whole thing unravelled so spectacularly that the backlash killed the franchise and damaged the Bioware brand maybe beyond repair.

 

I love that the game industry attempted something as ambitious as the Mass Effect trilogy, but I expect the industry now looks at ME as a cautionary tale rather than something to emulate. I certainly don't see studios falling over themselves to follow in its footprints.

[Big-Ben]

Something else to take into account is what a company considers successful. I remember laughing audibly when I heard that Square Enix thought one of the Tomb Raider games was a failure despite selling millions of units. Obviously Square Enix is not Obsidian but it's important to remember that the number sold doesn't mean the same thing.

 

Not that Obsidian wouldn't want to sell ten million copies mind you.

[flamesium]

I don't think Obsidian expected to break even in the first week of release...

 

 

I think it's clear that it hasn't exploded out of the gates. On Steam it's currently being played by fewer people than Divinity: OS2 which is getting on for a year old. Hopefully people are just waiting for it to be patched up...

[Sven_]

Re: People not playing PoE2 due to PoE1 continuation: There had been talks about possible sequels to PoE being a continous story with decisions from one game to the next taking over from the start. E.g. The project never was meant to be a Witcher. However whether you played PoE or not can impact how you experience the game virtually from the start quite a bit. Commercially, perhaps not a good move. But then this was first conceived as a "fan's game", wasn't it?

 

 

Something else to take into account is what a company considers successful. I remember laughing audibly when I heard that Square Enix thought one of the Tomb Raider games was a failure despite selling millions of units. Obviously Square Enix is not Obsidian but it's important to remember that the number sold doesn't mean the same thing.

 

This shows how screwed up things can be in particular in the AAA space -- enough is never enough. As of Deadfire, there appear be hopes of it outperforming PoE.
 

https://www.mcvuk.com/business/versus-evil-obsidian-is-one-of-the-top-tier-rpg-developers-plain-and-simple

Edited May 22, 2018 by Sven_

[Yonjuro]

 

They tried to limit the necessity of playing ME1 by largely jettisoning the main storyline in ME2 (the main storyline barely moves an inch in ME2) and telling a bunch of short stories with the companions instead, and the game was much better for it. 

 

 Opinions can clearly differ, and that's fine, but I would be surprised if a majority of people would put "ME2" and "better" in the same sentence. I thought the cover shooter gameplay was fun but the story was a steaming pile of thresher maw excrement. Again, opinions may differ, but I thought the writing for ME2 was ridiculously bad (partly because, as you mentioned, they ignored everything that happened in the first game). I didn't bother to finish it and that was the end of ME for me.

[Katarack21]

 

 

They tried to limit the necessity of playing ME1 by largely jettisoning the main storyline in ME2 (the main storyline barely moves an inch in ME2) and telling a bunch of short stories with the companions instead, and the game was much better for it. 

 

 Opinions can clearly differ, and that's fine, but I would be surprised if a majority of people would put "ME2" and "better" in the same sentence. I thought the cover shooter gameplay was fun but the story was a steaming pile of thresher maw excrement. Again, opinions may differ, but I thought the writing for ME2 was ridiculously bad (partly because, as you mentioned, they ignored everything that happened in the first game). I didn't bother to finish it and that was the end of ME for me.

 

I disagree. I thought the gameplay was interesting, though I missed some of the deeper RPG elements, and I actually enjoyed the story. I liked all the side characters and found the game fun overall.

 

ME3 was....significantly worse, let's say. Actually really great gameplay but everything else was just...the worst. I played it mostly just because I felt like I had to finish the series by that point.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Katarack21

[SonicMage117]

I do agree with the thing said about sales being successully different to the company than it is in a fan's eyes. That's why it's hard for me to believe that Deadfire was a success or will be in the long run. Like I said, too many rpg's and other games coming out, big titles, E3 is around the corner - perhaps Obsidian knew this and that's why they chose May for release. All companies have the sam mindset because all companies are a business, nothing to do if a project is funded by the community vs a publisher. That doesn't matter.

