Planescape: Torment

[alanschu]

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

 

So even if it ultimately makes money, it's still an absolute failure. There's absolutely nothing that could be deemed any more of a failure?

 

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.

 

Sid Meier got into the games industry simply because he enjoyed creating video games. He wanted to make the games that he would enjoy playing. Becoming rich and famous was a bonus.

 

The Linkin Park reference was directed towards the assertion that musicians get into business for "critical acclaim." Which would explain Linkin Park holding out for more money in their contract, or whatnot. I wouldn't hold musicians (or most artists) any higher than a game developer.

[213374U]

So even if it ultimately makes money, it's still an absolute failure.  There's absolutely nothing that could be deemed any more of a failure?

You are splitting hairs once again. Let's see, if you do something that ultimately results in (or contributes to) you going out of business, it's a failure (PST falls into this category). An absolute failure, since it causes the worst possible effect from a business standpoint. That is, exactly the opposite of what you intended with that action.

 

Now, if you make an investment and that investment doesn't return the expected profit, it is a failure (it has failed), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it has hurt your business. All this, assuming that the predictions you make for the investments aren't unrealistic. If that's not the case, you'll be out of business soon, anyway.

 

 

Sid Meier got into the games industry simply because he enjoyed creating video games.  He wanted to make the games that he would enjoy playing.  Becoming rich and famous was a bonus.

Well, I enjoy lying on my bed, but I know nobody's going to pay me for that. Which means that, alas, I'll have to make a living somehow. If I enjoy my job, even better. But Meier's goal was basically to make a living. As you said, everything else was just a bonus.

 

 

The Linkin Park reference was directed towards the assertion that musicians get into business for "critical acclaim."  Which would explain Linkin Park holding out for more money in their contract, or whatnot.  I wouldn't hold musicians (or most artists) any higher than a game developer.

Fair enough. But that's not much of a valid argument as backing your original statement goes, as all you are saying is that nobody really does anything to be "critically acclaimed".

[alanschu]

Just to make things clear, I never declared PS:T to be any more or less of a success/failure based on its critical success. I was indeed just looking at it from a financial standpoint.

 

You are splitting hairs once again. Let's see, if you do something that ultimately results in (or contributes to) you going out of business, it's a failure (PST falls into this category). An absolute failure, since it causes the worst possible effect from a business standpoint. That is, exactly the opposite of what you intended wit that action.

 

I still don't think I'm splitting hairs, but whatever. I would still consider PS:T to be a bigger failure if it actually sold less copies.

 

Now, if you make an investment and that investment doesn't return the expected profit, it is a failure (it has failed), but it doesn't necessarily mean that it has hurt your business. All this, assuming that the predictions you make for the investments aren't unrealistic. If that's the case, you'll be out of business soon, anyway.

 

Which is exactly where I'd put Planescape: Torment. For the record, I initially stated that Planescape: Torment was a failure. But failures and successes are still relative. If I invest $100 and come out with $99, then I failed in my investment, but I don't see how that can be considered an "absolute" failure, when clearly investing $100 and coming out with nothing is worse. Cutting losses makes failures less extreme, which is all I was trying to say.

 

Just like there's varying degrees of success. Making your expected ROI is a success. But making many times more your expected ROI is clearly much more successful.

 

Fair enough. But that's not much of a valid argument as backing your original statement goes, as all you are saying is that nobody really does anything to be "critically acclaimed".

 

That I can agree on.

 

The only people that do stuff simply for critical acclamation are those that don't need to worry about money.

[Judge Hades]

Does it bloody matter? The game is 3 to 4 years old. It didn't make enough money in its initial sales to be considered a "slamdunk" but eventually made enough to cover its production.

 

OLD FREAKING NEWS.

[213374U]

Which is exactly where I'd put Planescape: Torment.  For the record, I initially stated that Planescape: Torment was a failure.

The problem with that is that Interplay didn't instantly went down because at that time they had other sources of income. Again, look at the example of Troika. Their games didn't just "failed to sell as well as we'd have liked". Their games' lack of commercial success eventually brought their company down. There is nothing worse from a business standpoint, which means that their games were absolute failures.

 

 

Which is exactly where I'd put Planescape: Torment. For the record, I initially stated that Planescape: Torment was a failure. But failures and successes are still relative. If I invest $100 and come out with $99, then I failed in my investment, but I don't see how that can be considered an "absolute" failure, when clearly investing $100 and coming out with nothing is worse. Cutting losses makes failures less extreme, which is all I was trying to say.

No. If you needed $102 to buy a medicine to save your life, getting back $99 is still an absolute failure, as is getting back $98 or $0. Getting $101 would be a failure. An extreme example, but it serves to illustrate my point. You could argue that you could still invest back your $99, but still, the first case was a wasted effort in which you have lost money and time, and decreased your chances of achieving your objective (in a developer's case, staying in business. In the example, staying alive).

