Why is PoE2 not successful ?

[algroth]

7 minutes ago, deserk said:

But personally I really wish Obsidian would go back to making DnD-based games, like Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights. The world of Pillars is alright, but I personally don't find it as compelling as the setting of those past titles. Also I like the mechanics of DnD and the feel of Forgotten Realms, as well as the plethora of monsters, races, faiths, factions and locales (both material plane and beyond) to play around with. With Baldur's Gate 3 being made by Larian, it seems like such a ripe opportunity for Obsidian to make an Icewind Dale 3 (that is at least before WotC potentially hires another studio to do that) or some other Forgotten Realms title. That would truly be nostalgic, in my opinion at least. After all the hopes of many of us fans who helped kickstart these PoE games were for them to make a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate I-II and Icewind Dale I-II. What if we could get literal sequels instead of figurative ones?

The issue is that Obsidian/Microsoft don't have the license for DnD, so even if they wanted to make an Icewind Dale 3 or Neverwinter Nights 3 the ability to do so wouldn't really be up to them. Personally I'm fine with them developing their new setting to create similar but more personal experiences the way they have with Eora - it's pretty evident that there's a lot of Josh in this setting what with the heavy emphasis on replicating historical/cultural trends and placing heavy attention on such details, and likewise it's given them the freedom to essentially mold and adopt the setting's history to their own desired themes and the likes. There's plenty of meat from a themes/ideas perspective that they've been sinking their teeth into that would probably have been much harder to do with an established IP the way DnD is (though they were certainly capable of much in the past, as evidenced with Mask of the Betrayer and Planescape: Torment).

What I'm sadder about is that they didn't retain the rights to a few of their other original IPs like Alpha Protocol or Tyranny, as much of interest could've been done with either franchise/setting.

Edited November 20, 2019 by algroth

[thelee]

1 hour ago, algroth said:

The issue is that Obsidian/Microsoft don't have the license for DnD, so even if they wanted to make an Icewind Dale 3 or Neverwinter Nights 3 the ability to do so wouldn't really be up to them.

They would have to strike a deal, much in the way Larian is doing (as I understand it). Licensing is expensive though, and most license-holders these days are risk-averse, so unfortunately Deadfire not doing well is probably not going to build a case with WotC to license an IWD3 unless there's a strong change in direction.

Also, IWD and IWD2 did significantly worse than BG and BG2 (critically and in terms of sales). I mean, I'm pretty sure Black Isle made decent money off of them since they saved a lot of costs by leveraging the IE engine from BG and the IE engine from BG2 and the general lower complexity of building a super-linear dungeon crawl, but while we're here talking about "niche of a niche" I would go so far as to speculate that Eora has more of a cache than Icewind Dale as a franchise.

[algroth]

3 hours ago, thelee said:

Also, IWD and IWD2 did significantly worse than BG and BG2 (critically and in terms of sales). I mean, I'm pretty sure Black Isle made decent money off of them since they saved a lot of costs by leveraging the IE engine from BG and the IE engine from BG2 and the general lower complexity of building a super-linear dungeon crawl, but while we're here talking about "niche of a niche" I would go so far as to speculate that Eora has more of a cache than Icewind Dale as a franchise.

I could see an Icewind Dale 3 being successful on the basis that Icewind Dale does have some IE nostalgia value attached to it, and the market's been so starved of official DnD RPGs that I think it'd get traction based off of brand value alone. But at the same time, with Larian proving the more successful company in this new age of CRPGs and Icewind Dale not being a particularly author-driven series the way Planescape: Torment or Fallout were, what value would there be for WotC to have Obsidian do one instead of Larian again? Unless they can't, but I don't see it being the case.

If anything I'd see Obsidian getting a better chance at a third Neverwinter Nights, and at the same time that's Trent Oster's baby and he seems pretty determined in wanting to have a hand on whatever future that franchise has himself. He also wasn't particularly keen on the direction Obsidian took with it.

