Torment: Tides of Numero Uno

[Revan91]

Where did you get that information?  These games don't need to sell a huge amount of units to make it profitable, they just need to cover the costs of porting.  

 

Just getting even isn't enough, companies want to make profits, otherwise the investment is not worth it.

 

By the way, another slap on the backers' face by Fargo (after the terrible handling of the beta). Sure, there's been a lot of bad signs on this project since Saunders' strange departure.

Also, Fargo in 2013:

 

Fargo's relationship with EA goes back to 1985, when he made the original Bard's Tale for the then fledgling publisher. 28 years on, he's still making innovative games for the PC market; but does he have any plans to bring his latest games to current or next-generation consoles? After all, Torment won't release until 2015. "It’s certainly possible and technically feasible," he says. "However, we’ve gone to the crowd and they’ve given us money for a very specific purpose, which is to put our games on the PC, Mac and Linux. So that’s where we’re expending 100% of our efforts. We don’t spend any of our time wondering whether it can or can’t be done on consoles, because that isn’t our charter. Our charter is to deliver these first versions".

 

GG.

[pmp10]

UK sales charts registered both at the bottom of top 30.

And after a single week they were gone.

 

IIRC Divinity barely broke 1 million units on PC around launch.

900k on consoles would be huge.

So where did you get yours?

Edited August 4, 2016 by pmp10

[Nonek]

Yuck, I can't help feeling that my PC will be tainted by the foul miasma of consolitis now! How sickening.

[ShadySands]

I don't mind them making a console version as long as they don't make any compromises with the PC experience

 

I say that knowing full well that I will judge the game more harshly now and blame everything I don't like on it being dumbed down for consoles

 

[Elerond]

 

Where did you get that information?  These games don't need to sell a huge amount of units to make it profitable, they just need to cover the costs of porting.  

 

Just getting even isn't enough, companies want to make profits, otherwise the investment is not worth it.

 

By the way, another slap on the backers' face by Fargo (after the terrible handling of the beta). Sure, there's been a lot of bad signs on this project since Saunders' strange departure.

Also, Fargo in 2013:

 

Fargo's relationship with EA goes back to 1985, when he made the original Bard's Tale for the then fledgling publisher. 28 years on, he's still making innovative games for the PC market; but does he have any plans to bring his latest games to current or next-generation consoles? After all, Torment won't release until 2015. "It’s certainly possible and technically feasible," he says. "However, we’ve gone to the crowd and they’ve given us money for a very specific purpose, which is to put our games on the PC, Mac and Linux. So that’s where we’re expending 100% of our efforts. We don’t spend any of our time wondering whether it can or can’t be done on consoles, because that isn’t our charter. Our charter is to deliver these first versions".

 

GG.

 

 

Even though I am not pleased about their decision to put their resources to port these games to consoles (because I would like them put those resources to make more PC games), but at least they don't put money the got from backers to make those ports. In other words backers paid development of PC version and publishers paid porting said games to consoles.

[Elerond]

UK sales charts registered both at the bottom of top 30.

And after a single week they were gone.

 

IIRC Divinity barely broke 1 million units on PC around launch.

900k on consoles would be huge.

So where did you get yours?

 

VGChartz lists that D:OS sold about 300k copies on consoles most on PS4 and that Wasteland 2 sold about 130k copies on consoles. VGChartz numbers of course aren't always that accurate and they don't list digital sales (which are significantly higher on PS4 and XB1 than they were on previous generation's consoles).

[Revan91]

VGChartz is terrible and totally inaccurate, guys. D:OS console port was more successful than WL2, but even that was not enough to make Larian promise to make the sequel on both PC and console at release. They preferred to focus on PC first, because that's where their game sold a lot and where (most of) their fans are. 

 

 

 

 

Where did you get that information?  These games don't need to sell a huge amount of units to make it profitable, they just need to cover the costs of porting.  

 

Just getting even isn't enough, companies want to make profits, otherwise the investment is not worth it.

 

By the way, another slap on the backers' face by Fargo (after the terrible handling of the beta). Sure, there's been a lot of bad signs on this project since Saunders' strange departure.

