Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

actually prevent them to disclosing every aspect of their process even if they would be willing to share

 

 

What?

 

We do know their process. From the last 79 updates. In more detail than any video or interview could ever show us.

 

 

It means that they don't have ability to share every detail about their developing process even if they were willing to do so, I didn't mean that they haven't shared more than what what we would get if this was any other type of project. And that I understand this to be reality, but some reason I can't squish every bit of feeling of disappointment that this fact causes in me. It has little to do what Obsidian has done, but more with me as person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So some video game journalist who don't really give a **** about PoE get to see gameplay stuff before we backers get to see it?

 

That's pretty disappointing tbh.

 

They should never ever show stuff to journalists before they showed it to us. What happened with all the transparency? Why do they follow industry standards which we hated that much so that we went to kickstarter? I don't get it, really.

 

I'm almost sad and angry now that I've spent half a grand on that project. i feel betrayed, sorry.

Ridiculous statement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just to throw this out there but how do you know those journalists who tweeted aren't excited to see Eternity?  How do you know they didn't back it?  I can tell you from my own knowledge that Angry Joe for example loves him some RPG's so I assure he will be excited to see it.  Additionally he even discusses kickstarter and tries to drum up funds from his viewers for the projects he likes.  Hell there is one space sim he personally gave so much too and helped promote to such an extent they actually made an in game character based on him as a means of thanks.

 

Just remember most games journalists were gamers first.

 

Meanwhile why would a company with a long track record and multiple solid releases change the way they do business when they know it works?  The only real difference between kickstarter and publisher is with kickstarter money you are funding it yourself so you don't really have to answer to anyone else.  You aren't going to change your process of how you make games, you just don't have a third party telling you what features have to be in and when you have to release.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"mini?) Update tomorrow / PE E3 stuff" - YES please !!!

 

 

We do know their process. From the last 79 updates. In more detail than any video or interview could ever show us.

 

I agree. I don't know of any company that would show their games design from concept, to pitch, to the multitude of different development stages, the distribution of the game, and much more. No other company has shown more transparency than Obsidian.

 

lets not go over board, almost every indie project has been doing that, and I have been reading dev diaries on paradox boards about their grand strategies before crow-funding made into a thing. Edited by Mor
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty disappointing tbh.

 

<..>

 

I'm almost sad and angry now that I've spent half a grand on that project. i feel betrayed, sorry.

Not to tear into you, but you have completely, utterly, misread the nature of our involvement. 

 

Ours was not an investment. We did not purchase shares. We did not secure a seat on the board. What we did was ensure the realisation of the project. Our reward, our only reward, is the final product. 

 

As an added bonus is the possibility of future projects producing similar, in-demand, products which we get to enjoy for a brief spell.  

Are you gonna throw rocks at me? What about now?

..

What about now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can sort of understand the impulse LC is expressing, but this whole "changing the industry" thingy sounds way more like Brian Fargo's schtick than anything I read or heard coming from an Obsidian developer. They said, they couldn't get an old-school, isometric RPG funded by a publisher, so they went to kickstarter and got the money that way.

 

So I guess I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel betrayed. Obsidian laid out their backer rewards in the kickstarter and have done a pretty damned good job of keeping backers in the loop about design decisions, progress and internal stuff that we never get to hear about in a normal game development cycle, so 'transparency' gets a check mark. As for marketing and press demos, that was never part of their pitch. Yeah, I guess it's nice to be first, but this is a for profit company making and selling a product and they need to go to those things and build buzz about their game if they want it to get covered and attract more customers.

 

As a backer I'm concerned mainly with two things: 1) A great game that is fun to play and scratches my RPG itch and 2) a successful game financially, so Obsidian can keep on going making more RPGs that I want to play.

 

If anybody thinks for profit, game companies are in it for the social justice and sticking it to the man, then I'm sorry, but that's never been my impression.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost sad and angry now that I've spent half a grand on that project. i feel betrayed, sorry.

 

 

Good ... good ... feel the anger, the betrayal ... taste the bitter streaks, the poison of regret ... let it flow from your eyes ... all that money! ... every promise written in stone ... wasted! ... abandoned to the most unworthy dogs in the street! Like ashes to the stars!

  • Like 1

All Stop. On Screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a dumb presentation ffs, to get journos on hype train. It might be just a collaboration of all previous updates with little to no new content. We backed the game and we're getting our game, why does it matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can sort of understand the impulse LC is expressing, but this whole "changing the industry" thingy sounds way more like Brian Fargo's schtick than anything I read or heard coming from an Obsidian developer. They said, they couldn't get an old-school, isometric RPG funded by a publisher, so they went to kickstarter and got the money that way.

 

So I guess I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel betrayed. Obsidian laid out their backer rewards in the kickstarter and have done a pretty damned good job of keeping backers in the loop about design decisions, progress and internal stuff that we never get to hear about in a normal game development cycle, so 'transparency' gets a check mark. As for marketing and press demos, that was never part of their pitch. Yeah, I guess it's nice to be first, but this is a for profit company making and selling a product and they need to go to those things and build buzz about their game if they want it to get covered and attract more customers.