 

Do you actually think or believe that the game has a chance at doing well during or after E3? You guys may say that the audience is much niche compared to D:OS and by that logic, you will be saying "No." Whether you want to or not. Not only that but non-rpg fans will pass Deadfire even with the pirate ship pic as a marketing tool. Think on those veggie chips for a few seconds... or better yet, you tell me why it will sell when it has no reason to after E3. What? When the dlc releases? Yes I'm mad, and even more worried for Obsidian's success with this as if you couldn't already tell.

 

Meh.. *kicks dirt like an adult trucker or factory/construction worker*

 

 

 

 

As far as a variable difference of comparison, D:OS1 and 2 will always do well in future sales. Thus sales longevity isn't a problem. For Pillars, it's a bit different, without adding the factor that the game is pretty much guaranteed to fail (but they are still doing it anyway), we can speculate but can we penerate? That's where I draw the line for such unreasonable things.

 

I don't think the excitement of the dlc will pick up sales in the future. As someone else said, most people wo wanted Deadfire most likely picked it up already. The current sales matter not, it's the future sales that are the bigger picture here. Tsk tsk... maximum risk, didn't mean to pop anyone's zit or seem so negative with it.

[flamesium]

 

 

They tried to limit the necessity of playing ME1 by largely jettisoning the main storyline in ME2 (the main storyline barely moves an inch in ME2) and telling a bunch of short stories with the companions instead, and the game was much better for it. 

 

 Opinions can clearly differ, and that's fine, but I would be surprised if a majority of people would put "ME2" and "better" in the same sentence. I thought the cover shooter gameplay was fun but the story was a steaming pile of thresher maw excrement. Again, opinions may differ, but I thought the writing for ME2 was ridiculously bad (partly because, as you mentioned, they ignored everything that happened in the first game). I didn't bother to finish it and that was the end of ME for me.

 

 

For me that was kinda what I liked about it. They realised their main storyline was garbage and just said 'F*** it, here's some cool companion short stories set in our universe'.

 

It is funny how ME2 always gets a free pass though, when the ME3 debacle was largely a result of ME2 going AWOL. As its own thing I loved ME2; as a second act it's a disaster.

[Masticator]

I just hope this game does well because I'm an investor. And frankly, I find the game more fun than POE1. I'm having a blast.

 

Speaking of Mass Effect I still like the first one the most because it felt like an RPG. It turned into an action game after that (that gave you some choices, just not that many). And I'm one of the few that thought ME3 was fantastic, at least up until the end. I didn't like the choices at the end. Surely they could have came up with something better than that. Who would want to be a machine hybrid? Yuk. I want to retire with my squeeze and live the good life. Instead we get that dreary ending.

[Sarakash]

Well, the Mass Effect franchise being a good continuation from a story perspective was´t the can of worms I wanted to open, I just brought it up as something which did quite well financially speaking.

 

Frankly, I still wake up from recurring nightmares, screaming. I always see the hologram kid in front of me endlessly repeating "You wouldn´t understand and there is no time to explain"

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Sarakash

[Big-Ben]

While most people agree that ME3 had a disastrous ending I don't think people understand what a disaster it was for the community. The Bioware Forums got so bad that the moderation team simply stopped visiting for over a week. People were posting pictures of filled diapers (To describe the ending in their minds) and hardcore pornography (To simply troll.). The ending of Mass Effect 3 wasn't just a bad thing people agreed upon outside the community. From within it was one of the worst things I've ever seen in a community period.

 

Andromeda would have struggled regardless (I was entirely lukewarm myself.) as so much good will had been burned away. Thinking back on it now I'm amazed Bioware's staff didn't physically die from stress (They lost at least two community managers.).

 

Obsidian doesn't have anything approaching that madness here. Good lord was the ME3 debacle bad.