Not encouraged

[Yellow Rabbit]

Yeah, I know the problems of video game developing, and it depends how many of the staff is permanent or hired for a project basis as well. Or how many have several roles instead of one specialised role.

I do want Obsidian to make money on this, and the more sales the better, but from a Kickstarter point of view it won't last if they end up making a game that is more tailored to the crowd that didn't back them, than the cowd that backed them.

Also, breaking even is in theory enough to run a company, as long as there is no debt you have to pay off, but for that to happen you need to already be an established company that can found yourself for supplies and paychecks, and when you sell what you produce you go back up to the saved amount you started with. The idea that a business have to make a profit to be viable isn't really true, it has to make a profit if it has backers that looks to get it's money back though. but if you own a shop and break even then you don' have to make a profit, as long as you cna pay for supplies and your own paycheck. but you need to have the capital to make it go full circle.

You misunderstood me a little I never had said that devs should try to appeal to broader audience and the like, it would be a severe mistake for kickstarted project. I just wanted to point out that any additional sales they can make shouldn't be considered "a bonus" but a profit that could and should be expected from the very beginning.

 

As for expenses of running the company, I don't think we can get anywhere with all that theoretical talk without knowing real state of affairs in Obsidian's account department. What do you say?

Edited December 3, 2014 by Yellow Rabbit

[kat7ra]

 

Yeah, I know the problems of video game developing, and it depends how many of the staff is permanent or hired for a project basis as well. Or how many have several roles instead of one specialised role.

I do want Obsidian to make money on this, and the more sales the better, but from a Kickstarter point of view it won't last if they end up making a game that is more tailored to the crowd that didn't back them, than the cowd that backed them.

Also, breaking even is in theory enough to run a company, as long as there is no debt you have to pay off, but for that to happen you need to already be an established company that can found yourself for supplies and paychecks, and when you sell what you produce you go back up to the saved amount you started with. The idea that a business have to make a profit to be viable isn't really true, it has to make a profit if it has backers that looks to get it's money back though. but if you own a shop and break even then you don' have to make a profit, as long as you cna pay for supplies and your own paycheck. but you need to have the capital to make it go full circle.

You misunderstood me a little I never had said that devs should try to appeal to broader audience and the like, it would be a severe mistake for kickstarted project. I just wanted to point out that any additional sales they can make shouldn't be considered "a bonus" but a profit that could and should be expected from the very beginning.

 

As for expenses of running the company, I don't think we can get anywhere with all that theoretical talk without knowing real state of affairs in Obsidian's account department. What do you say?

 

I say I totally agree, and couldn't have said it better myself.

It is fun to theorize though ^^

[NegativeEdge]

Just my opinion but I think everybody has a bit of grognard in them.

 

I got my girlfriend into RPGs with things like ME2 and Fallout 3, then she moved on to KoTOR and DA:O and we recently played Divinity OS together which she really enjoyed, more so than me.

So she has been playing DA: Inquisition lately and thinks the combat is boring because it's too easy and lacks tactical depth and complains about simplified skill trees. She's now more a combatfan than me.

 

Challenge is good, difficulty is rewarding, embrace your inner grog.

[Sheikh]

 

The point is, Obsidian would have made this game with only 1.1m. What do they use the extra 2.9m for doesnt make any difference to me. They had an extra 2.9m to work with - kickstarter works and there is no problem. They could have considered that 2.9m as profit  and they probably did in fact.

Initial goal on kickstarter was 900k iirc. And it's not enough for the game of this type and size. Neither is 4+m, for that matter, with all stretch goals Obs promised to deliver. They were likely going to invest some of their own money in this or snatch a little from other projects. And "invest" means "put money in and expect them to come back with profit", yes?

 

Anyway, what do you have against this certain devteam having a little profit from their work? They should get something in return, you know.

 

Profit and making a good game are opposites and always get in the way of each other. I want a good game, dont really care about Obsidians profits.

 

And thats why kickstarter is good.

 

We need to emphasize the good game, not the profits I feel. Because for all I care, if Obsidian start making **** games the profits make no difference anymore to me, in fact it'd be better if they went bankrupt if they were making **** games like 98% of developers.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Sheikh

[Yellow Rabbit]

Profit and making a good game are opposites and always get in the way of each other.

Now that is a little too radical statement, is it not? Are you claiming that The Best Game of All Times shouldn't make any profit at all? That's what you actually said.