[Guest Fishboot]

I declare the absolute failure vs. failure semantic argument to be super-dumb and a waste of characters, so stop.

[213374U]

Hey! I pay for my electrons and I choose how to waste them!

[alanschu]

But I didn't need 102 to save my life. You changed the parameters of the situation. Given that I'd still be dead at $101, it would be an "absolute" failure as well.

 

The problem with that is that Interplay didn't instantly went down because at that time they had other sources of income. Again, look at the example of Troika. Their games didn't just "failed to sell as well as we'd have liked". Their games' lack of commercial success eventually brought their company down. There is nothing worse from a business standpoint, which means that their games were absolute failures.

 

Problems with Troika then. Fortunately Interplay had other revenue streams that they were able to turn a profit.

 

Since they did turn a profit, by your own definition, it's not an "absolute" failure.

[213374U]

But I didn't need 102 to save my life.  You changed the parameters of the situation.  Given that I'd still be dead at $101, it would be an "absolute" failure as well.

No. There are very few people that can make investments "for the hell of it". Most people need the money that the investment will supposedly turn for something. In the example it's unimportant if you needed the $102 for a medicine or to buy a house. And I didn't remember specifying that without the medicine you would die if you failed your first investment.

 

 

Problems with Troika then.  Fortunately Interplay had other revenue streams that they were able to turn a profit.

 

Since they did turn a profit, by your own definition, it's not an "absolute" failure.

LOL

 

Let me point the obvious flaw in that statement. If you trust the welfare of your business to other investments, eventually you will find that no investments yield profit, as they were planned not to, and to rely on the success of other investments.

 

Therefore, every single investment you make must turn profit individually and by itself, otherwise it's a failure. A positive "balance of payments" in a business doesn't necessarily preclude some investments from being total failures.

[Judge Hades]

And it continues ad nauseum. You two are getting as bad as I do when I get fixated on something.

[213374U]

I've had the best masters.

[Judge Hades]

I've had the best masters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Flattery will get you nowhere. Give me money.

[213374U]

Flattery will get you know where.

Hades, I told you. You're not my type.

[Judge Hades]

Damn typoes.

[Gromnir]

"where, in me entire post, did I say PS:T was a commercial success???..."

 

don't be such a narcissist. we were not addressing your post specifically.

 

nevertheless, if a game doesn't sell in the first two quarters it is a failure. if after a couple o' years has elapsed and your development money woulda' been better invested in mutual funds, then you is a colossal failure. if you finally manage to turn a profit after you has reduced sale cost to $9.99 and are selling the game bundled with soul caliber, then you is talking 'bout ps:t... and you is now trying to sprinkle powdered sugar on a big stinky pile o' crap.

 

ps:t were a commercial failure... period. interplay could not stay in business making games like ps:t, and regardless how much some o' you folks really loved the game not make a bit o' difference to the investors who were looking at the quarterly report.

 

blame on the evils o

[alanschu]

No. There are very few people that can make investments "for the hell of it". Most people need the money that the investment will supposedly turn for something. In the example it's unimportant if you needed the $102 for a medicine or to buy a house. And I didn't remember specifying that without the medicine you would die if you failed your first investment

 

How much experience do you have with investments??? Everybody I know makes investments more "for the hell of it" than based on need. They have additional money and would like it to be "put to work." Why do you think the classic advice for investing in the stock market is to not do it unless you're willing to lose your money. If you have a NEED for the money, you certainly should NOT be going and putting large amounts of money on the high risk stocks!

 

If things were as cut and dry as you make them out to be, then any failed investment would mean financial ruin for any individual. You're saying that if someone were to invest 10 million in something, that coming at with ZERO money is exactly the same as coming out with 9.5 million. Both are failures, but if you think that both are failures of the same degree, then that's your problem. If I still have the 9.5, I can rework my portfolio and hopefully turn things around. If I have no money, I'm pooched, and there is NOTHING I can do about it except wallow in financial ruin. Hence, I am absolutely screwed, with no way out of it.

 

 

Let me point the obvious flaw in that statement. If you trust the welfare of your business to other investments, eventually you will find that no investments yield profit, as they were planned not to, and to rely on the success of other investments.

 

It's not trusting the welfare of your business to other investments. The reason why risks are taken is because the other investments provide a safety net in case the gamble doesn't pay off (this is why people that NEED the money don't do risky investments). In fact, this is one of the major concerns with the gaming industry right now, because the rising costs of development are making it too risky of an investment to try something innovative.

 

All I was saying is that the circumstances of Interplay is different than the circumstances of Troika. The game clearly failed in its expectations, but in using your own words, the game did make a profit in the long run. Since this happened, by your very own definition, PS:T was not an absolute failure.

