Planescape: Torment

[kirottu]

This is like the good old times.

[Drakron]

Fallout was done in time games and the market was diferent.

 

Baldur

[Gromnir]

um, you is the guy who got caught in the nonsense loop, not Gromnir... you gotta learn to pay closer attention. thought you were being attacked and then found out that you didn't even merit our direct consideration. am not sure why you ain't used to such humblings by now... would be best to just accept.

 

"so the "two quarter" rule doesna apply ta Fallout, then???... "

 

you really is a putz ain't you? as we already noted, fallout sales for first six months and first year were BETTER than ps:t... and ps:t were a HUGE release, bigger than fallout. why you seem to wanna insist that ps:t and fallout were same with same sales is beyond Gromnir, but regardless, based on your feeble and diminishing responses we suspect that you is just posting outta pride or somesuch...

 

"...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..."

 

oh, so the game failed Interplay and Black Isle, but 'cause sargy likes it the game still got validity? however, we does agree that ps:t influence survives. "here there be dragons," was an old warning on maps to let folks know that they were at the edge o' the world and that dangers lurked beyond. ps:t serves the same purpose. it failed so spectacularly that no developer wishes to go beyond or even mimic as it sends them into dangerous and uncharted waters.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sargallath Abraxium]

you really is a putz ain't you?  as we already noted, fallout sales for first six months and first year were BETTER than ps:t... and ps:t were a HUGE release, bigger than fallout.  why you seem to wanna insist that ps:t and fallout were same with same sales is beyond Gromnir, but regardless, based on your feeble and diminishing responses we suspect that you is just posting outta  pride or somesuch... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...again, Klown tries to cloud o'er issue he hisself brought to table...quote:

 

 

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

 

 

...Fallout, as wit' PS:T, didna sell in its first two quarters; "better" means squat, neither game made up theys production costs, as ye stressed so heavily in previous posts, in first two quarters...yet, in Gospel accordin' to Klown, Fallout wasna a failure an' PS:T was...e'en ye can see contradiction 'ere, Klown...so either Fallout was failure by yer terms o' the word, or PS:T wasna...which be it???...

 

 

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

[Gromnir]

"...again, Klown tries to cloud o'er issue he hisself brought to table...quote:"

 

actually, you brought it up. you insisted that Gromnir had misinterpred or misrepresented your post... when we din't even respond to you. suck it up and deal with it or quit complaining 'bout stuff you initiated.

 

as to your notions 'bout fallout,

 

"...Fallout, as wit' PS:T, didna sell in its first two quarters;"

 

says who? desslock's numbers not agree, but if it is true then we is quite happy to agree that fallout were a commercial failure... 'cause 'Gromnir has been for years saying that fallout weren't the success that fallout fans seemed to believe. am not getting what point you is trying to make at this point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[kirottu]

Thats one of the reasons I look at Fallout 3 with concern since Fallout despite having a name and a fanbase its really not much of a money maker and Bethsoft is in to make money ... how much of Fallout is going to be sacrificed to have features to boost sales I wonder?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe they thought there is a market for Fallout 3 now. *fingers crossed*

[metadigital]

How much experience do you have with investments???  [1] 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!

...

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.[2]  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.[3]

 

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."  [4] 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.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would just like to make a couple fo points here.

 

1. Yes, actually, my family has a significant amount of funds under management. You are trying to assert that all business investors are just the same as small time casual investors. That is not how business works, and BUSINESS investors are what makes the stock market work, not the little part-timers. If a business doesn't perform well, if it doesn't provide growth, then it is sold. That's it.

 

2. All it means is that Interplay didn't die overnight, but lingered for a few months, while their working capital wound down. If your income is $99 a day, and your expenses $100 a day, then you will never make money. If the interest on the loan plus all your expenses takes all your revenue, and more, then there is no profit, just delayed income, which is negatively geared and never going to cover the outgoings.

 

3. The fact that it broke even years later only means that the receivers were still getting some income when the doors were already closed on Interplay. Interplay would long since have gone broke, because they couldn't pay their expenses, like: wages (the biggest expense, including redundancy payments) and rent on the premises.