Edited November 21, 2019 by algroth

[Gromnir]

7 hours ago, thelee said:

They would have to strike a deal, much in the way Larian is doing (as I understand it). Licensing is expensive though, and most license-holders these days are risk-averse, so unfortunately Deadfire not doing well is probably not going to build a case with WotC to license an IWD3 unless there's a strong change in direction.

Also, IWD and IWD2 did significantly worse than BG and BG2 (critically and in terms of sales). I mean, I'm pretty sure Black Isle made decent money off of them since they saved a lot of costs by leveraging the IE engine from BG and the IE engine from BG2 and the general lower complexity of building a super-linear dungeon crawl, but while we're here talking about "niche of a niche" I would go so far as to speculate that Eora has more of a cache than Icewind Dale as a franchise.

iwd kept the doors open and the lights on for a few more years at black isle, and believe it or not, iwd were black isle's most profitable development.  were relative quick and cheap to make iwd, which were likely the only reasons the interplay bosses gave it the green light.

iwd2 were an attempt by black isle to replicate iwd success and were an even more desperate attempt to keep black isle viable... and more immediate, kept the people at black isle employed. 

however, is a darker side to iwd franchise development. iwd and iwd2 were developed instead o' more ambitious games, games which mighta' changed the fortunes o' black isle as 'posed to just keeping interplay bosses from shuttering the operation for a couple more years. 

iwd were not as successful as bg or bg2, not even close. even so, the business o' game development is not simple and straightforward. 

as an aside, licensing issues is what killed black isle's bg3 development. 

oh, and is worth noting the relationship 'tween wotc and the black isle developers were less than perfect. josh never posts here, so is unlikely you ever get the story from him, but there were a rather public kerfuffle 'tween the d&d folks and black isle regarding monte' cook's ranger. were embarrassing but understandable gaslighting by black isle in an attempt to make folks forget josh's excess o' exuberance on the matter.

wanna bet monte cook's ranger were only the most public conflict 'tween d&d folks and black isle... or obsidian for that matter.  bet josh in particular would as soon as gargle broken glass than work on another d&d game.

regardless, obsidian don't have d&d license, so no d&d games will be forthcoming from obsidian. nevertheless, deserk's wish for obsidian to "go back to making DnD-based games," is illustrative o' the core problem we identified earlier. a significant portion o' fans were disappointed 'cause poe were not their idealized bg3. obsidian didn't even make iwd. obsidian made nwn2 and a couple expansions, but can you recall how many requests you heard for poe to be more like nwn2 during the development o' poe? few and far between. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Boeroer]

57 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

oh, and is worth noting the relationship 'tween wotc and the black isle developers were less than perfect. josh never posts here, so is unlikely you ever get the story from him, but there were a rather public kerfuffle 'tween the d&d folks and black isle regarding monte' cook's ranger. were embarrassing but understandable gaslighting by black isle in an attempt to make folks forget josh's excess o' exuberance on the matter.

wanna bet monte cook's ranger were only the most public conflict 'tween d&d folks and black isle... or obsidian for that matter.  bet josh in particular would as soon as gargle broken glass than work on another d&d game.

I think  this passage from March 19th 2002 was part of it:

Josh Sawyer said:

Monte Cook helped design the 3E ranger and even he has written, repeatedly, that he was always concerned about how the class was balanced. That's why he created the Monte Cook ranger. That's why many people use it. That's why many third party 3E character generators allow you to select "Ranger" or "Monte Cook Ranger" from their list of classes.

Three feats at first level? Does that sound like a reasonable starting point for a class? It's the most often-abused multiclassing combination. Are you a rogue? Would you like three feats, a hated enemy, and d10 hit points? Take a level of ranger, never to return.

Rules do not exist for their own sake. Rules exist to create a structure in which "fun time" happens. If you want me to follow a set of rules just because they exist -- sorry, that's not a good reason.

