ideas for better sales of obsidian

[xzar_monty]

At some point, it was reported that only 6.4% of players finished PoE. It would suggest that the game was a whopping disappointment to a huge percentage of buyers. (The figure has almost certainly gone up since then, as it can't really have gone down.)

 

Deadfire's lack of success is a crying shame, because I recently did a brief comparison of the two and Deadfire is simply so much better than PoE, on just about every conceivable level.

Edited March 7, 2019 by xzar_monty

[wih]

To be fair, the fact that so small percentage of players finished PoE doesn't necessarily mean that the game was a big disappointment for them. Most of the players probably didn't give the game enough chance. We live in an attention based economy and there are so much distractions (Steam sales) it is a small wonder when someone actually finishes a game this long.

 

So I propose another possible reason for the low sales of Deadfire: players are hoping to finish PoE before buying PoE 2, but of course they can't because they are perpetually distracted by other offerings.

[Jayd]

I can confirm that I basically pushed through PoE1 to get to to Deadfire. Not only do I find Deadfire much better in every way, but I was also looking forward to it more.

[xzar_monty]

I did finish PoE but I have to say the game got mighily uninteresting after reaching level cap so friggin' early.

[thelee]

At some point, it was reported that only 6.4% of players finished PoE. It would suggest that the game was a whopping disappointment to a huge percentage of buyers. (The figure has almost certainly gone up since then, as it can't really have gone down.)

Something I've learned is that low completion rates is not even close to abnormal. Lots of players just never finish the games they pick up, regardless of the game. It doesn't really have much connection to satisfaction rates. That's the whole reason why Berath's Blessings were introduced in the way they were instead of like an actual "new game+" mode, because they didn't want to gate it behind completing the game.

[MountainTiger]

At some point, it was reported that only 6.4% of players finished PoE. It would suggest that the game was a whopping disappointment to a huge percentage of buyers. (The figure has almost certainly gone up since then, as it can't really have gone down.)

 

Deadfire's lack of success is a crying shame, because I recently did a brief comparison of the two and Deadfire is simply so much better than PoE, on just about every conceivable level.

 

On Steam at the moment, 12.6% of buyers have the POE 1 completion achievement. To compare to another game mentioned in this thread, 11.1% of D:OS2 buyers have the lowest difficulty completion achievement. I don't know if the D:OS 2 completion achievements are set up as "completed on exactly difficulty" or "completed on difficulty or higher", so it's possible that D:OS2 gains some total completion rate from the higher difficulties, but in general completion rates for large games are quite low.

[algroth]

(See, what I think reasonably probably killed Deadfire was PoE1: a lot of people were initially enthusiastic about that but then for some reason got seriously disappointed and didn't come back for Deadfire. Deadfire, in itself, did nothing wrong. It was PoE1 that did. Generally, if a title is successful saleswise AND liked by its customers, the sequel will do well.)

I've seen similar lines of argument over at reddit before, but I feel the evidence doesn't support the case. The first game itself would have suffered over time sales-wise if that was the case, but to my understanding it held up in the sales department well after the first few months in release. Moreover the audience reception seems very positive across all platforms if reviews and aggregate ratings are anything to go by, be it GOG, Steam, Amazon, metacritic, etc. With regards to the completion rate the current number for the first game is at 12.6%, which may not seem like a lot but is higher than Divinity: Original Sin's which is at 8.8% (as per Steam achievements). Unless there is a disproportionate amount of dissent amidst the silent majority I feel all evidence points to reception being good, not the opposite.

Edited March 7, 2019 by algroth

[thelee]

 

(See, what I think reasonably probably killed Deadfire was PoE1: a lot of people were initially enthusiastic about that but then for some reason got seriously disappointed and didn't come back for Deadfire. Deadfire, in itself, did nothing wrong. It was PoE1 that did. Generally, if a title is successful saleswise AND liked by its customers, the sequel will do well.)

