The Escapist: The Rise and Fall of Troika

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Of course, bug hunting is hard, and time consuming. That's why you hire QA. Duh. One does not NEED coding experience to realize. I never claimed game devlopment was easy. Of course, it's hard, time consuming, and soemtimes likely not as rewrading as one may have hope.

 

Yes because hiring QA is so easy LMFAO and naturally it's a cheap investment LOL... Get real. How large do you think an effective QA team is? and what do you believe such a thing would cost?

 

Something tells me that Troika won there deals with publishers because they were a mite bit cheaper on there quotes.

 

As for your opinions on their games, good for you. They're just opinions. Just like mine. Sadly, for Troika, most people tend to agree with me if not outright hate their games.,

 

More people buy Britney, than Burzum, does that mean I shouldn't enjoy what I enjoy? Truth is masses will buy what's sold to them, PS:Torment did okay, but with the right marketing... It would have done alot better. So your point Volo? That our opinions are different... I think I established that about 100 Troika threads ago .

 

btw, As abvove, I actually like 2 out of 3 Troika games. But, you'd have to be absolutely blind to honestly believe that Troika is the top level of game development.

 

They did some things exceptionally well, others were poorly implemented, a bit like Obsidians new GFX engine in NWN2

 

This idea that youa re bring forth that it's the publisher's and consukmers who are the stupid ones who 'don't get it' is beyond silly and has no basis in fact. At all. Ever.

 

Never stated that, that I can recall.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

regardless, your apples and oranges comment is exemplary of tim-level obliviousness.  to makes games in the Game Industry you is gonna need business-minded and managment trained folks to complete jobs in a timely and cost-efficient manner.  every succesful game developer has such people... like josh.  he was the guy that obsidian brought in to fix development organizational problems with nwn2.  we spose that means that byNatS reasoning that must means that josh gots the creativity o sea kelp, right?

I think that goes for more than just games development. There is a reason why good project managers costs you a fortune. And why they are worth the investment

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very true... So very very true.

[Gromnir]

also, am still finding it amusing that NatS seem to think that any person with some buisiness sense has gotta be lacking in creativity.... but that is a whole different tangent.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"Never stated that, that I can recall."

 

You bringing up Britney Spears to illustrate that 'mass appeal = crap' illustrates taht you *do* think that. I personally feel that Britney Spears has a pretty damn good singing voice and some of her songs are pretty darn good. It has NOTHING to do with her appeal. People like her music because they do. That doesn't mean her music is crap or the people who prefer her over BurBUM are stupid or brainwashed.

 

And, no, the 'masses' will not buy something simply because it is 'sold' to them. Afterall, the movie industry proves this (as well as the game industry). Mnay well hyped movies (and games) fall flat on their face. People will buy things they think they'll enjoy. Period.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Volourn

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

tim were a top level jackass.  shoulda' been obvious to him after failure #1 that he needed somebody to come in and organize his projects, but he were either too arrogant or too stoopid to realize that he/troika needed help. 

 

I'd wager arrogant, he's a coder... Most coders are, it's a trait that most wouldn't care to admit to, also probably niave, hoping he could indeed learn from his mistakes.

 

3 failures?  who the hell gets an opportunity to make 3 major failures in a row?  how much money and manhours did he pi$$ away 'cause he never figured out that it weren't the evil publishers that were the problem?

 

Depends who they were working with at the publisher, some of those guys are really horrible pieces of crap that really will come in and say "Guys, pink is in so we want you to make all the grass pink". Serious, it's how they are... Publishers are ****, they're a parasitic entity.

 

But in all seriousness, **** ups were made somewhere, if Cain says the publisher played a part in that, I'm 100% certain they did, they've never denied the fact they made awful mistakes as a business in terms of management and heck I'd never defend them for it either.

 

is not that tim gets less credit than he deserves... truth is that he is treated far too generous by fans and media and industry.  stoopidity or arrogance?  am not sure which were timmy's problem, but either way he were a top level yutz.

 

Perhaps, as a businessman, but I'd certainly not turn down a beer with the guy to talk over code.

 

only fool we see is you and timmy.  how could tim have known that he might need business help running a business?

 

Now you have resorted to personal insults, great nice to see we can keep it civil.

 

Heh, I guess it's like alcoholism, gotta admit you got a problem first.

 

*chuckle*

 

heck, after the first couple of failures even the most dim bulb woulda' learned from mistakes.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Get a grip man, ain't nobody saying tim and co were great business men, not even themselves. Geez...

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

also, am still finding it amusing that NatS seem to think that any person with some buisiness sense has gotta be lacking in creativity.... but that is a whole different tangent.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Never stated that, just that some folks are not business minded, and those that are, have weaknesses in other places.