Also, Fargo in 2013:

 

Fargo's relationship with EA goes back to 1985, when he made the original Bard's Tale for the then fledgling publisher. 28 years on, he's still making innovative games for the PC market; but does he have any plans to bring his latest games to current or next-generation consoles? After all, Torment won't release until 2015. "It’s certainly possible and technically feasible," he says. "However, we’ve gone to the crowd and they’ve given us money for a very specific purpose, which is to put our games on the PC, Mac and Linux. So that’s where we’re expending 100% of our efforts. We don’t spend any of our time wondering whether it can or can’t be done on consoles, because that isn’t our charter. Our charter is to deliver these first versions".

 

GG.

 

 

Even though I am not pleased about their decision to put their resources to port these games to consoles (because I would like them put those resources to make more PC games), but at least they don't put money the got from backers to make those ports. In other words backers paid development of PC version and publishers paid porting said games to consoles.

 

You know that for sure? Right now, this move it's just a big "**** you" to their backers and supporters who donated their money after the promise of delivering a solid PC old-school rpg. Also, there's no way of knowing whose money goes in this useless port, so it would've been better and more honest to deliver the PC version and use the money you received (and the ones the devs poured out of their pocket) to stand to your word and deliver the best game you can.

Instead, they did this, which in the best scenario will not affect the game and the PC version and will just be a waste of money that could've been used on making it better/longer/with more branching storylines/etc.

 

To make it worse, while other devs are honest from the start with their intentions, Fargo tried to sell himself as the champion and saviour of true CRPGs when it was useful to gain money on Kickstarter, but is yet again proving that it was just a facade. 

 

 

Where did you get that information?  These games don't need to sell a huge amount of units to make it profitable, they just need to cover the costs of porting.  

 

Just getting even isn't enough, companies want to make profits, otherwise the investment is not worth it.

 

By the way, another slap on the backers' face by Fargo (after the terrible handling of the beta). Sure, there's been a lot of bad signs on this project since Saunders' strange departure.

Also, Fargo in 2013:

 

Fargo's relationship with EA goes back to 1985, when he made the original Bard's Tale for the then fledgling publisher. 28 years on, he's still making innovative games for the PC market; but does he have any plans to bring his latest games to current or next-generation consoles? After all, Torment won't release until 2015. "It’s certainly possible and technically feasible," he says. "However, we’ve gone to the crowd and they’ve given us money for a very specific purpose, which is to put our games on the PC, Mac and Linux. So that’s where we’re expending 100% of our efforts. We don’t spend any of our time wondering whether it can or can’t be done on consoles, because that isn’t our charter. Our charter is to deliver these first versions".

 

GG.

 

 

Even though I am not pleased about their decision to put their resources to port these games to consoles (because I would like them put those resources to make more PC games), but at least they don't put money the got from backers to make those ports. In other words backers paid development of PC version and publishers paid porting said games to consoles.

 

You know that for sure? Right now, this move it's just a big "**** you" to their backers and supporters who donated their money after the promise of delivering a solid PC old-school rpg. Also, there's no way of knowing whose money goes in this useless port, so it would've been better and more honest to deliver the PC version and use the money you received (and the ones the devs poured out of their pocket) to stand to your word and deliver the best game you can.

Instead, they did this, which in the best scenario will not affect the game and the PC version and will just be a waste of money that could've been used on making it better/longer/with more branching storylines/etc.

 

To make it worse, while other devs are honest from the start with their intentions, Fargo tried to sell himself as the champion and saviour of true CRPGs when it was useful to gain money on Kickstarter, but is yet again proving that it was just a facade. 

[Hurlshort]

Ah, I may be mixing up the numbers for PC and console.

 

Still, that doesn't mean the console releases bombed.  We have no idea what the overhead is and no idea what they pull in for each sale.  It's safe to say that if Wasteland 2 really was a money pit on consoles, they would not bother with another attempt.  So it must have done well enough to warrant it.  

 

Plus we also have no idea how this is being handled in house currently, jumping to conclusions and assuming they are using a bunch of backer money to fund a console game is unwarranted.  They might have a team of people that are currently doing nothing and need a project.  We have no idea.