I've seen similar lines of argument over at reddit before, but I feel the evidence doesn't support the case. The first game itself would have suffered over time sales-wise if that was the case, but to my understanding it held up in the sales department well after the first few months in release. Moreover the audience reception seems very positive across all platforms if reviews and aggregate ratings are anything to go by, be it GOG, Steam, Amazon, metacritic, etc. Moreover the current completion rate for the first game is at 12.6%, which may not seem like a lot but is higher than Divinity: Original Sin's which is at 8.8% (as per Steam achievements). In theory there could be an abnormally disproportinate opinion in the silent majority but I think it's something of a stretch.

 

by comparison, the Deadfire completion achievement "The End of the Beginning" is at a whopping 19.4%.

[bringingyouthefuture]

 

 

I'm not sure whether it's fair to say that my comment was "frankly useless", unless we agree that it would be fair to claim that the people you refer to are just stupid. I don't think either of those things is productive.

 

However, you are absolutely right in pointing out that the cliche about stepping into other people's shoes is a particularly hard thing to do, so I take your point on that. You are also probably right in saying that games like this might require a certain "ease of play" in order to become massive successes. But then, BG2 was a big success, and it certainly wasn't easy. So it's not only about that, although I do agree that it is a factor.

 

Also, Pathfinder: Kingmaker appears to be doing well, and it's incredibly difficult. Perhaps it has found every potential buyer it can have, whereas Deadfire, for whatever reason, has failed rather miserably at that. I don't know.

 

Anyway, my takeaway from your comment would probably be this theory: plenty of players from the -- let's say -- "new generation" tried PoE, found it too hard, got frustrated and didn't come back for Deadfire, which shows rather dramatically in the sales. We can't prove it, but it's plausible, so thanks for that, it's appreciated.

 

I disagree - BG2 was pretty easy ... it could be hard but in general the main game was a breeze.  Sorry late to the convo ...

 

Yes, for you.

 

BG is easy IF you understand all the systems. When I first played it as a kid I didn't give anyone armour because I couldn't understand why it lowered my armour value. I played after playing NWN which does the exact opposite... does it explain in the game anywhere about THAC0 and Armour Class? I don't remember.

 

 

oh ... I mean yeah if you didn't play D&D / AD&D it would be quite a mean spirited surprise ... or if  you didn't know haste was a solution for about 90 percent of tough combat encounters  

[bringingyouthefuture]

I'm just looking at these statistics, I am just 2 percent of people who have maximized a negative relationship with a companion ... lol but I can't help teasing Aloth ... he always is like "What now!?" all unhappy ...

 

Hehe, maybe the obvious answer is just staring us right in the face ... old CRPG nostalgia wore off this past year.  Pathfinder being the fluke, well because it rounded up all the Pathfinder fans.

Edited March 9, 2019 by bringingyouthefuture

[Verde]

 

 

 

I'm not sure whether it's fair to say that my comment was "frankly useless", unless we agree that it would be fair to claim that the people you refer to are just stupid. I don't think either of those things is productive.

 

However, you are absolutely right in pointing out that the cliche about stepping into other people's shoes is a particularly hard thing to do, so I take your point on that. You are also probably right in saying that games like this might require a certain "ease of play" in order to become massive successes. But then, BG2 was a big success, and it certainly wasn't easy. So it's not only about that, although I do agree that it is a factor.

 

Also, Pathfinder: Kingmaker appears to be doing well, and it's incredibly difficult. Perhaps it has found every potential buyer it can have, whereas Deadfire, for whatever reason, has failed rather miserably at that. I don't know.

 

Anyway, my takeaway from your comment would probably be this theory: plenty of players from the -- let's say -- "new generation" tried PoE, found it too hard, got frustrated and didn't come back for Deadfire, which shows rather dramatically in the sales. We can't prove it, but it's plausible, so thanks for that, it's appreciated.