 

The comedy is the fact you think I stated thus.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

You bringing up Britney Spears to illustrate that 'mass appeal = crap' illustrates taht you *do* think that. I personally feel that Britney Spears has a pretty damn good singing voice and some of her songs are pretty darn good. It has NOTHING to do with her appeal. People like her music because they do. That doesn't mean her music is crap or the people who prefer her over BurBUM are stupid or brainwashed.

 

It's a very simple one to make, popular doesn't mean it's good or even genius, music is very subjective... And sometimes a very personal thing.

 

But I'm 100% certain nobody will care about Britney 100 years from now in the same manner that Wagner and such is spoke of.

 

And, no, the 'masses' will not buy something simply because it is 'sold' to them. Afterall, the movie industry proves this (as well as the game industry). Mnay well hyped movies (and games) fall flat on their face. People will buy things they think they'll enjoy. Period.

 

So basically your discounting the effect of marketing on sales as being an utterly pointless endevour?

 

This is why I do not understand the idiosyncratic ways of Vologic.

[Volourn]

"So basically your discounting the effect of marketing on sales as being an utterly pointless endevour?"

 

No. It's obvious your reading comprehsnion sucks even as you blast Grom for his.

 

Marketing helps. But, marketing alone does not make sells. Many young female artists are pretty like Britney. The vast majority of them bomb yet most anti Britney people like to make tghe excuse that the reason she is so popular is because of her looks. This theory discounts all the FLOPS of those young ladies who get hyped.

 

Marketing allows people to learn about various products that they may otherwise never hear of. It does NOT, by itself, make ANY sales.

 

They can make the best panty commercial of all time; but I will never buy panties for myself. Period.

 

People choose to buy what they want. Marketing does not make them doing so. This idea that marketing will make someone buy soemthing they don't want or need is 99% of the time a myth (there are always exceptions).

 

Keep up the good work.

 

 

Again, since you seem to forget this, mass appeal does NOT = crappy!

 

It's true, it's true!

[Meshugger]

Wow, things got a little heated here.

 

Troika said themselves that they completely lacked the necessary knowledge in management, so i don't see any reason to debate that. Without any competent manager or producer, they got in a situation where they couldn't keep promises to the publisher nor the skill to negotiate a better deal. According to themselves, they were artists without the any business sense.

 

As an engineer in information technology, i have learned that the business-people and the engineers usually don't agree on anything really. In order to make things work out as good as possible, one should have a producer with a master degree in both engineering and enterprising, or someone with a degree in one area and great interest and understanding of the other.

[Meshugger]

People choose to buy what they want. Marketing does not make them doing so. This idea that marketing will make someone buy soemthing they don't want or need is 99% of the time a myth (there are always exceptions).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's a false claim. Ask any professor in marketing and they greatly disagree with you. There are several books about the subject of creating new markets, consumer awereness, and consumer needs where there aren't any.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

No. It's obvious your reading comprehsnion sucks even as you blast Grom for his.

 

"

 

Marketing helps. But, marketing alone does not make sells. Many young female artists are pretty like Britney. The vast majority of them bomb yet most anti Britney people like to make tghe excuse that the reason she is so popular is because of her looks. This theory discounts all the FLOPS of those young ladies who get hyped.

 

I never said she was popular purely based upon looks, but she does indeed sell an image, which like it or not is part of marketing which obviously helps sales.

 

There are other people involved in Britney Spear's career, in both promoting and development of what she does.

 

Marketing allows people to learn about various products that they may otherwise never hear of. It does NOT, by itself, make ANY sales.

 

I never said that marketing alone makes a product sell, it improves sales if there is a market for the said product. If there isn't a market there in the first place then naturally it won't sell...

 

They can make the best panty commercial of all time; but I will never buy panties for myself. Period.

 

As you proove here, you are not part of the target market for panties, but if for some reason you needed to buy such a product as a gift, then you would be, no?

 

People choose to buy what they want. Marketing does not make them doing so. This idea that marketing will make someone buy soemthing they don't want or need is 99% of the time a myth (there are always exceptions).

 

I'm not disputing this at all.

 

Again, since you seem to forget this, mass appeal does NOT = crappy!

 

Mass appeal also doesn't mean GOOD!

[Volourn]

"That's a false claim. Ask any professor in marketing and they greatly disagree with you. There are several books about the subject of creating new markets, consumer awereness, and consumer needs where there aren't any."

 

Read what I wrote again. I never said that marketing was useless or doesn't help. It does.

 

Heck, as for creating new markets. Big deal. Before the creation of the phone; nobody felt the 'need' for one. Now, of course, having a phone is pretty much neccessary in a modern nation. Same with motorized vehicles or even televisions for that matter (though not in the same way).

 

Marketing is important; but marketing alone will not accomplish this task which is EXACTLY what I said.

 

I took marketing in school. I know how useful - if done right - can be. Afterall, there's a reason why stores list prices usually at 5.98 or 5.99 instead of 6.00 or 6.01.