[Elerond]

You know that for sure? Right now, this move it's just a big "**** you" to their backers and supporters who donated their money after the promise of delivering a solid PC old-school rpg. Also, there's no way of knowing whose money goes in this useless port, so it would've been better and more honest to deliver the PC version and use the money you received (and the ones the devs poured out of their pocket) to stand to your word and deliver the best game you can.

Instead, they did this, which in the best scenario will not affect the game and the PC version and will just be a waste of money that could've been used on making it better/longer/with more branching storylines/etc.

 

To make it worse, while other devs are honest from the start with their intentions, Fargo tried to sell himself as the champion and saviour of true CRPGs when it was useful to gain money on Kickstarter, but is yet again proving that it was just a facade.

Without seeing their bank statements I of course can't say for sure that they don't use money from backers to make those ports, but they made publishing contracts for those ports and I don't see any financial reasons to give control over those ports to publishing companies if said companies don't pay for them to make said ports. 

 

In scenario where those ports are paid by publishers, which is the most likely scenario because reasons that I mentioned above, they don't waste any money to make those ports, because they would not have that money if they didn't make said ports. 

 

Effects on PC version is of course difficult to estimate (although in case of Wasteland 2 there probably was none, because they had to port game to new engine and change how its systems work to make it possible that it works on consoles and backers received this new version of W2 addition to original version). In case of TToN it is harder to say if they planned console version from beginning or after their signing contract with Techland. But any case  TToN is simpler to port to consoles than what Wasteland 2 was because it is already made for Unity 5, which is cross platform engine that is able to compile projects so that they run on PS4 and XB1. 

[Zoraptor]

I'm very much meh on the announcement of console versions personally- no objection to them in principle but it's not a great look for a project that was pitched as PC and which has had issues during development. Problem is that we simply don't know if any of those development issues were caused by it actually being a multi platform title long term (even since inception) or were maybe caused by a decision to go console part way through development, or if the development issues were completely separate. If either of the former were true then there's no way that KS funds weren't used for console development at one point even if they later got it covered by the publishing deal.

 

I tend towards it being as stated by InXile, with the addition that the publisher deal probably helps with some extra funding due to the extended development, but it doesn't really look good to anyone who is sceptical of them.

[Revan91]

The game is releasing in early 2017 (unless they delay it again), the deal with Techland was only signed like two months ago. If the idea of the porting was started by Techland, then it would mean that they'll port the game in less than a year, while also finishing to polish the game, adding the last quests and contents, working on the beta, etc. It doesn't seem likely to me, they probably begin with the port earlier and are saying it's done with Techland's money to calm down the backers who don't like this move because they wanted a CRPG.

 

Also, this porting will affect the PC version of the game, if only because their will to release the game simultaneously on PC and consoles is probably the cause of the last couple delays: if the console port is ready in early 2017 and they started working on it only recently, then the PC version would definetely be ready even sooner, maybe even now. 

Besides, it will affect the UI (WL2 had a different UI in its DC version) and some other minor tweaks here and there, if we're lucky (but the point is, even if it doesn't affect the PC version at all, it doesn't add anything to it either, so it's waste of their resources that doesn't benefit backers in any way).

Also, console gamers usually don't like very complex games (tbh, a lot of PC gamers don't like them as well, but there is more market for those games on the PC), and by complexity I mean the systems and combat but also the quest and world design (quest compass, easy solutions to every problem, no "punishments" for making bad choices), so if they want the game to be successful on console they need to take that into account of course.

[Hurlshort]

I don't care when the game gets released, as long as it is good and runs well.  InXile already has the benefit of the doubt from me, Wasteland 2 was great and the director's cut was even better.  I'd say they more than delivered on what I was looking for as a backer, which is simply a good game.  Larian, HBC, and Obsidian have all done the same, and I'll back them until they give me a lousy game.  It hasn't happened yet.  

[Lexx]

Couldn't get into the W2 DC because they changed the camera perspective in a way that 100% turned me off. Didn't tried it again ever since.

Also that reminds me... Some of them announced novellas are still not released, no?

