Planescape: Torment

[Sargallath Abraxium]

ps:t did crap for interplay.  sold well over time?  at what percentage of original cost?  over a substantial period of time, ps:t finally managed to break even.  that is NOT a good business investment.  for chrissakes, if you is better off having put the same money into a conservative mutual fund then you is not any kind of success.

 

in the real world, games got 2 quarters to make an impact.  if they don't, then they is a Commercial Failure. in spite of fergie number fumblings, ps:t were a dog... a major release for interplay that ended up hurting the company... which is why he kept making iwd stuff instead of doing a ps:t or fallout sequel.  like ps:t or don

[Drakron]

Let me help you ....

 

...actually, PS:T did pretty well over time; Feargus hisself said that on more than a few occassions on the ol' BIS Boards...

 

You also said

 

it jus' wasna a smashing success out o' the gate and BIS was in the proccess o' bein' in a hurt locker fer a smashing success, which ne'er really materialized, more's the pity...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As Grommir said it sold crap after launch, games have about 4 months to payoff its cost and PS:T did not, it might break even 2 years after been release but then again Interplay could have made more money if they put the money in the bank.

 

And it was not about making a immediate success, its about covering production costs that PS:T did not.

[Judge Hades]

I bet only money makes you happy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only money keeps a business in business.

[kirottu]

As Grommir said it sold crap after launch, games have about 4 months to payoff its cost and PS:T did not, it might break even 2 years after been release but then again Interplay could have made more money if they put the money in the bank.

 

And it was not about making a immediate success, its about covering production costs that PS:T did not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interplay was a game developer and publisher company not some investor company. Hell, Interplay could have bought Nokia shares just before they started to make cell phones, but that

[Drakron]

Interplay was a game developer and publisher company not some investor company.

 

Wrong, its a investor company ... it had shares that were traded in the open market, it had stockholders.

 

Hell, Interplay could have bought Nokia shares just before they started to make cell phones, but that

[kirottu]

Interplay was a game developer and publisher company not some investor company.

 

Wrong, its a investor company ... it had shares that were traded in the open market, it had stockholders.

 

Hell, Interplay could have bought Nokia shares just before they started to make cell phones, but that

[alanschu]

Interplay was a game developer and publisher company not some investor company. Hell, Interplay could have bought Nokia shares just before they started to make cell phones, but that

[Sargallath Abraxium]

Let me help you ....

 

...actually, PS:T did pretty well over time; Feargus hisself said that on more than a few occassions on the ol' BIS Boards...

 

You also said

 

...so...it did sell pretty well over time, so it's a truthful statement...nowhere in there did I say she was a smashing success, jus' that it sold pretty well over time...truth hurt???...

 

 

it jus' wasna a smashing success out o' the gate and BIS was in the proccess o' bein' in a hurt locker fer a smashing success, which ne'er really materialized, more's the pity...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As Grommir said it sold crap after launch, games have about 4 months to payoff its cost and PS:T did not, it might break even 2 years after been release but then again Interplay could have made more money if they put the money in the bank.

 

And it was not about making a immediate success, its about covering production costs that PS:T did not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...when did I ever say PS:T covered production costs???...when did I ever mention production costs???...again, nowhere; right...so I ne'er once said PS:T was a financial success...so yer point be that his point illustrates that neither one o' ye pays much attention, what wit' yer heads up yer own arses...OK, glad we cleared that up...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[213374U]

Most of you folks already know what I think about Ps:T so there's really no need to repeat myself.

 

 

jus' made the point that PS:T wasna a total commercial failure

...when did I ever say PS:T covered production costs???...when did I ever mention production costs???...again, nowhere; right...so I ne'er once said PS:T was a financial success...

Those two statements are mutually contradictory, as a product is either a success or a failure commercially. In this case, and regardless of the critical acclaim received by the game, it was a failure on its own. The amount of prestige earned by its developers in the industry is irrelevant, as that is not the goal of any business endeavor, simply a welcome byproduct.

[alanschu]

I disagree. There are varying degrees of success and failures.

 

If it made zero money, then I would be more likely to classify it as a "total failure," to use Sargy's words.

 

The fact that it eventually did turn a profit would mean to me that it wasn't an absolute failure, but just failed given the demands of the industry.

[metadigital]

Yes, but "failure" would encompass the fact that the orignal investment wasn't recouped in the necessary timeframe.

 

Businesses go broke because of that ALL THE TIME. You might have $1M in accounts receivable, but if you pay your wages with a working capital of nought, then your cheques bounce and the employees are less than happy.

 

[213374U]

I disagree.  There are varying degrees of success and failures.