The 3E ranger is forced to have feats that have little or nothing to do with being a ranger (Ranger Ambidexterity, Ranger Two-Weapon Fighting). The 1st Edition ranger did not have any proficiency with using two weapons. On top of that, the 1st Edition ranger had d8 hit points. The only reason the 2nd Edition ranger had two-weapon fighting abilities was because of Drizzt Do'Urden. I have displayed this temporal chain before, but in case you missed it:

* Unearthed Arcana is released. Rangers have no special abilities with two-weapon fighting. However, dark elves, listed in the book, do have special abilities with two-weapon fighting. * Crystal Shard is released. Drizzt Do'Urden, a dark elf ranger, uses two scimitars. * The 2nd Edition Player's Handbook is released. Rangers have special abilities with two-weapon fighting. Unlike almost every other class ability in the Player's Handbook, this particular class ability is not explained. It is simply listed as a class feature of the ranger.

In 3E, rangers start with three feats, one of which makes sense: Track. If you do not want to wield two weapons, you are "wasting" two of the ostensible benefits of your class. However, if you are a rogue or sorcerer who happens to want the sweetest, cheapest deal in the Player's Handbook, you take a level of ranger and abandon it. That's poor design and class structure, plain and simple.

He could've been more diplomatic, but he's right.

I don't want to go back to D&D. To me, personally, the setting's chaotic, abstruse and often silly. Mechanics were quite ugly. Don't know the newest editions though.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Boeroer

[Wormerine]

3 hours ago, Boeroer said:

I don't want to go back to D&D. To me, personally, the setting's chaotic, abstruse and often silly. Mechanics were quite ugly. Don't know the newest editions though.

Curious to see how Solasta will do. Not D&D setting, but D&D ruleset. 

[Boeroer]

Looking at the Kickstarter campaign: not especially well in terms of absolute sales numbers.

As I said I don't know the v. 5+ ruleset - so no idea if it's any good. 

[xzar_monty]

But hey, there's a new title coming! I hadn't known about this. Boy, I am pleased that this game is coming out.

[Gromnir]

7 hours ago, Boeroer said:

I think  this passage from March 19th 2002 was part of it:

He could've been more diplomatic, but he's right.

I don't want to go back to D&D. To me, personally, the setting's chaotic, abstruse and often silly. Mechanics were quite ugly. Don't know the newest editions though.

this is hardly the totality o' josh's monte cook ranger comments and hardly the most troublesome. regarding wotc interference insofar as attempts to implement the monte cook ranger, josh were... animated.

all such josh posts were exorcised from the black isle board and short there afterward highest levels o' black isle management added a short post which reassured us all were well 'tween black isle and wotc and let the community know that josh had never actually made comments questioning wotc.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Gfted1]

18 hours ago, Wormerine said:

Well, there were less then 80k backers, while the game was supposively sell over 1,000,000 copies?

Many backers received more than one copy of the game. Do you know if each of those copies were considered individual?

[kanisatha]

I too am in the camp of PoE mechanics being way better than D&D, and agree on not wanting to return to D&D, especially because to me D&D 5e is a dumbing-down and oversimplification of the D&D mechanics to broaden D&D's appeal. But with respect to settings, the Forgotten Realms will always be the fantasy game setting I love the most. As such, I would be quite happy to see a NwN3 from Obsidian, which I think would be far better received than IwD3.

[xzar_monty]

I have nothing against D&D, and I still play 3.5 PnP, which I think is just great.

As for NWN: does anyone else feel that the NWN approach is much more generic and infinitely less beautiful and romantic than that of either BG or PoE/Deadfire? No matter how pretty your 3D tilesets are, they get repetitive incredibly quickly, and so there isn't (perhaps even can't be) anything striking about any of the graphics in the long run. Whereas the individually created isometric graphics of both BG and PoE/Deadfire are idiosyncratic, imaginative and charming. NWN felt like so much slogging through generic areas, and NWN2 was impossible to get into, for me. There's just no charm, no beauty, no romance, no sense of adventure.

Like (I think) Gromnir said somewhere above: there was precious little romanticism and nostalgia for NWN while people waited for PoE. It was BG everybody pined for, and I can understand why. There's such a difference between the two. (Sales-wise, I have no idea.)