 

Bad games usually born when devs try to maximize profit compromising quality. That's not the case here and never was, so... *shrug*

[kat7ra]

Just my opinion but I think everybody has a bit of grognard in them. I got my girlfriend into RPGs with things like ME2 and Fallout 3, then she moved on to KoTOR and DA:O and we recently played Divinity OS together which she really enjoyed, more so than me. So she has been playing DA: Inquisition lately and thinks the combat is boring because it's too easy and lacks tactical depth and complains about simplified skill trees. She's now more a combatfan than me. Challenge is good, difficulty is rewarding, embrace your inner grog.

I must say I agree with your Girlfriends complaints

the exploration is  nice though, haven't had as much fun exploring a new world since my first WoW experience.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

The point is, Obsidian would have made this game with only 1.1m. What do they use the extra 2.9m for doesnt make any difference to me. They had an extra 2.9m to work with - kickstarter works and there is no problem. They could have considered that 2.9m as profit  and they probably did in fact.

Initial goal on kickstarter was 900k iirc. And it's not enough for the game of this type and size. Neither is 4+m, for that matter, with all stretch goals Obs promised to deliver. They were likely going to invest some of their own money in this or snatch a little from other projects. And "invest" means "put money in and expect them to come back with profit", yes?

 

Anyway, what do you have against this certain devteam having a little profit from their work? They should get something in return, you know.

 

 

You do realize that the devs are getting paid as a part of the budget, they're not working for free and hoping for a salary out of additional copies sold. They're getting paid either way because that's a part of the cost of making the game, any additional money from copies being sold will go into the Obsidian coffers to be used on other projects I imagine. Will the devs be rewarded if a bunch of extra copies sell? Maybe so, but I'm not sure why that matters. Although it is likely that enough sales could incentivize Obsidian to pursue this sort of game in the future, they already made all the sales they needed to make the game. As Sheikh keeps pointing out, this is the entire point of KS.

 

I don't know what is leading people in this thread to believe that Obsidian is operating at a loss on this project when it made four times its original goal, any actual reason to believe this? And, if they are operating "at a loss" (by which I mean the company has put some money into it, which has nothing to do with the devs' salaries btw), then it's only because they decided to put extra money into the game because they saw that it was most likely going to make a profit which would be a return on that money. This isn't a justification for changing the nature of the game in a way that betrays the promises made to the backers, it's a calculated financial decision made by Obsidian.

[Sheikh]

Now that is a little too radical statement, is it not?

No

 The Best Game of All Times shouldn't make any profit at all?

 

Doesnt make any difference whether it makes profit or not.

 

 

Profit and enjoyability (of the product) are not directly connected at all, only indirectly. In other words in theory they have nothing to do with each other, only in practice. But practice is something that can vary wildly.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Sheikh

[Yellow Rabbit]

@GrinningReaper659

I do realize all you have said, thanks. In the post that you quoted I wanted to say that 4+m is not a big sum by game development standards. Yes, that's almost five times what they initially asked, but it still not a big sum for game of this size. That's why I expected it to be exceeded, though I don't know actual expences devs had. Anyway, it is their problem which they apparently know how to solve.

 

I know they WILL make this game. I trust they will deliver all the promises they made exactly like they said. But when someone starts to imply "they need to make PoE at all costs and then they can vanish from Earth for all I care" I cannot help myself saying that's not right. The more they'll got from this project - the better for their future projects and, therefore, for us. What's wrong with that?

 

Profit and enjoyability (of the product) are not directly connected at all, only indirectly.

Couldn't you please decide whether they're "always get in the way of each other" or "not directly connected"? I haven't any problem with the latter but the former is just plain wrong.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Yellow Rabbit

[Sheikh]

I already did. They get in the way of each other indirectly and only in practice. In theory they are not connected. What this means is that practical circumstances such as making profit are nothing but a burden on the core point of making a game - to enjoy it and need to be treated as nothing but a burden that needs to be dealt with, not obsessed over.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Sheikh

[Yellow Rabbit]

Well, if you would actually read your opponent's post to an end (I know, that is too much to ask, but I can hope, right?), you would notice that I said exactly the same thing, only shorter. Here:

Bad games usually born when devs try to maximize profit compromising quality. That's not the case here and never was, so... *shrug*

Now, to remind what we are talking about. Initially you said: "Devs doesn't need any additional sales of PoE since the game already fully funded". I (and not only me) said: "No, they need all they will get in the sake of their future". Anything else is just a speculation from that point. And since here you made it plain that you don't give a **** about their future I suggest leave it all at that. Cheers Edited December 3, 2014 by Yellow Rabbit

[Nakia]

Lots of interesting comments, some I agree with some I disagree with.  I have "liked" a couple of comments that express what I think.  I do think we are missing the point and going off track from the OP that started this discussion.  I have seen similar and far worse comments on another forum.  It really annoys me that people who have never played an IE game seem to think the game should be changed to fit their idea of what a game should be or at least sold to them at a very cheap price.

