Finally some sales evidence

[rjshae]

I //am// surprised that NWN:EE has sold well since it was always a trash single player experience without full party control.

 

NWN has a dedicated modding and module building community that many other games lack, so it comes with a built-in audience and was almost guaranteed to sell at least decently well.

[rjshae]

If it is selling decently well after the second DLC comes out in September, do you suppose Obsidian will announce further DLCs after The Forgotten Sanctum? Seems like they could gradually issue a few more along the road to a PoE3 release some years away, thereby maintaining sales.

[Melusina]

 I //am// surprised that NWN:EE has sold well since it was always a trash single player experience without full party control.

 

Story was average and single toon without full party support is something many games have. If you want good story there's also thing called novel.

[baldurs_gate_2]

I anticipate another playthrough at +1 year once all the DLC is out. A wiser player w/ less surplus time would probably have known to buy it one year out -- I did that for POE1 and it was a blast. no way am I going to play it all through again just for the minor DLC in August --I wanted full, real expansions like virtually everybody polled early in the process.

 

There's nothing surprising about BG2 sales since it has regularly retailed for $5 on Gog and Steam. Even POE1 got new legs thanks to sales and hype from game one, and it was still selling for $30. I //am// surprised that NWN:EE has sold well since it was always a trash single player experience without full party control.

But NWN had much build variety and the little monk companion is funny :D The most i hate about this game are the graphics. I love the inf. engine, but that one was lackluster.

[the_dog_days]

If it is selling decently well after the second DLC comes out in September, do you suppose Obsidian will announce further DLCs after The Forgotten Sanctum? Seems like they could gradually issue a few more along the road to a PoE3 release some years away, thereby maintaining sales.

I think preproduction on POE3 or a spin off is more likely.

[house2fly]

If the DLCs end up being a smash-hit, then I don't doubt there would be more of them. That really isn't likely considering the sales trajectory of DLCs in general, but never say never

[rjshae]

If the DLCs end up being a smash-hit, then I don't doubt there would be more of them. That really isn't likely considering the sales trajectory of DLCs in general, but never say never

 

I suspect DLCs are fairly economical to make, so they don't have to have huge sales numbers to generate a decent margin. They could be used to fill a scheduling gap, for example, and could be fun to make. Plus we get to enjoy them.

[the_dog_days]

 

If the DLCs end up being a smash-hit, then I don't doubt there would be more of them. That really isn't likely considering the sales trajectory of DLCs in general, but never say never

 

I suspect DLCs are fairly economical to make, so they don't have to have huge sales numbers to generate a decent margin. They could be used to fill a scheduling gap, for example, and could be fun to make. Plus we get to enjoy them.

 

 

Depends on the dlc. Stuff like skins, new animations, or weapons are pretty low maintenance and almost always make up for their dev cost in sells. Expansions are a different story because the dev time and costs are a lot higher on top of limiting potential buyers because they need to first purchase the base game. (I know someone's going to point out that small dlc's also require you to buy the base game, but there's a huge difference in the impulse purchase of a $5 pack of skins and $15 for a 20 hour expansion, despite the expansion being economically a better purchase.) Buyers/players/customers tend to look at the base game and judge based on its price what they will pay for dlc even if they doesn't actually mean anything for the developers because the playing time doesn't equate cost to produce.

[Aleh1811]

Sometimes I feel a change of environment is needed. If you think about it, the last 3 games made by obsidian with this engine have all been medieval fantasy. People tend to get tired of always repeating the same settings. Something science fiction, post apocalyptic, present time fantasy, near future, or anything different from the existing formula would be more exciting. If you see other long lived franchises, they tend to make a point of drastically charging the environment in order to make it more interesting.  Deadfire did not change enough.

[the_dog_days]

Aside from Vampyr there hasn't been a good paranormal rpg since VtMB. Just sayin'. 

[rjshae]

Sometimes I feel a change of environment is needed. If you think about it, the last 3 games made by obsidian with this engine have all been medieval fantasy. People tend to get tired of always repeating the same settings. Something science fiction, post apocalyptic, present time fantasy, near future, or anything different from the existing formula would be more exciting. If you see other long lived franchises, they tend to make a point of drastically charging the environment in order to make it more interesting.  Deadfire did not change enough.

 

It's the story that matters. Everything else is window dressing.

[Aleh1811]

 

Sometimes I feel a change of environment is needed. If you think about it, the last 3 games made by obsidian with this engine have all been medieval fantasy. People tend to get tired of always repeating the same settings. Something science fiction, post apocalyptic, present time fantasy, near future, or anything different from the existing formula would be more exciting. If you see other long lived franchises, they tend to make a point of drastically charging the environment in order to make it more interesting.  Deadfire did not change enough.

 

It's the story that matters. Everything else is window dressing.

 

 

It does affect how much a game  generates interest for me. I don't think I am the only one either.