Edited November 21, 2019 by xzar_monty

[Gfted1]

This is an unpopular opinion but one of the things that turned ME off to PoE was...many of the rules looked the same, just with a layer of suck on top. Want to rest? Nope, only certain places, a certain amount of times, and you need a consumable. Want to save? Were going to prevent save scumming. Want kill XP? Were going to save you from becoming a murderhobo. Want to prebuff? Your going to have to do it in combat. Cant stack buffs, no healing, etc. I understand all of these things are beloved around here, but not for me. The final steak in my heart was my most favorite aspect of RPG's, the combat. I couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on and it all turned into a dogpile in the middle of the screen for me. So I never even installed the game after trying the beta. I didn't buy into Deadfire for these reasons. Im the problem here, just explaining what killed the franchise for ME.

[Wormerine]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

Many backers received more than one copy of the game. Do you know if each of those copies were considered individual?

No clue. But even if we were to double or triple backer number that would still provide a respectable amount of additional sales. I remember there also being a report of people making multiple minor donations which would put grant rewards but would inflate backer number to unlock rewards. how it all translates to actual copies, I cannot say.

Worth mentioning that Deadfire gathered more money then PoE1, with only 33614 backers, however half of that money came from fig investors (poor chaps). 
 

Whenever there is any actual useful data one could draw from it I have no clue. There are three conflicting conclusions I can think of, but I don’t think I have actual data to support any of them:

1) sequel got more money so interest was bigger?

2) less people backed overall, meaning that while investors hoped to make money based on PoE1 success, in actuality the customer interest was smaller

3) there was smaller but more passionate player base, and campaign while successful, most people interested in PoE2 jumped on the bandwagon during the campaign. I for one, moved from months after PoE1 release purchase, to day 1 backer. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Wormerine

[Wormerine]

12 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

I understand all of these things are beloved around here, but not for me.

Yup, all the things you mentioned make PoE IMO the best designed game of its kind. I don’t know what you mean by saving though. As far as I can remember you could save whenever, wherever you want. Outside combat, that is, but I don’t remember RPG ever allowing you to do that. BG certainly never did. I imagine issues are technical.

12 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

The final steak in my heart was my most favorite aspect of RPG's, the combat. I couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on and it all turned into a dogpile in the middle of the screen for me. So I never even installed the game after trying the beta. I didn't buy into Deadfire for these reasons. Im the problem here, just explaining what killed the franchise for ME.

Deadfire improved greatly on that front, but it is an issue inherent to a real-time game using stat&roll based system originally designed for turn based table top, no? I still found PoEs more transparent as any of the IE games, and probably that’s due to them being designed to be played that way. There is a reason why games designed for Real Time use fairly simple, reliable rules. 

I remember a friend of mine being happy about Deadfire releasing turn-based mode, saying: “no matter how much I try to pay attention, in the end it always comes down to me clicking on the enemy and waiting for my units to swing at him until either of us die”. I think, even looking at those forums, that there are very few people who can properly engage with such detailed system, in a Real-Time setting.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Wormerine

[thelee]

8 hours ago, Boeroer said:

I think  this passage from March 19th 2002 was part of it:

He could've been more diplomatic, but he's right.

I don't want to go back to D&D. To me, personally, the setting's chaotic, abstruse and often silly. Mechanics were quite ugly. Don't know the newest editions though.

wow! I totally had no idea about this bit o' history. But i mean, josh isn't wrong . IWD2 min-maxing is all about taking 1 or 2 levels of random classes because it's like WotC had no idea that players would ever actually multiclass with their multiclass-friendly system (and the only reason why min-maxing is optimal in IWD2 is because of hte increased level cap to 30; so poorly-balanced was multiclassing on both the bottom and top end in base 3e).

edit - i appreciate 3e because it set up the d20 world of systems, and how it rationalized some of the mechanics a bit. but in terms of "fun" AD&D is better to me. I tried 4th edition in a couple tabletop sessions and it really seemed like "World of D&Dcraft". Haven't touched 5th ed.