 

Also, typically, a compnay like SoldOut buys the title for the bargain bin; this may be for a set, single, initial figure (or royalties

[Sargallath Abraxium]

actually, you brought it up.  you insisted that Gromnir had misinterpred or misrepresented your post... when we din't even respond to you.  suck it up and deal with it or quit complaining 'bout stuff you initiated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...hehehe...pity this Forum dunna 'ave a sewer, what wit' the bullshyte yer slingin', Klown...ye spent almost an entire post arguin' direct points that I's brought up, but becuz ya didna "quote" me, ya wasna respondin' ta me post???...what is ya, six???...honestly, Klown, that jus' be sad; but, in hindsight, I's should know ta expect such, so me bad...

 

 

 

as to your notions 'bout fallout,

 

"...Fallout, as wit' PS:T, didna sell in its first two quarters;"

 

says who?  desslock's numbers not agree, but if it is true then we is quite happy to agree that fallout were a commercial failure... 'cause 'Gromnir has been for years saying that fallout weren't the success that fallout fans seemed to believe. am not getting what point you is trying to make at this point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...dunna pretend ta be naive now, Klown; 'tis a bit late fer it...commercial failure, on any level, doesna necessarily equal "total failure"...Fallout was certainly not a "total failure", yet failed to earn a profit in its first two quarters o' existence, same as PS:T failed to do...was PS:T's commercial failure greater than that o' Fallout's; yes...does that make it a "total failure"; no, jus' a greater commercial one...in order to be a "total failure", there can be no upside found an' that certainly ain't the case wit' either PS:T or Fallout...

 

 

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

[alanschu]

1. Yes, actually, my family has a significant amount of funds under management. You are trying to assert that all business investors are just the same as small time casual investors. That is not how business works, and BUSINESS investors are what makes the stock market work, not the little part-timers. If a business doesn't perform well, if it doesn't provide growth, then it is sold. That's it.

 

No I'm not, I'm asserting that investments don't occur based purely on NEED. Business investors still look for the maximum ROI based on their goals, just the same as an individual such as you or me.

 

I know it's businesses that do that majority of trading, since that's where most of the capital is. At the same time, the good businesses understand the risks involved in investments, and unless they are willing to accept the loss of capital that comes with investment, they are not going to invest in anything high risk. It's looking to make maximum profit for their money. If a company needs that huge ROI on an investment, then that company is already in a world of hurt.

 

2. All it means is that Interplay didn't die overnight, but lingered for a few months, while their working capital wound down. If your income is $99 a day, and your expenses $100 a day, then you will never make money. If the interest on the loan plus all your expenses takes all your revenue, and more, then there is no profit, just delayed income, which is negatively geared and never going to cover the outgoings.

 

Except that, even according to numbers man, there WAS profit for PS:T.

 

 

3. The fact that it broke even years later only means that the receivers were still getting some income when the doors were already closed on Interplay. Interplay would long since have gone broke, because they couldn't pay their expenses, like: wages (the biggest expense, including redundancy payments) and rent on the premises.

 

My particular quote that your point 3 addressed was referring to a business model that could very well be used that does not require high sales in the first two months. Gromnir said it flat out would not work, when clearly it can. I was not talking about Interplay.

 

Also, typically, a compnay like SoldOut buys the title for the bargain bin; this may be for a set, single, initial figure (or royalties

[Judge Hades]

Does it even matter or relevant?

[Sargallath Abraxium]

Does it even matter or relevant?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

...nah, jus' somethin' ta argue 'bout ta pass the time...e'eryone needs a bit o' fun e'ery now an' then, Visc; ye knows that...

 

 

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

[213374U]

Alan - You Are Wrong. Deal with it.

[metadigital]

Death to the Gaming Industry: Long Live Games!

 

...

Two years ago, speaking at a conference in the UK, Warren Spector said "The publishers have to die, or we are all doomed" - to cheers. And this year, at GDC, I ranted on the problem - and received a standing ovation.

 

What is the problem? And is there any way to address it?

 

The Problem

As recently as 1992, the typical development budget for a PC game was as little as $200,000. Today, if you want a title that will be taken seriously by the retailers - an A-level title - your minimum buy-in is $5m, and $10m for a triple-A title is common. With the next generation of console hardware, the talk is of $20m budgets - not as something that will be unusual, but typical.