Keep splitting hairs. If a game meets its sales expectations, it's considered a success. If it doesn't, it's considered a failure. If it fails to cover even development costs, it's considered a total failure, and the company has to rethink their strategy or they risk going down.

 

 

The fact that it eventually did turn a profit would mean to me that it wasn't an absolute failure, but just failed given the demands of the industry.

It was an absolute failure. It only managed to cover development costs years after it was released. Most developers wouldn't be able to survive such a blow.

[Lancer]

In regards to the surprising comment that some felt that the Mortuary was "boring":

 

 

In addition to Yst's and roshan's comments, the mortuary had interesting roleplaying opportunities and (depending on your intelligence) things like exposing the anarchist dressed up as a zombie or learning interesting tidbits about individual zombies or the True Death were quite fun. Heck, you can obtain a needle, some thread and embalming fluid and even masquerade as a zombie yourself!

 

There was a lot of interesting roleplaying in the mortuary in contrast to what the naysayers say.

 

The Mortuary was definitely one of the high points in the game.

[Drakron]

I have to wonder how to take PS:T comments serious when they are from people that twist the sales figures to say PS:T did "alright" as anyone that followed up the game history knows quite well it was a fiasco in sales.

 

Of course Feargus is going to downplay as much as it can PS:T failures, he had a direct hand on the project and critical acclaimed games are not worth much unless they have good sales.

 

But the rest have no reason, PS:T failure was a lot due to Interplay marketing choices, the box art alone could drive people away from the game.

[Lancer]

Indeed, I find myself completely at odds with those who believe the beginning to be a weak point in the game.

 

I also find myself completely at odds with those that say that Planescape's combat was "weak." Weak in what sense? I have never understood what was so bad about Torment's combat? It used the same engine as the BG games and it had a good balance of combat and roleplaying (IMHO, unlike say IWD)

 

And there *were* relatively difficult combat sequences in the game such as the huge demon on Curst, Curst prison, the mayhem in Carceri, and the Transcendent One.

 

I wonder from those who disliked Torment's combat was it because you didn't get a huge assortment of swords and amor to choose from like in the BG Games?

I personally thought that the combat was just right.

[Sargallath Abraxium]

jus' made the point that PS:T wasna a total commercial failure

...when did I ever say PS:T covered production costs???...when did I ever mention production costs???...again, nowhere; right...so I ne'er once said PS:T was a financial success...

Those two statements are mutually contradictory, as a product is either a success or a failure commercially. In this case, and regardless of the critical acclaim received by the game, it was a failure on its own. The amount of prestige earned by its developers in the industry is irrelevant, as that is not the goal of any business endeavor, simply a welcome byproduct.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

...what a bunch o' cowshyte; ye'd also consider the original Fallout a "total failure", then, by yer wondrous definition (if'n ye remember, Fallout didna sell well out o' the gate, either)...there be no "black & white" 'ere; PS:T failed to succed commercially out o' the gate, yes, but ta call it a "total failure" is bullshyte an' ye knows it...it garnered BIS critical acclaim, which in turn catches the interest of more investors an' gamers for IPLY (AND BIO, since, back then, BIS & BIO was attatched at the hip)...not to mention the fact that it still sold well over 100,000 copies (more than likely closer ta 200,000) afore BIS shut its doors fer the long haul...was it a financial failure out o' the gate; yes...was it a "total failure"; hell no...if'n it was, we'd not still be havin' these debates...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Lancer]

Seeing how popular Torment is (regularly being among the top 2 or 3 favorite RPGs in just about every online CRPG forum) all across the net tells me that it wasn't a "total failure."

[alanschu]

I disagree.  There are varying degrees of success and failures.

Keep splitting hairs. If a game meets its sales expectations, it's considered a success. If it doesn't, it's considered a failure. If it fails to cover even development costs, it's considered a total failure, and the company has to rethink their strategy or they risk going down.

 

 

The fact that it eventually did turn a profit would mean to me that it wasn't an absolute failure, but just failed given the demands of the industry.

It was an absolute failure. It only managed to cover development costs years after it was released. Most developers wouldn't be able to survive such a blow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think it's hairsplitting or anything.

 

However, as you say, it did cover development costs. It just took a long time. So in your own words, it wouldn't be a total failure.

 

An absolute failure is a game that flat out doesn't sell IMO, but now we're just discussing opinions.

 

 

I have to wonder how to take PS:T comments serious when they are from people that twist the sales figures to say PS:T did "alright" as anyone that followed up the game history knows quite well it was a fiasco in sales.

 

In other words I'm running out of reasons to bash the game.