[algroth]

Worth pointing out that not a single game of these has been a *medieval* fantasy. All have had their basis on a specific historical period and setting or other, with the first Pillars closest to a "medieval" setting, but both Pillars were always based on a Renaissance period whilst Tyranny was based on a late Bronze Age. As with rjshae I also think it largely falls down to the story you tell and not the setting you employ - both Neverwinter Nights 2 and Mask of the Betrayer are stories in a single timeline, but you can see how unique the latter feels just from the particular story it is choosing to tell within its respective setting, especially relative to the former. All the same, given a good story I eagerly welcome any non-historical/non-fantasy setting myself.

Edited July 18, 2018 by algroth

[Aleh1811]

Its not exactly medieval, but visually the difference is not that noteworthy.

[algroth]

Its not exactly medieval, but visually the difference is not that noteworthy.

 

That's a pretty subjective matter, but maybe aside from Dyrwood I couldn't be in greater disagreement, both Tyranny and Deadfire are *starkly* different to what medieval settings often entail. But more to the point, it's not just a matter of visuals but of how the setting is configured from the perspective of an social imaginary, a feel, and the themes treated throughout. The fact that Pillars takes place during a fantasy Renaissance is *crucial* to inform the themes and conflicts explored throughout, all to do with the movement from a theocentric society deeply engrained in tradition and dogma to an anthropocentric society whose fate is independent of the gods. The choice of setting precisely relates to the themes explored through the series.

[Tick]

Its not exactly medieval, but visually the difference is not that noteworthy.

I think the visual differences and, much more importantly, the setting's differences and the factors revolving around it, are huge.

The Medieval Era was hugely stagnant culturally and technologically and the content we usually get from that giant period of time has boiled down into very generic fantasy.

 

Pillars does something very cool by bringing it into a Renaissance inspired era. The aesthetics, the politics, the technological/exploratory/metaphysical discoveries and the anxieties and changes those discoveries bring to people and society are all really interesting and wouldn't fit in classic fantasy. Pillars also really shifts from the typical fantasy attitude, which is generally unchallenging, comfortable, and looking backwards or retrospectively. It actually reminds me a lot of the Sci fi genre in the sense that it asks some interesting and unnerving what-ifs, and twists and questions assumptions and expectations.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Tick

[Aleh1811]

My commentary on the settings is more related to the first impression they generate to someone seeing advertisement of the game for the first time and the game-play videos.  Its not a reference to how they fit with the story. I am pretty sure that the Renaissance settings are more appropriate for POE than other settings. My view is that there should have been another game, of another franchise using different settings before POE2 came out. Therefore preventing people from feeling tired of constantly seeing similar settings and avoiding the game as a result.

[Aleh1811]

I will give you guys a personal example. I played POE and really enjoyed it, then I played tyranny and liked even much more. Afterwards i saw Dead-fire coming out and really was not very excited. Felt a bit tired of the magic and historical settings. Now I am playing Shadow Run and quite liking it and what attracted me to it is that the settings feel completely different from the games I played before.

[Tick]

Oh, you mean literally the impression the games give off from a glance. I gotcha. I still think a lot of it looks pretty distinct, but I can see what you're saying then.

[Aleh1811]

Yes, that was my point of view.

[gkathellar]

 

I //am// surprised that NWN:EE has sold well since it was always a trash single player experience without full party control.

 

NWN has a dedicated modding and module building community that many other games lack, so it comes with a built-in audience and was almost guaranteed to sell at least decently well.

 

This is the big thing. I owned NWN1 for years before I bothered to finish the OC, and I never really did multiplayer. What I did do was sink a hell of a lot of time into user-created modules.

 

 

Its not exactly medieval, but visually the difference is not that noteworthy.

I think the visual differences and, much more importantly, the setting's differences and the factors revolving around it, are huge.

The Medieval Era was hugely stagnant culturally and technologically and the content we usually get from that giant period of time has boiled down into very generic fantasy

 

It really wasn't, and the misconception that it was is mainly a consequence of Victorian-era historical revisionism, reinforced by political theorists (on both the left and the right, incidentally) with axes to grind and by "medieval" fantasy written by people who don't actually know anything about the medieval period. It is difficult if not impossible to make broad generalizations about hundreds of years of European history - European, not just English and French, but Prussian and Baltic and Finnish and Andalusian and Catalonian and Neapolitan and Venetian and Byzantine and Russian - but it is a modern myth that the period prior to the Renaissance was one of general stagnation or decline.

[Tick]

 

 

I //am// surprised that NWN:EE has sold well since it was always a trash single player experience without full party control.

NWN has a dedicated modding and module building community that many other games lack, so it comes with a built-in audience and was almost guaranteed to sell at least decently well.

This is the big thing. I owned NWN1 for years before I bothered to finish the OC, and I never really did multiplayer. What I did do was sink a hell of a lot of time into user-created modules.

 

Its not exactly medieval, but visually the difference is not that noteworthy.

I think the visual differences and, much more importantly, the setting's differences and the factors revolving around it, are huge.