...

Today, art assets (not programming) are the main cost driver. As machines become capable of rendering more detailed 3D models in real time, the market demands more detailed 3D models - and models are hand-created by artists using tools such as 3D Studio Max and Maya. All things being equal, a doubling in polygon count means a doubling in the amount of time an artist needs to spend generating the model - and a doubling in cost. Faster machines can push more polygons; more polygons means more cost.

 

That's the theory, but empirical evidence bears it out. Back in the day, a Doom level took one man-day to build. A Doom III level takes two or more man-weeks.

 

Now one might argue, of course, that the improvement in graphical quality improves the gameplay experience so much that the cost is worthwhile. But if that's so, why was Doom so rapturously received, such a huge hit? And why do the critics basically agree that Doom III - well, it kind of sucks?

...

... [T]he nature of the market and distribution channel is even more to blame [than the gamer audience without an indie aesthetic]. When a developer goes to a publisher to pitch a title, the publisher does not greenlight it because they play it and say "what a great game!" The developer may not even have a playable demo - but what he will have is a demo reel, a non-interactive visual pitch that may work to get some sense of gameplay across, but is mainly designed to impress the marketing dweebs with the graphics. Glitz, not gameplay, is what sells the publisher.

 

For that matter, half of the people sitting in on that greenlight meeting are probably marketing suits who think they're in a packaged goods industry, and are a lot more concerned about branding than anything else. Sequels and licenses, good; creativity - that's too risky.

 

And glitz, not gameplay, is what sells the retailer. Retailers don't have the time to play every title that comes across their desk and, in many cases, they don't play games anyway. They look at a video, they look at the materials provided by the sales guy, they make a decision. And that decision is ultimately based on concerns like branding, how much money the publisher will spend on product placement and stocking fees (what the industry calls "market development funding," or MDFs) - and whether it looks pretty or not.

 

And finally, there's the industry's attachment to "feature list" marketing. Online play? Check. Dozens of levels? Check. HDTV support? Check. You can often tell a game has nothing new to offer just by reading the backcover text: If it's basically a list of features and numbers (five of this and a hundred of that), you know they've really got nothing to say.

...

Maybe, someday, way down the road, the actual quality of the game will matter to someone - a reviewer, an actual gamer - but you don't even get a chance to get to them if you don't have the graphic right stuff. In other words, gameplay may affect ultimate sales - but it won't get you shelf space.

 

The reverse isn't true, though - poor gameplay and great graphics will work just fine, as far as the market is concerned. 80% of all game sales occur in the first two weeks that a game is available; all you need to do is blow through your inventory before word of mouth catches up with you. The industry is full of best-selling, lousy games. Can you say "Driver 3?" I knew you could.

 

In other words: Pretty + bad = financially successful; good + not pretty = fuhggedaboutit. Of course, pretty + good would be nice - but neither the publishers nor the retailers have an incentive to care.

 

The Narrowness of the Retail Channel

...

In the games industry, you get one shot. You have two weeks. If you haven't achieved sales velocity, you are dead. It's the bargain bin for you, buster. Thousands of games get released each year, they only have facings for 200, and they need the shelf-space for the next piece of over-hyped crap.

...

The result is that the average game (not the industry as a whole) loses more and more money. The publishers make up the losses on the few games that hit.

 

In other words: There is no room in this industry for niche product. There is no room for creativity or quirky vision. It's hit big, or don't try.

...

EA is stable for a different reason: It is big. More than double the revenues of Activision, its closest competitor. EA has the broadest, most diverse portfolio of anyone.

 

And they know it. And they're the villains in this piece, because they're the ones who keep raising the budgets and the costs. Everyone else has to stretch to keep up. Raising the development bar has, for more than a decade, been a conscious corporate strategy for EA, a means of squeezing out less capitalized competitors.

...

Ten years ago, you [the independent developer] had a couple of dozen plausible places to take a game. Today, you're lucky if you have six.