[teknoman2]

Couldn't get into the W2 DC because they changed the camera perspective in a way that 100% turned me off. Didn't tried it again ever since.

Also that reminds me... Some of them announced novellas are still not released, no?

different how? i didn't see any changes... of course i was always playing on full zoom out so it was hard to notice any changes in any other perspective

[Lexx]

When zoomed out fully, it was still much closer to the characters and the ground than before. They removed any possibility to look into the distance. I think they changed this again later in a patch, claiming "it was a bug, honestly!" but the damage was done. Also I felt highly annoyed by the fact they've rather spend more money on voice over than improving some of the very disappointing side quests related stuff. There is so much else they could have done, instead they decided to add more voice over which really wasn't necessary, imo. Oh, and also when the KS was running, it was one of the things people voted for as being not very important...

Edited August 6, 2016 by Lexx

[Majek]

i couldn't get past the new DC font, i tried but just couldn't do it. :/ Maybe i'll be able to do that in a few years.

[Gromnir]

i couldn't get past the new DC font, i tried but just couldn't do it. :/ Maybe i'll be able to do that in a few years.

the font? 

 

...

 

font?

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humanoid]

Well I probably wouldn't play PS:T if all the text was in Comic Sans.

[Keyrock]

I didn't have any issues with the font in W2 DC.  While I would prefer Century Schoolbook over anything else for most applications, given that it's the easiest to read for me, probably because many books I used in school used that font, as long as it's a standard, plain, easy to read font rather than something ridiculous like Bleeding Cowboys, it doesn't bother me.

 

As for console release, so long as console UI design in no way encroaches on PC UI design, it doesn't bother me much.  There is always going to be the suspicion that the console ports are delaying the PC version so they can release simultaneously, but I'm patient enough that I can get over that.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Keyrock

[Chippy]

I started out as a console player when I was a kid - eventually getting into PC because of Syndicate Wars as a teenager.  Hopefully console titles can do the same for the current old school CRPG games.  Hard not to use the phrase 'reach a wider audience' there, phrase has become synonymous with AAA bad publishing.

[MidiOgre]

What a complete trainwreck WL2s DC was (and still is, even after several patches).

Additional voice-over no one asked for and that doesn't even fit with the original VO, an improved for the worst UI to clearly work best on a TV and to look like sh!te on a desktop screen, controller centric UI navigation (most apparent with the abomination that is the new trade/vendor UI), the already mentioned f***ed up camera, replacing the old typewriter font with something that's completely out of place in a post-apocalyptic themed game, and quite a few other, so called quality of life-related changes that don't really make that big of a difference and in some cases even unnecessarily dumb down the game.

 

Thank god the DC didn't completely replace WL2 Classic which might be the visually inferior version, but at least still plays like an oldschool, designed for mouse&keyboard CRPG, flaws and shortcomings included.

 

Now with the news of TTON hitting the consoles, I REALLY hope they learned from WL2s DC and don't repeat the biggest mistake of just merely porting a more than obvious console build onto the PC and be done with it.

 

There are certainly interesting times ahead for Inxile now, with Fargo being called a fraud and a liar for his original "TTON for PC only" Kickstarter pitch and making a pact with the devil Techland.

Bard's Tale 4 being announced as a multiplatform title some time further down the road is a given I guess and Inxile's future crowdfunding campaigns won't rake in as much money as they used to as well.

[Lexx]

Does anyone really care for Bard's Tale 4, though? If I remember right, the KS barely made it and so far I've read nobody anywhere write anything about it.

[Chippy]

The camera in WL2 should never have made it past the community testing.  I'm selfish in that I don't want to be exposed to spoilers, but what the hell was the community smoking when they didn't complain about that camera?  I blame the codexers - I thought they had this stuff under their critical eye. 

[rjshae]

Actually, I like the camera in WL2. It's certainly less cumbersome than the camera in the initial D:OS release. But perhaps it's an issue for smaller displays?

[Lexx]

It is kind of more true to the original, which was top down only. Still, the way it is in W2 just makes you feel like you can't see anything at all, because you can't zoom out far enough.