I disagree - BG2 was pretty easy ... it could be hard but in general the main game was a breeze. Sorry late to the convo ...

Yes, for you.

 

BG is easy IF you understand all the systems. When I first played it as a kid I didn't give anyone armour because I couldn't understand why it lowered my armour value. I played after playing NWN which does the exact opposite... does it explain in the game anywhere about THAC0 and Armour Class? I don't remember.

oh ... I mean yeah if you didn't play D&D / AD&D it would be quite a mean spirited surprise ... or if you didn't know haste was a solution for about 90 percent of tough combat encounters

Or choose Breach for their Mages/Sorcerers Edited March 8, 2019 by Verde

[Manveru123]

And how do you know that? (The claim you make in your first sentence.)

You learn these things by working in the biz. It's often hard to find compromise between your vision and the player's needs, especially if you're Josh Sawyer, who doesn't seem to compromise at all.

 

@Boerrrrr

You can think it's "nonsense", I don't really care. I said this behaviour will F up the sales last June or so, and surprise, it did. But of course believe what you want.

[Boeroer]

Sure I do. Because it's nonsense.

 

People who don't own the game can't know how "post-release development proccess" is handeled or will be handeled - except if they expect it to be like PoE's or hear it from friends who already own the game. But still will not have an impact on initial sales numbers (which were not good for Deadfire). It would hurt long term sales numbers. For PoE and Deadfire alike.

 

But in both cases long term sales numbers did not suffer. Certainly not for PoE and according to steam not for Deadfire. Initial pledges and sales for Deadfire were lower than expected. But not the long term sales development. It didn't drop steeply because some "post-release development proccess tried to cater to a vocal hardcore minority, instead of a casual majority".  This development does NOT point to such a thing as a reason but something that was done wrong with marketing, the setting or whatever was done before release of Deadfire, not after.

 

Thus your statement is nonsense. Besides that it's nonsense even without my reasoning. Except if you have numbers that show that after release sales went down (compared to average sales figures of other games who don't had a similar "post-release development proccess [which] tried to cater to a vocal hardcore minority, instead of a casual majority" and refunds went steeply up because of that.

 

If you don't it's just guessing like we all do, but not even educated guessing. 

Edited March 8, 2019 by Boeroer

[algroth]

 

And how do you know that? (The claim you make in your first sentence.)

You learn these things by working in the biz. It's often hard to find compromise between your vision and the player's needs, especially if you're Josh Sawyer, who doesn't seem to compromise at all.

 

 

Except Josh has gone on record several times about the way he had to compromise his own personal vision and needs in favour of players' and backers' expectations with Pillars, especially when it came to adhering to the format/formula of the IE games. He's straight-up said he doesn't like class-based systems, prefers tactical turn-based combat, and so on.

Edited March 8, 2019 by algroth

[Manveru123]

 

 

And how do you know that? (The claim you make in your first sentence.)

You learn these things by working in the biz. It's often hard to find compromise between your vision and the player's needs, especially if you're Josh Sawyer, who doesn't seem to compromise at all.

 

 

Except Josh has gone on record several times about the way he had to compromise his own personal vision and needs in favour of players' and backers' expectations with Pillars, especially when it came to adhering to the format/formula of the IE games. He's straight-up said he doesn't like class-based systems, prefers tactical turn-based combat, and so on.

 

But then the game couldn't be marketed as a "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and old IE games" or whatever, because it would be completely different. This is something he had to do to even get as much backing as he did. Also, I was talking more about his "post-release" vision. Wanna see a well-managed, recent cRPG that was actually successfull, check out DOS2. INB4 "dos2 sux jamie oliver wah wah".

[xzar_monty]

 

And how do you know that? (The claim you make in your first sentence.)

You learn these things by working in the biz. It's often hard to find compromise between your vision and the player's needs, especially if you're Josh Sawyer, who doesn't seem to compromise at all.