 

And when you pitch them - those increasing budgets breed conservatism. Ten million dollars is a lot of money to risk. The publishers are averse to risking it on anything they don't view as a sure thing - or as close as they can come to one, in this uncertain world.

 

That's why you get sequel after sequel. That's why any crap media license gets a game (Dukes of Hazzard, anyone?). The promotional spend by the movie studio is viewed as a way of generating interest in the game without additional cost to the game publisher.

...

Pressures on developer margins are also intense; it's very hard to negotiate a developer royalty over 15% today. And there's increasing use of middleware - which has the problem that all games start to look the same, because they share the same engine.

 

And everything has to be a brand.

 

I was at the Games & Mobile Conference (a small one, in New York) two years ago, when Edmond Sanctis, then COO of Acclaim, said something I could not believe he'd said in public (and that made me want to throttle the living daylights out of him, of course). He said, "There's no point in publishing a game unless there's a brand attached to it."

 

Do you buy games for the brand? Or the gameplay?

 

Of course, maybe there's a reason Acclaim is dead.

...

Does anyone seriously think anyone other than Will Wright could have gotten EA to publish a game like The Sims? And actually, EA tried to kill The Sims many times before it was finally released.

...

The truth is that unless your last name is "Wright" or "Miyamoto," the odds of getting anything innovative published today are nonexistent. In fact, the only thing you can get funded is something that's based on a license or part of a franchise (can you say "Coasters of Might and Magic?"), and incrementally innovative at best.

 

Does this mean that developers self-censor, not even bothering to bring their best ideas to publishers because they know they don't have a prayer of getting sold?

 

You bet your ass.

...

So being a developer is creatively frustrating - but from a business perspective, it sucks worse. If you are relying on publisher funding, you are highly unlikely to achieve a royalty rate of more than 15% (which is based on wholesale price less MDF - typically more like 7% of the actual consumer dollar). And your entire $5m budget (or whatever) is recoupable against your royalties. Thus, to recoup that advance, you need unit sales of well over a million.

 

In other words, barring a miracle, you will never see a dime beyond your initial funding. And no, you will not make a profit on the funding alone, unless you cook the books, because the publishers want to make damn sure that every dollar they spend winds up in assets on the disk. And since you are utterly reliant on them for both money and access to market, they have the leverage to ensure that it does.

...

Publishers are increasingly willing to kill projects midway - or even after going gold. The cost of advertising and promotion can double the total cost - and if they don't have confidence in the game, there's no point in throwing good money after bad.

 

Basically, as an independent developer in the games industry, you're just ****ed. Back in the day, a company like id could generate a surprise hit, rake in the royalties, and buy its own independence - ... But it's virtually impossible for that to happen today - both because royalty rates even for established developers are under pressure, and also because you don't get to own your own IP. You'll sign it away just to get published, and as far as the publishers are concerned, that's non-negotiable. If Doom were to happen today, the id-equivalent wouldn't own it - the publisher would. And if id got obstreperous, they'd just have the next version developed by someone else.

 

In other words, not only are business conditions harsh for developers - but there is no upside. Your only possible win, in fact, is to develop enough of a rep that a publisher buys you out. And then, more likely than not, the publisher guts you. Goodbye Origin. Goodbye Microprose. Goodbye Westwood. Goodbye Kesmai.

...

We Have to Blow This Up

...

What do we want? What would be ideal?

 

A market that serves creative vision instead of suppressing it. An audience that prizes gameplay over glitz. A business that allows niche product to be commercially successful - not necessarily or even ideally on the same scale as the conventional market, but on a much more modest one: profitability with sales of a few tens of thousands of units, not millions.

 

And, of course - creator control of intellectual property, because creators deserve to own their own work.

[Magnum Opus]

As an (almost) aside, there was a neat little article in the business section of my local newspaper that told the story of a local guy cashing in on the apparent "revival in old-school gaming". Guy's selling the likes of Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, etc., and is apparently doing quite a brisk business. Mostly to university-types.

 

People clueing in about the Hollywoodishness of the big-budget gaming industry, perhaps -- all glitter and no gold? -- and going back to the classics? Or something else? The audience that prizes gameplay over glitter may already be out there. Hell, I already know it's out there; I just don't know how large it is.