Edited November 21, 2019 by thelee

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Wormerine said:

Yup, all the things you mentioned make PoE IMO the best designed game of its kind. I don’t know what you mean by saving though. As far as I can remember you could save whenever, wherever you want. Outside combat, that is, but I don’t remember RPG ever allowing you to do that. BG certainly never did. I imagine issues are technical.

obsidian, and more specifically josh, addressed stuff such as per kill xp and pre buffing and whatnot, trying to elicit from those requesting such stuff, why those things made game better?  the responses never articulated more than the most subjective feels arguments.  as we noted 'bove, while rare explicit stated, the underlying and unspoken argument from those requesting the collective laundry list o' items o' curiously essential features were that those features had been in the ie games and as such they should presumptive be included in bg3/poe. after all, leaving such stuff out would undercut obsidian's "spiritual successor"... promises.

as to the confusing nature o' poe, am recalling how for us personal the poe beta combat were fast and unforgiving and feedback were limited. we were failing to hit a beetle, but were not sure why. at the same time those giant insects were attacking us with damage-over-time attacks which quickly depleted our life and we had no idea how to counter those attacks short o' killing the beetles faster, which we failed to do.

two things worth observing:

1) obsidian made numerous efforts to address combat "speed."

2) we played poe and poe2 to death.

obsidian did respond to beta players concerns 'bout speed and speed were, 'ccording to consensus o' community, noticeable "slowed" 'tween beta and release of game. some things as simple as aoe visual effects made it difficult to see what were happening in clustered combat. obsidian were responsive during beta, and continued to respond to speed concerns. we have noted how for us the best improvement 'tween poe and deadfire were the shift feature related to the combat log. unlike poe, it were much easier to follow combat w/o digging into code.

that said, we again observe how we played the poe games for eye-popping hours. the speed o' poe naturally and predictably slowed for us. regardless o' obsidian efforts, given our daily and hourly experience with the game(s), the difficulty curve flattened considerable. our impressions is not illustrative o' the typical player and am fully cognizant o' fact that it is literal impossible for us to judge speed or confusion o' the poe games for an ordinary and sane player.

HA! Good Fun!

[nouser]

I like a lot deadfire , awesome crpg . but i know some reasons why it was not as sucessful as expected (although it was not  flop , for what i have read, the sales became regular after all the expansions were released ).

first the secondary reasons.  fewer companions than in poe 2 , possible extra companions replaced by the sidekicks (half-made companions).  bad naval battles. poe2 is also more unbalanced. lack of evil companions, details like companions not fighting with the player and other companions based on actions during the game. maia should become hostile if you mention you sacrificed kana, for example.

but the PRIMARY REASONs , which im sure were REAL CAUSES . first, is that in poe2 you have to have played poe1 to understand the story of poe2.  and you also return to level 1 in a way that breaks the immersion (the poe1 companions also return to level 1 for an unexplained reason) , second there is also the fact that was no kickstarter at all.  THAT were the real causes.  regarding kickstrter, i dont think it need to to  be fully backed by kickstarter, but a partial financing is very useful. the main cause was really the lack of kickstarter. all other causes could have been surpassed by using it.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by nouser

[rjshae]

Rather than a full-blown PoE3, I almost think they should try something lighter as an interlude. Like a mid-length story centered around a specific character in a new environment. They could hire a writer to develop the character. A party of just a couple of characters (the main PC and a side kick) would be easier to write, voice, and animate. The battles would be smaller and could be more meaningful.

[Wormerine]

9 minutes ago, nouser said:

egarding kickstrter, i dont think it need to to  be fully backed by kickstarter, but a partial financing is very useful. the main cause was really the lack of kickstarter. all other causes could have been surpassed by using it.

https://www.fig.co/campaigns/deadfire

huh? Still, even if more people would back on kickstarter, rather then fig, how would that supposively translate to post release sales?

[daven]

The budget was too high. Josh even said that the Ship minigame was a black hole of resources. They should have trimmed the fat, focussed on what was important. So even if sales remained like this, at least costs would be lower. Same with full VO, how much has it really added? All these 2 features did were drive Josh to hating CRPG's.