 

Don't think less of people's opinions of the game content when you disagree with their interpretations of non-content related manners.

[Yst]

Interplay was already on the way to its death when PS:T was released, and PS:T got advertising and marketing more in keeping with what would be appropriate to a bargain bin budget title rather than a masterpiece published by the biggest name in the CRPG business. It was released with terrible box art for a fairly short initial run then rereleased for a short time, bundled with a failed Interplay (not BIS) title, Soulbringer, which was almost universally panned. For most of the time since then, it has been out of production and unable to accrue profits its fame would otherwise have easily allowed.

 

Asserting that PS:T was not a profitable title, without elaborating the point, is a bit like saying that the Titanic's boilers had a poor operational life. After all, the boilers stopped mere days into the ship's maiden voyage. Surely we don't have to elaborate why the boilers had a poor operational life? Sure, the ship was sinking around them, but that's no excuse for the boiliers to have stopped.

[213374U]

...what a bunch o' cowshyte; ye'd also consider the original Fallout a "total failure", then, by yer wondrous definition (if'n ye remember, Fallout didna sell well out o' the gate, either)...there be no "black & white" 'ere; PS:T failed to succed commercially out o' the gate, yes, but ta call it a "total failure" is bullshyte an' ye knows it...it garnered BIS critical acclaim, which in turn catches the interest of more investors an' gamers for IPLY (AND BIO, since, back then, BIS & BIO was attatched at the hip)...not to mention the fact that it still sold well over 100,000 copies (more than likely closer ta 200,000) afore BIS shut its doors fer the long haul...was it a financial failure out o' the gate; yes...was it a "total failure"; hell no...if'n it was, we'd not still be havin' these debates...

Did I mention Fallout at all? No. If what you say about its sales is true, then yes, by all means, it was a failure. Perhaps it's a somewhat alien concept to you to use the same logic in two different (yet analog) reasonings leaving other subjective considerations out (in this case your blatant and badly contained fanboy-ism), but that's what, you know, people with a brain do.

 

And people don't get into business to get "critical acclaim" for their work. Musicians do that, not software developers. Troika received "critical acclaim" for their games, and they didn't last long because their games were commercial failures. Sorry pal, but "critical acclaim", as nice as it may be, isn't edible. )

 

But hey, no need to get all worked up just because I have called you on an obvious contradiction. It happens to the best of us. Or perhaps it's because I have not joined in on the PST wankfest?

 

 

However, as you say, it did cover development costs.  It just took a long time.  So in your own words, it wouldn't be a total failure.

 

An absolute failure is a game that flat out doesn't sell IMO, but now we're just discussing opinions.

Any initiative that contributes to drive a business to bankruptcy is an absolute failure. If all their games had sold as PST, Interplay would have gone down much earlier. BIS, too.

 

Also, I think that you would be hard pressed to find a game that "flat out didn't sell" (as in didn't sell a single copy), but perhaps there is some case.

[Guest Fishboot]

Also, I think that you would be hard pressed to find a game that "flat out didn't sell" (as in didn't sell a single copy), but perhaps there is some case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mavis Beacon Teaches Manual Swine Masturbation.

[213374U]

Nah, I saw that one on eBay. I would have bid for it, but it's not the kind of game that comes "clean". "

[metadigital]

Didn't she get carpal tunnel syndrome from that series, and sue the producers? IIRC, the producers counter-sued to recoup losses for the following series of Mavis Beacon Teaches Animal Husbandry and Foreplay.

[alanschu]

Any initiative that contributes to drive a business to bankruptcy is an absolute failure. If all their games had sold as PST, Interplay would have gone down much earlier. BIS, too.

 

But in the long run, as you yourself conceded, it did still make money.

 

And people don't get into business to get "critical acclaim" for their work. Musicians do that, not software developers.

 

Tell that to Sid Meier, as well as Linkin Park.

 

Also, I think that you would be hard pressed to find a game that "flat out didn't sell" (as in didn't sell a single copy), but perhaps there is some case.

 

I didn't mean zero copies, just an exceptionally low number, which Planescape: Torment does not seem to be a part of. Unless it has tiny production costs.

[213374U]

But in the long run, as you yourself conceded, it did still make money.

Yes, it made money. Was it remotely profitable as a business initiative? No. That's what counts.

 

 

Tell that to Sid Meier, as well as Linkin Park.

I don't know what exactly do you mean by that, but in Sid Meier's case, I'm pretty sure he didn't get into the game business to be "acclaimed", but more likely, just to make a living.

 

But hey, if "critical acclaim" is so important, I have an idea for a business but I'm somewhat sort on cash. How about you work for me and I'll pay you in "critical acclaim"?