[Musopticon?]

Might be interesting times ahead, yes.

 

 

Anyone up for a small-scale revolution?

[metadigital]

I'll get the torches, you get the townspeople ...

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"I'll get the torches, you get the townspeople ..."

 

I like the way you think. Human Sacrifice++

[Musopticon?]

Yessiree! Pitchforks or molotovs?

 

 

 

 

In all seriousness; gaming needs some upheaval or sooner or later we'll have macdonalzation in our hands. Few indieworkshops holding the flag, while EA and folks squeeze out licensedrivel and 10h/60e-"action-adventures". Do gamers want more Fables? Godawful.

[213374U]

Do gamers want more Fables? Godawful.

Obviously they do. Sales speak for themselves. Remember that we are in the minority.

[Guest Fishboot]

Unfortunately I don't see any new concepts in that Costikyan article, although some of the figures are interesting. The problems have become obvious enough that even forum jetsam like me knows them.

 

His commentary about wanting an audience with an indie aesthetic disturbs me, because that's the easy answer, and it will happen - I mean, PC gamers are already half there, as steeped in abandonware or just plain old software as we are. Conciously going back through the catalog to cherry pick the "great" (but now visually archaic) games is just a short stroll away from an indie aesthetic. In a few more years the mainstream industry will be revolting enough that we'll actually start paying full price for games that don't hold us in contempt.

 

But I don't want that to be the solution, because I don't want the repulsive superiority/inferiority complex that has come with indieism in movies and music, and I want for great game creators to make disgusting amounts of money.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'm about to try to replay Planescape Torment again (as an evil character, if I can stick it :ph34r: ).

 

Are there any mods or patches that people would recommend?

 

Also, my last (and so far only) game, I was a pure fighter, and I think that towards the end of the game where you get into a lot of fighting I was lower in level than I needed to be; I found all the battles pretty hard going. Anyone have any advice for building a stronger fighter and getting more XP?

[Azarkon]

Great games still occur in the pop market and will continue to, because the only reason publishers are risk-averse is because they know their existing market research is accurate. That is, action games with eye candy continue to dazzle the public, and while not all of us will agree that they're great games, they very well can be, since they are to most of the populace.

 

What you must turn to indy games for are genres that have been proven to not sell all that great (ie Turn-Based RPGs, old school games), or for things so dastardly strange that no publisher will pick it up. Niche markets, in other words, and if you're a member of that, there's no real justification that I can think of in a capitalist/democratic system for your interests to take center stage.

 

I'm just glad that it does, every once in a while.

[Opus131]

I'm about to try to replay Planescape Torment again (as an evil character, if I can stick it :ph34r: ).

 

Are there any mods or patches that people would recommend?

 

Also, my last (and so far only) game, I was a pure fighter, and I think that towards the end of the game where you get into a lot of fighting I was lower in level than I needed to be; I found all the battles pretty hard going.  Anyone have any advice for building a stronger fighter and getting more XP?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

^ Go with a mage...

[SteveThaiBinh]

^ Go with a mage...

As soon as possible, or should I try to balance with taking levels as a fighter?

[Guest Fishboot]

What you must turn to indy games for are genres that have been proven to not sell all that great (ie Turn-Based RPGs, old school games), or for things so dastardly strange that no publisher will pick it up.  Niche markets, in other words, and if you're a member of that, there's no real justification that I can think of in a capitalist/democratic system for your interests to take center stage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's really not it - as Costikyan pointed out, the counterexample is The Sims, the best selling game of all time. That was not a niche game, but no suit would have given up the money to make it if it hadn't been championed by geek dynamo/ATM machine Will Wright. In my imagination, if not reality, there are a galaxy of undiscovered, yet-to-be-made games like The Sims out there, but the nature of the big publishers encourages them to want to be kings over a hill of ragged garbage than servants in the golden palace.

 

The niche problem is different, but related, in that we want a way for games with limited audiences to be profitable. And that means you spend less money and make less money, which currently doesn't happen - currently, you have to spend the "mainstream" buyin cost to even have a shot at making a profit. I agree that an indie aesthetic would help here, although again I'd rather it not be the one and only solution.