While I agree that Obsidian has delivered everything they promised and backers have no real justification for feeling betrayed in any way, I too tend to question the last bit I quoted up there -- specifically the "need" part. Yes, the buzz does help make sells, but as I see it this is a big reason for the qualitative decline in the game industry over the past two decades. E3 feeds the kind of journalistic sleight-of-hand where impressions of a game rather than the game itself are evaluated, the publications -- which themselves thrive on the hype -- acting as little more than glorified press agents. This encourages studios to invest in glitter over depth; eye-catching details instead of over-all quality.

 

The hype created by the marketing drowns out the word-of-mouth and impartial reviews which, instead of sponsored previews and speculation, long ago used to be game journalism's main focus: What a studio needed to sell a game was for the game to be good enough for gamers and journalists to be able to honestly recommend it to their peers and readers, repectively. Especially with the Internet making passing along such information so much easier, there's absolutely no reason these days couldn't return -- other than that it's not in the interest of the companies who benefit from the current, marketing-driven system. I can't help but feel Obsidian is in part helping keep this beast alive with their mere attendance.

Edited by Sad Panda
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Wow, nice **** talking by Mr. Robinson there, wonder who he "heard" from.

 

 

I think it is meant to be joke as Fredrik Wester is CEO of Paradox Interactive, Obsidian's publisher partner for PoE and company which booth PoE was showed in E3

 

 

Meh, and I got all butthurt about it too.... :(

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seems Obsidian are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Video games Humans.

 

Fixed it. :)

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but feel Obsidian is in part helping keep this beast alive with their mere attendance.

 

Marketing may be the greatest soul sucking evil out there, but in this day and age nothing moves without it. You may want to pick another battle :)

Are you gonna throw rocks at me? What about now?

..

What about now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you people really underestimate the power of word to mouth.  Games like Minecraft, Flappy Bird, Demon Souls, and Day Z (during the arma II mod days) sold millions, and they did not have any type of marketing budget or hype built from websites.  Regardless of whether journalists report the game or not, I expect PoE to be on the top the steam sales charts on the first day simple due to word of mouth alone.

Edited by bonarbill
Link to post
Share on other sites

The hype created by the marketing drowns out the word-of-mouth

Wait, you don't honestly believe this?

Take as an example Aliens: Colonial Marines. As everyone here by now likely knows, the game was upon a buggy, poorly-designed, lore-breaching and in just general unplayable piece of turd. Pretty much everyone who picked up the game had nothing but bad things to say about it. It got very poor reviews and quickly became a joke among gamers.

 

It debuted as the biggest-selling game on all platforms it was released on in the UK, and went on to be one of the best-sellers of the year. Overall over a million copies have been sold, and the sales figures just keep on climbing as new DLCs are released.

 

Word-of-mouth and negative previews did nothing (and could have done nothing) to stop the pre-order rush, which resulted in what I mentioned in my post: A glowing promise of a heart-poundingly exciting shooter taking place in a beloved sci-fi setting, backed by the gaming press enthusiastically reporting on the polished glimpses the studio had provided on forums like E3, and the expectations of the gamers then taking a life of their own as the hype grew.

 

So why did the game continue to sell even after release? That's because while news of its suckiness reached you and me quickly, you have to appreciate that's because we're the kind of people who write long, detailed dissections of videogames on forums. For most people, the marketing did what it was supposed to: Controlled the public opinion to convince them to buy an inferior product, making the company a nifty bit of profit. Yes, word-of-mouth did help to stem the tide, but it's even now, over a year after the release, long ways from undoing the damage done by the hype.

 

Edit: It has been pointed out to me no more DLCs are being released for Colonial Marines, so that's "continued to grow", then, I suppose.

 

Marketing may be the greatest soul sucking evil out there, but in this day and age nothing moves without it. You may want to pick another battle :)

Shrugging and contending that "it's simply the way the world works" will always allow you to be right. That is the way the world works. But if everyone did that, nothing would ever change. >_>

Edited by Sad Panda
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one example and does not constitute a rule, I would think. Like stated before, games like Minecraft thrived solely on word of mouth.

 

I agree that when an AAA game is already positively anticipated, negative word of mouth tends to do little. But that does not mean word of mouth is inherently weaker than advertising. I think for a game that is focused on good gameplay rather than impressive visuals (I find PoE plenty beautiful so far, but isometric games do not lend themselves well to dramatic camera angles) good word of mouth will do a lot more than a trailer at E3.

 

Plus, negative word of mouth these days is idle chatter. I think many people are developing a type of ad-blindness towards negativity on the internet because it's getting to the point where 90% of all comment sections anywhere are hate. Positive word of mouth becomes all the more powerful by contrast.

 

Just my two cents, you're welcome to prove me wrong if you have more examples. :)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...