Edited November 21, 2019 by daven

[thelee]

1 hour ago, nouser said:

first the secondary reasons.  fewer companions than in poe 2 , possible extra companions replaced by the sidekicks (half-made companions).  bad naval battles. poe2 is also more unbalanced. lack of evil companions, details like companions not fighting with the player and other companions based on actions during the game. maia should become hostile if you mention you sacrificed kana, for example.

i agree that the companions in deadfire are narrower even if deeper. all the companions in poe1 had deep aspects to them, whereas in deadfire you get a handful of even deeper interaction, but another handful of very shallow (BG1-level) interaction.  Combined with the fact that you had a larger party size in poe1, and deadfire actually feels a bit emptier in this respect, especially outside the DLCs. Using my most recent run as an example, I have a hired companion, two sidekicks, and tekehu. The net effect is that I only ever really get interactivity from tekehu (and briefly from serafen when I was trying to get his hand mortars) so this party feels shallower and less reactive than my typical poe1 party: myself, maybe one or two hired companions, and four or three (respectively) companions who--though they might not have the same reactivity as in deadfire--would each have their own quests and might chime in on stuff. Even at a low end of just three OBS companions and even considering poe1's lower bar, that is way more interactivity/reactivity than my typical deadfire party.

But i think this is in part because of:

40 minutes ago, daven said:

The budget was too high. Josh even said that the Ship minigame was a black hole of resources. They should have trimmed the fat, focussed on what was important. So even if sales remained like this, at least costs would be lower. Same with full VO, how much has it really added? All these 2 features did were drive Josh to hating CRPG's.

once you commit to full VO, adding content for companions becomes an ordeal. Sidekicks existed as a sort of bridge compromise IIRC. They did add some extra sidekick-specific reactivity in the DLCs (especially konstanten in sss, ydwin in fs, and fassina in fs; and heck even mirke got random dialogue) but nothing like even what poe1 offered and very little (if any) in the base game. Again, using my last party as an example, the first time Tekehu did an out-of-band conversation it was a little surprising because I had gotten used to the utter silence of my party (which uses konstanten and rekke as sidekick companions).

Full VO is a pandora's box that is going to squeeze the quality of games from smaller and indie studios, full stop.

Edited November 21, 2019 by thelee

[Boeroer]

I'd actually like it a lot if they just put like 5 or so young devs into a room, give them the Deadfire "engine" and let them make something like a standalone DLC (sort of). Same mechanics, graphics and so on, just fresh content. Would be great way to test the waters while not investing too much money, devs would gather a ton of experience, we'd get some more Eora stuff. Just so that the world is kept alive.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Boeroer

[xzar_monty]

20 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

This is an unpopular opinion but one of the things that turned ME off to PoE was...many of the rules looked the same, just with a layer of suck on top. Want to rest? Nope, only certain places, a certain amount of times, and you need a consumable. Want to save? Were going to prevent save scumming. Want kill XP? Were going to save you from becoming a murderhobo. Want to prebuff? Your going to have to do it in combat. Cant stack buffs, no healing, etc. I understand all of these things are beloved around here, but not for me.

I'm not sure if they're beloved. I don't understand your comment concerning saves -- it seems to me that you're either flat out wrong, or you're articulating yourself poorly. Needing a consumable to rest is a definite downer for me as well, particularly given how it worked in PoE: you have an infinite inventory, and you actually can't drop stuff (other than by putting it into containers) but you still can only carry 2 or 4 sets of camping gear. I thought that was just silly, and I still do, but it didn't put me off. Not being able to prebuff is, in the end, quite fine, but I suppose this is related to the difficulty: you don't really need to prebuff, in the same way that you don't need to optimize your gear, you'll do just fine (except maybe in the very beginning of the game). In the end it seems to me that removing the idea of prebuffing also removed the need to ever use scrolls or potions in the game, and I feel this is a bit of a loss -- especially because they are all over the place in the game, in terms of loot, items on sale, etc. But you just don't need any.

[Gfted1]

I accept that I have remembered things wrong wrt saving. I only played the first and second to last beta.