 

R00fles!

 

 

Night:

Edited December 29, 2006 by Volourn

[Gromnir]

"Never stated that, just that some folks are not business minded, and those that are, have weaknesses in other places."

 

HA!

 

do you even read what you write? the weakness you allude to were creativity.... and that is silly.

 

oh and if you feels personally insulted 'cause we called you a fool, then so be it. some of your claims, which you backpedal from and hedge quite a bit, seems more than a little foolish.

 

in any event, 'least we gots everybody on same page now: tim and co. were crappy at the business side of the business of making games.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 29, 2006 by Gromnir

[Dark_Raven]

Troika was the place of the god devs, no one could compete with them!

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

HA!

 

do you even read what you write?  the weakness you ellude to were creativity.... and that is silly. 

 

I never stated what those weakness may be... It could be anything.

 

In the case of Josh, those happend to be what I knew of him... He may walk right into this thread and dispute them.

 

That weakness CAN be anything.

 

Ain't nobody ever been an expert at everything...

 

in any event, 'least we gots everybody on same page now: tim and co. were crappy at the business side of the business of making games. 

 

Crappy at the business side of making games, is a better description.

[Gromnir]

Troika was the place of the god devs, no one could compete with them!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

agreed. they could lose publisher money likes nobody else. and no, that weren't only their fault... gotta wonder 'bout the publishers that kept giving 'em money to be pi$$ing away.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

"That weakness CAN be anything."

 

*chuckle*

 

whatever lets you salvage some pride. the world ain't like some silly crpg with point-buy.

 

and making crpgs is a very expensive Business... but again, if you can salvage some pride by tweaking a bit, so be it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Dark_Raven]

Troika was the place of the god devs, no one could compete with them!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

agreed. they could lose publisher money likes nobody else. and no, that weren't only their fault... gotta wonder 'bout the publishers that kept giving 'em money to be pi$$ing away.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good Fun! My friend good fun.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

"That weakness CAN be anything."

 

*chuckle*

 

whatever lets you salvage some pride.  the world ain't like some silly crpg with point-buy. 

 

and making crpgs is a very expensive Business... but again, if you can salvage some pride by tweaking a bit, so be it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was never the intention. It was always my intended meaning. I cleared it up for you and you begin thinking I mean the world is like a crpg...

 

It's simple really grommy, I'll never be a great artist, I just can't draw stuff, I can try and learn and put alot of effort into improving those skills but it would be at the expense of some other skill due to the required time it would take...

 

HA! You're an odd one.

[Darque]

Troika was the place of the god devs, no one could compete with them!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

agreed. they could lose publisher money likes nobody else. and no, that weren't only their fault... gotta wonder 'bout the publishers that kept giving 'em money to be pi$$ing away.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's all about salespersonship

 

Apparently Troika had it. :ph34r:

[Dark_Raven]

Troika was the place of the god devs, no one could compete with them!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

agreed. they could lose publisher money likes nobody else. and no, that weren't only their fault... gotta wonder 'bout the publishers that kept giving 'em money to be pi$$ing away.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's all about salespersonship

 

Apparently Troika had it. :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They had it and then some. High charisma.

[Pop]

low seduction score, though. Look at 'im.

One of Grom's main beefs seems to be that Fallout wasn't good and Timmy still coasted to continued business on it anyway. "Fallout wasn't good" makes me giggle :D

[Dark_Raven]

Fallout is the best thing since pizza. Troika (Tim, Leonard and company.) was riding high on that reputation.

 

See mr. publisher, we are teh c00l. We made Fallout! We are awesome!

[Gromnir]

why put "fallout wasn't good" in quotes? if Gromnir never said, then how can you put in quotes?

 

fallout were a moderate success as far as sales were concerned... is what we said in This thread.

 

however, to be fair, in past we has admitted that fo weren't as good as some fans seems to suggest... which ain't surprsing as it somehow has become codexian Holy Grail. furthermore, we has pointed out that if released today fo would not be near as well received... and we ain't talking tech issues. fo's best character were a dog? pretty lackluster writing... bar has been raised as far as story aspects is concerned. throw in all the balance problems and hidden timer, and host o' other issues and the freshness o' fallout setting would not inspire same fanaticism now that it did when it were an original release.

 

that being said, we liked fo and we thought it were a good game. have said many times that it were a good game. fo2 were better in most ways, but fo was a good game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Pop]

Yah, I took the "Moderate success" comment to mean that Fallout had been moderately successful both as a game and as a product, when it seems to me like it was pretty good as a game. Not sure how it sold, but I remember regretting getting F2 at full price when just 2 weeks later it was in the bargain bin could've saved $20.

 

I used to think that F2 was better in all ways than F1, but then I played F1 again. Maybe it's nostalgia, but it's now back on top on my liar.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Pop