 

Actually you don't. Precisely this fundamental unanalyzability is the reason why all fields of entertainment are full of surprises: products that bomb, products that become unexpected successes, and everything in between. (I've worked in the biz for quite a long while, just not in the computer game biz.)

[algroth]

 

 

 

And how do you know that? (The claim you make in your first sentence.)

You learn these things by working in the biz. It's often hard to find compromise between your vision and the player's needs, especially if you're Josh Sawyer, who doesn't seem to compromise at all.

 

 

Except Josh has gone on record several times about the way he had to compromise his own personal vision and needs in favour of players' and backers' expectations with Pillars, especially when it came to adhering to the format/formula of the IE games. He's straight-up said he doesn't like class-based systems, prefers tactical turn-based combat, and so on.

 

But then the game couldn't be marketed as a "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and old IE games" or whatever, because it would be completely different. This is something he had to do to even get as much backing as he did. Also, I was talking more about his "post-release" vision. Wanna see a well-managed, recent cRPG that was actually successfull, check out DOS2. INB4 "dos2 sux jamie oliver wah wah".

 

I don't see where you're seeing his "post-release vision" differ at all from the general "pre-release vision" for the project, or of user input and common complaints either. It's not like he took the core game and overhauled it to something it never was in the first place, or that somehow went against player hopes/demands. And again, as Boeroer and myself have pointed out, the game's continued to show steady revenue well after the release, the audience reception didn't take a nosedive in the time after its release, so I'm not seeing where these accusations of the post-release support for the game screwing it up for a majority come from beyond maybe your personal experience. There's no evidence pointing to this being a thing at all, let alone a factor in Deadfire's performance.

Edited March 8, 2019 by algroth

[Boeroer]

INB4 "dos2 sux jamie oliver wah wah".

INB4 talking nonsense. I didn't say D:OS 2 sucks. I just said that calling DO:2 the best RPG ever is like calling Jamie Oliver the best chef ever (meaning that most popular != "best"). If I would imply that D:OS 2 sucks that would also mean that Jamie Oliver sucks as a chef - which he obviously doesn't.

 

Please try to avoid dishonesty when reciting people.

[Verde]

 

INB4 "dos2 sux jamie oliver wah wah".

INB4 talking nonsense. I didn't say D:OS 2 sucks. I just said that calling DO:2 the best RPG ever is like calling Jamie Oliver the best chef ever (meaning that most popular != "best"). If I would imply that D:OS 2 sucks that would also mean that Jamie Oliver sucks as a chef - which he obviously doesn't.

 

Please try to avoid dishonesty when reciting people.

I was only saying that as a yardstick for the ridiculous. I agree with you. I'm going to try and play DoS2 again as I couldn't the first time. But there are reviewers and lists that put it up with the best. It also has very high Metacritic critic and users scores. So we may not like it, but it doesn't mean everyone else is wrong or not in the right mind. I mean we put up with the insane amount of Deadfire bugs so maybe we are the crazy ones Edited March 8, 2019 by Verde

[xzar_monty]

I wonder if DoS2 is worth trying. It doesn't look that good, visually, it's so flashy, but if the story is superb then I suppose it might be a good game.

 

(Btw, although nobody would count Jamie Oliver among the best cooks in the world, he's seriously good. )

[Verde]

For me it's the tongue and cheek humor and the weird camera that bothers. I like the darker tone of Pillars. But the reactivity is off the charts. I'll see how it fares but I already starting playing PoE2 this morning haha.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Verde

[Boeroer]

D:OS 2 is not for me because I don't like the style and the tone. The original also had a somewhat cheeky tone, but it wasn't that blatant and not that "comicesque". I tried to play it for a while (I also backed it and would do it again - as I did with D:OS) but I really don't like it. I cringed... I also didn't like the combat nechanics. I don't doubt that it's an objectively good game though.

 

I think multiplayer as one of the reasons why it sold well.