 

Furthermore, the situation of Interplay and Troika are very different. Interplay was the money, and financed its own games. Troika did not. This puts Troika in the bad situation of not being able to rely on long term income, whereas a company like Interplay could still utilize the revenue streams. The bulk of Troika's money came from the publisher paying for their product.

 

Even if Troika had set modest goals for sales, and reached them and was able to break even and sell exactly the amount of games that they wanted, it's still not a guarantee from going out of business. They were dictated exclusively by the interests of the developer. Hit a bad patch, and there's no more outside money coming in. Continued sales of Bloodlines nets Troika zero additional dollars. However, when PS:T was made, continued sales were still possible. As a result, in the long run it was able to turn a profit, which like you say, means it wasn't an absolute failure. It certainly wouldn't be classified as successful, but it clearly could have done worse.

 

 

Therefore, every single investment you make must turn profit individually and by itself, otherwise it's a failure.

 

Isn't that what happened with PS:T? It did turn a profit did it not? Or are you saying that it was a failure because the other investments were required before you saw the return on investment? Kind of like those companies that offer "Do not pay for 2 years" deals. They're failing their way to the bank.

 

 

 

And Gromnir, I'm not saying it was a commercial success. But it would have been even worse for Interplay if it never broke even. It could have been a bigger failure. On a final note, if the game did indeed turn a profit, then they could have survived if that's the only ROI they ever got.

 

It wouldn't be a particularly successful company, but if a product turns a profit and the situation works for it, then you can stay in business. In fact, if they released a game a year, and had to wait 3 years before it turned a profit, but had enough capital to continue making other games that would have the same 3 year ROI, then the success of the game three years ago would finance the current game, and continue the trend.

 

I don't know if you guys have a company called The Brick in the US or not, but The Brick sells everything with "Do not pay until 200X." A customer rarely pays for anything initially in that store. The reason why they company survives though is that they are now making the money off of the sales from two years ago, and in two years they'll start collecting your money for the stuff you just walked out the door with today, while they sell stuff to a new person that won't have to pay for two years.

 

 

The real problem comes when (ignoring Herve's total mismanagement of everything) games like Lionheart come out that don't make a profit at all.

[213374U]

Wow, you're still going at it?

 

Perhaps I should try a bit of reverse psychology...

 

Go Alan, GO!

[Gromnir]

"And Gromnir, I'm not saying it was a commercial success. But it would have been even worse for Interplay if it never broke even. It could have been a bigger failure. On a final note, if the game did indeed turn a profit, then they could have survived if that's the only ROI they ever got."

 

if interplay were a small & private developer your observation would be valid. unfortunately, interplay were a large developer with publicly traded stock and shareholders 'n such.

 

roi must be w/i first two quarters and bare naked profit 2 years after the fact just ain't enough to stay afloat for entities like interplay for reasons stated above and elsewhere. eventual profitability, in point of fact, were almost meaningless to anybody save for fergie and fans o' planescape.

 

powdered sugar

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sargallath Abraxium]

don't be such a narcissist.  we were not addressing your post specifically. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...umm, yes, you was; hence why ya spent most o' yer previous post arguin' me point that PS:T sold pretty well o'er time, jus' not right outta the gate...yer hypocrisy's as sharp as e'er, I sees, Klown...

 

 

nevertheless, if a game doesn't sell in the first two quarters it is a failure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...so ye would also consider Fallout a failure too???...damn; until now, I's ne'er heard anyone consider Fallout a failure, an' now we has 2 in the same thread that apparently does...wonders ne'er cease, eh???...

 

 

ps:t were a commercial failure... period.  interplay could not stay in business making games like ps:t, and regardless how much some o' you folks really loved the game not make a bit o' difference to the investors who were looking at the quarterly report.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...an' noone 'ere denies that PS:T failed commercially...so yer beatin' a dead horse that e'eryone seen from the beginnin'...again, same ol' Klown...

 

 

 

blame on the evils o

[213374U]

Oh well, I tried. Reason and logic aren't for everyone.

[Gromnir]

"...umm, yes, you was; hence why ya spent most o' yer previous post arguin' me point that PS:T sold pretty well o'er time, jus' not right outta the gate...yer hypocrisy's as sharp as e'er, I sees, Klown... "

 

you got problems. see Gromnir's behind every corner? get help. is nothing we replied to specific in your posts. is a small group o' misguided yutzs that were repeating largely the same or similar nonsense and we replied to the group o' you. if we were had been responding to you direct, you would have know it by fact that we were pointing out how you is one of only two folks we has ever identified as a dumbarse on these boards... or by offering you a tissue, or by the way we point out how you not know the meanings of half the words you use, or by noting oddities 'bout your posting style and how you not start out posting thusly. happy now?

 

also, while fallout did substantially better than ps:t during its first year (is a nice desslock article that breaks down various crpg using point o' sales figures,) it were not a particularly successful game. weren't a failure, but it... well, why don't we let a former interplay employee set you straight.