The Medieval Era was hugely stagnant culturally and technologically and the content we usually get from that giant period of time has boiled down into very generic fantasy

It really wasn't, and the misconception that it was is mainly a consequence of Victorian-era historical revisionism, reinforced by political theorists (on both the left and the right, incidentally) with axes to grind and by "medieval" fantasy written by people who don't actually know anything about the medieval period. It is difficult if not impossible to make broad generalizations about hundreds of years of European history - European, not just English and French, but Prussian and Baltic and Finnish and Andalusian and Catalonian and Neapolitan and Venetian and Byzantine and Russian - but it is a modern myth that the period prior to the Renaissance was one of general stagnation or decline.

Oh! My bad. I'm interested in history but I'm not an expert (obviously). I should clarify that I knew it wasn't stagnant across the world.

 

I thought it was just true of England, France, and maybe other parts of Europe. Is the stagnation /decline a myth in regards to that too? Why would Victorian historians have an axe to grind about that time period?

Edited July 18, 2018 by Tick

[thelee]

 

 

 

I //am// surprised that NWN:EE has sold well since it was always a trash single player experience without full party control.

NWN has a dedicated modding and module building community that many other games lack, so it comes with a built-in audience and was almost guaranteed to sell at least decently well.

This is the big thing. I owned NWN1 for years before I bothered to finish the OC, and I never really did multiplayer. What I did do was sink a hell of a lot of time into user-created modules.

 

Its not exactly medieval, but visually the difference is not that noteworthy.

I think the visual differences and, much more importantly, the setting's differences and the factors revolving around it, are huge.

The Medieval Era was hugely stagnant culturally and technologically and the content we usually get from that giant period of time has boiled down into very generic fantasy

It really wasn't, and the misconception that it was is mainly a consequence of Victorian-era historical revisionism, reinforced by political theorists (on both the left and the right, incidentally) with axes to grind and by "medieval" fantasy written by people who don't actually know anything about the medieval period. It is difficult if not impossible to make broad generalizations about hundreds of years of European history - European, not just English and French, but Prussian and Baltic and Finnish and Andalusian and Catalonian and Neapolitan and Venetian and Byzantine and Russian - but it is a modern myth that the period prior to the Renaissance was one of general stagnation or decline.

Oh! My bad. I'm interested in history but I'm not an expert (obviously). I should clarify that I knew it wasn't stagnant across the world.

 

I thought it was just true of England, France, and maybe other parts of Europe. Is the stagnation /decline a myth in regards to that too? Why would Victorian historians have an axe to grind about that time period?

 

 

My understanding is that it was certainly a regression with the end of the western roman empire. I think the characterization that historians tend to try to correct for is one where the fall of the western roman empire presaged 1000 years of dirt-farming and illiteracy until the renaissance happened, which paints a convenient picture of triumphalism and progress for the countries that just so happen to be framed advantageously as hotbeds for the renaissance/enlightenment/industrialization, when in reality a lot of things were still happening in europe (cultural, societal, and whatnot) and even with the decline of the western roman empire, the eastern roman empire (e.g. byzantine) was still basically a superpower for a millennia.

Edited July 18, 2018 by thelee

[Tick]

 

 

 

 

I //am// surprised that NWN:EE has sold well since it was always a trash single player experience without full party control.

NWN has a dedicated modding and module building community that many other games lack, so it comes with a built-in audience and was almost guaranteed to sell at least decently well.

This is the big thing. I owned NWN1 for years before I bothered to finish the OC, and I never really did multiplayer. What I did do was sink a hell of a lot of time into user-created modules.

 

Its not exactly medieval, but visually the difference is not that noteworthy.

I think the visual differences and, much more importantly, the setting's differences and the factors revolving around it, are huge.

The Medieval Era was hugely stagnant culturally and technologically and the content we usually get from that giant period of time has boiled down into very generic fantasy

It really wasn't, and the misconception that it was is mainly a consequence of Victorian-era historical revisionism, reinforced by political theorists (on both the left and the right, incidentally) with axes to grind and by "medieval" fantasy written by people who don't actually know anything about the medieval period. It is difficult if not impossible to make broad generalizations about hundreds of years of European history - European, not just English and French, but Prussian and Baltic and Finnish and Andalusian and Catalonian and Neapolitan and Venetian and Byzantine and Russian - but it is a modern myth that the period prior to the Renaissance was one of general stagnation or decline.

Oh! My bad. I'm interested in history but I'm not an expert (obviously). I should clarify that I knew it wasn't stagnant across the world.

 

I thought it was just true of England, France, and maybe other parts of Europe. Is the stagnation /decline a myth in regards to that too? Why would Victorian historians have an axe to grind about that time period?

My understanding is that it was certainly a regression with the end of the western roman empire. I think the characterization that historians tend to try to correct for is one where the fall of the western roman empire presaged 1000 years of dirt-farming and illiteracy until the renaissance happened, which paints a convenient picture of triumphalism and progress for the countries that just so happen to be framed advantageously as hotbeds for the renaissance/enlightenment/industrialization, when in reality a lot of things were still happening in europe (cultural, societal, and whatnot) and even with the decline of the western roman empire, the eastern roman empire (e.g. byzantine) was still basically a superpower for a millennia.

Oh ok! That makes a lot of sense. Thank you for elaborating!

[daven]

What the hell has this topic turned into?