 

Imagine Diablo II without Battle.net. I mean D:OS 2 is not an action RPG, but still: a good multiplayer attracts (younger) folks I guess. I personally prefer to play my games alone and spend my other "real world" time in company - but I think there are enough people who like to do the opposite.

 

I stil think the setting has a big impact (besides weak marketing). Tyranny is not a bad game (also I don't like that too much as well - at least I finished it twice) but it also has an uncommon setting (more pre-medieval, "be evil!" and that sort of stuff). And it has no multiplayer as well.

 

Of course those can only be parts of the puzzle - if they are at all.

 

I'm somwehat special when it comes to my likes of computer games. For example I really like Blackguards - although I guess it's considered to be a pretty mediocre game. I love Legend of Grimrock I and don't like Legend of Grimrock II. I digged FTL for (let's see...) 403 hours but only put 70 into "Into the Breach" although I think it's the better game (mechanically). I didn't really like Torchlight I but liked Torchlight II. I loved Diablo I and especially II (because -funnily enough I was playing it with friends online - but friends who were sitting beside me and bropught their PCs)... but I hate(!!!) Diablo III. God... Diablo III. If I ever meet it on the streets I will throw it under a bus!

Edited March 8, 2019 by Boeroer

[Verde]

D:OS 2 is not for me because I don't like the style and the tone. The original also had a somewhat cheeky tone, but it wasn't that blatant and not that "comicesque". I tried to play it for a while (I also backed it and would do it again - as I did with D:OS) but I really don't like it. I cringed... I also didn't like the combat nechanics. I don't doubt that it's an objectively good game though.

 

I think multiplayer as one of the reasons why it sold well.

 

Imagine Diablo II without Battle.net. I mean D:OS 2 is not an action RPG, but still: a good multiplayer attracts (younger) folks I guess. I personally prefer to play my games alone and spend my other "real world" time in company - but I think there are enough people who like to do the opposite.

 

I stil think the setting has a big impact (besides weak marketing). Tyranny is not a bad game (also I don't like that too much as well - at least I finished it twice) but it also has an uncommon setting (more pre-medieval, "be evil!" and that sort of stuff). And it has no multiplayer as well.

 

Of course those can only be parts of the puzzle - if they are at all.

 

I'm somwehat special when it comes to my likes of computer games. For example I really like Blackguards - although I guess it's considered to be a pretty mediocre game. I love Legend of Grimrock I and don't like Legend of Grimrock II. I digged FTL for (let's see...) 403 hours but only put 70 into "Into the Breach" although I think it's the better game (mechanically). I didn't really like Torchlight I but liked Torchlight II. I loved Diablo I and especially II (because -funnily enough I was playing it with friends online - but friends who were sitting beside me and bropught their PCs)... but I hate(!!!) Diablo III. God... Diablo III. If I ever meet it on the streets I will throw it under a bus!

Next you're gonna tell me you loved Witcher 1 & 2 but not 3.

[xzar_monty]

Ha. Based on that, DoS(2) is probably not for me. Multiplayer is a definite no-no, for sure. In this millennium, I played BG2, then a bit of NWN, then nothing until PoE, and now Deadfire. I've also got Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which looks ok but which I haven't really got into.

 

Anyway, thanks for the comments, folks.

[Boeroer]

Next you're gonna tell me you loved Witcher 1 & 2 but not 3.

I read the books long time ago, they were okish afair. The games I don't like too much. I usually don't like RPGs where your role is fixed and you don't have a real character creation. After all I come from Pen & Paper Roleplaying.

 

I remember that I couldn't finish Witcher and finished Witcher 2 once. I didn't even try Witcher 3. What I disliked most about the Witcher 1 was the "collectible romances" that seem to have been scripted by a 15-year old whose puperty hormons came out of his ears. That - or it was a forty-year-old repressed virgin with no access to proper porn. Iirc that was not the tone of Sapkowski's books(?).