 

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic...ighlight=#23414

 

"...an' noone 'ere denies that PS:T failed commercially...so yer beatin' a dead horse that e'eryone seen from the beginnin'...again, same ol' Klown... "

 

so why do you and others keep trying to convince self that there is some special difference 'tween a complete failure and a failure? ps:t failed. it hurt interplay. interplay were a company in the business o' making money for its shareholders, and in that regard, ps:t failed and failed miserably.

 

oh and the fact that a double handful o' people still talk 'bout planescape is meaningless. hardcore fans on the arse end of cyberspace talking 'bout a cult classic? yeah, and you can find websites dedicated to Battlefield Earth fandom too.

 

eventual profit and not complete failure?

 

HA!

 

powdered sugar

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Drakron]

...an' there's where we has the problem; PS:T was not a total failure...if'n it was, no game hence would 'ave drawn inspiration from it, noone would still, damn near 6 years later, be talkin' 'bout how great o' a cRPG it was ('specially other gamin' houses), etc...it'd be dead, which it ain't...whether ye, 213374U, or anyone else on this damnable planet wants ta admit it or not, there be more than jus' the "black & white" o' it...end o' story...

 

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The only game that drawn "inspiration" from it was SW:KotOR2:TSL.

 

And yes there are still people talking about it but then again I could talk about Wing Commander and Privatter that are (in most cases) even older that PS:T.

 

Ever heard of CIS ?

 

That is a Wing Commander site and Wing Commander is as dead as PS:T, the fact people talk about old games or series despite then being dead for a long time means nothing about the success of such a game, I seen FF VII forum in GameFAQs having a considerable amount of trafic despite it being a quite old game.

 

And you are right 213374U, reason and logic is not for everyone ... expecialy fanboys that are simply blinded to it.

 

I dont "hate" PS:T, its a good game that I never managed to get in (never complete it) and even if I see the good parts of it does not mean I am blind to its failures, a notable one is it did not SELL.

 

Why people keep trying to push that PS:T sell? that failure was due to a lot of reasons (starting by Interplay marketing) but it success or failure in sales does not make it better or worst ... just like movies dont get "better" because of Box Office revenue.

[Gromnir]

"The only game that drawn "inspiration" from it was SW:KotOR2:TSL."

 

that is not true. whenever bio or obsidian or bis made a game post planescape, they would always observe that the dialogue, while substantial, would not be as extensive as ps:t. this was done to reassure fans... so ps:t has inspired many folks NOT to do certain things in current and future projects.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Drakron]

Yes ... I stand correct Gromnir.

 

I do remenber talks about word count usually be set against PS:T, if I do remenber correctly PS:T number is usually the set limit.

[Sargallath Abraxium]

you got problems.  see Gromnir's behind every corner?  get help.  is nothing we replied to specific in your posts.  is a small group o' misguided yutzs that were repeating largely the same or similar nonsense and we replied to the group o' you.  if we were had been responding to you direct, you would have know it by fact that we were pointing out how you is one of only two folks we has ever identified as a dumbarse on these boards... or by offering you a tissue, or by the way we point out how you not know the meanings of half the words you use, or by noting oddities 'bout your posting style and how you not start out posting thusly.  happy now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...hehehe...same ol' Klown...when caught in a slip-up, start tossin' barbed clouds an' hope noone notices...sad...speakin' o' issues & help...

 

 

 

also, while fallout did substantially better than ps:t during its first year (is a nice desslock article that breaks down various crpg using point o' sales figures,) it were not a particularly successful game.  weren't a failure, but it... well, why don't we let a former interplay employee set you straight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...so the "two quarter" rule doesna apply ta Fallout, then???...yet it supposedly applies to PS:T...what's the difference???...Fallout didna sell well in it's first 6 months o' Life, but ain't a "total failure"; PS:T didna sell well it's first 6 months o' Life, an' apparently is...makes all kinds o' sense...Klown sense, anyways...

 

 

 

so why do you and others keep trying to convince self that there is some special difference 'tween a complete failure and a failure?  ps:t failed.  it hurt interplay.  interplay were a company in the business o' making money for its shareholders, and in that regard, ps:t failed and failed miserably. 

 

oh and the fact that a double handful o' people still talk 'bout planescape is meaningless.  hardcore fans on the arse end of cyberspace talking 'bout a cult classic?  yeah, and you can find websites dedicated to Battlefield Earth fandom too.

 

eventual profit and not complete failure?

 

HA!

 

powdered sugar

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...how many explanations ye need ta see there be more than jus' "Black & White"???...PS:T failed on one front, yet survives on many others...nothin' "total" 'bout it...simple concept...call it "powdered sugar" or whate'er li'l quirky euphemism ye thinks'll make ye look the Clever One...

 

 

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