 

Here is the initial video for the opening of the Kickstarter.  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity

 

Obsidian wanted to make this game but they need money to make.  So they went to Kickstarter.  Naturally the people who would want to fund this game would be fans of the Infinity Engine games or of games Obsidian had developed.  They raised their initial goal within 31 hours.  I saw journalist reports that this was considered amazing.    This game exists because of those of us who longed for this type of game, who believed that Obsidian could deliver.    I personally will feel betrayed if I start playing the game and find it is dumped down  for consoles or mobile devices, changed to appeal to people who want an "easy/accessible? game, a game that has no depth to it, a game that does not challenge me.  

 

There are options to configure this game to your own style of play.  If people are going by what those playing the Backer Beta say they should remember a couple of things.  1)  Those players have a lot of experience among them and at least most of them have played IE games as well as others.  2( The purpose of a Beta is to test the game, the mechanics, to look for bugs, to try and beat the game and that is what is being done.

 

I want Obsidian to have good sales but not at the cost of betraying me, one of those who believed in them and helped  to make this game possible.  

 

Arguing about business does not change the fact that this game exists and will soon be released because 77K people belived in Obsidian and wanted this game.  I don't give a hoot in Hel's Realm if the masses buy the game or not.  That does not mean I don't care about Obsidian making a "profit" I hope they do as long as they stay faithful to their backers and I think they will.

[Sheikh]

Yeah I agree OBSIDIAN WANTED TO MAKE THIS GAME not wanted to make profit.

 

And it was a great success because they made this game. High five!

[Lephys]

Yeah I agree OBSIDIAN WANTED TO MAKE THIS GAME not wanted to make profit.

I don't think you're realizing that the two aren't mutually exclusive, though. What you're making a good point about is when you pit one against the other for priority status. Their desire for profit is secondary, in this case. Doesn't mean that if they somehow make a profit, they'll un-desire it, and send it back or something. "Whoa, whoa! Guys, we fulfilled all the backer rewards and broke even. SET THE PRICE TO FREE NOW FOR ALL POST-FULFILLMENT SALES!"

[Sheikh]

Lol you jews.

 

I am just out of things to say.

 

Can I be honest what this is about? The honest opinion is, femininity is associated with the material world and masculinity with the spiritual world. You money worshippers are all feminine as hell and you like money because you lack the ability to make it yourselves.

 

The point is, your lack of ability to make money and your being feminine does not equal to obsidian feeling the same way and being feminine. If you want ot take care of Obsidians finances, go and work for them. Until then, the only valid thing for you to worry about is if the game will be good. Because you are the customers, not Obsidians board of treasury. Let the big boys fully take care of their own finances. What you are displaying here is codependency with Obsidian and I frankly think its absolutely disgusting.

 

If you, in any way at all, are concerned with whether Obsidian makes money, its codependency. And codependency is bad, very very bad.

 

Because its not in your direct interest whether they make money. Its in your interest whether you like what they sell to you. If you think like "I hope Obsidian makes money so they can make more games that I like", its plain and pure codependency. Think about it.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Sheikh

[Lephys]

Can I be honest what this is about? The honest opinion is, femininity is associated with the material world and masculinity with the spiritual world. You money worshippers are all feminine as hell and you like money because you lack the ability to make it yourselves.

 

The point is, your lack of ability to make money and your being feminine does not equal to obsidian feeling the same way and being feminine. If you want ot take care of Obsidians finances, go and work for them. Until then, the only valid thing for you to worry about is if the game will be good. Because you are the customers, not Obsidians board of treasury. Let the big boys fully take care of their own finances. What you are displaying here is codependency with Obsidian and I frankly think its absolutely disgusting.

... What? o_o

 

 

If you, in any way at all, are concerned with whether Obsidian makes money, its codependency. And codependency is bad, very very bad.

 

Because its not in your direct interest whether they make money. Its in your interest whether you like what they sell to you. If you think like "I hope Obsidian makes money so they can make more games that I like", its plain and pure codependency. Think about it.

 

... Ummm... the entire business world is founded on codependency. They need people who desire products in order to feasibly make those products without literally wasting their time and resources, and we need products to fulfill our desires for those products because we cannot make them ourselves the same way. We get games, they get money. They use money to make games, and they sell games (because we want them) to make money.

 

Hell, the very definition of Kickstarter is codependency. They were literally dependent upon our individual pledges for the game in order to make the game in the first place. So, hoping they make money via sales is no different from hoping their next Kickstarter gets sufficient funding. It's simply hoping for a fortunate probability.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Lephys

[Nakia]

 

Yeah I agree OBSIDIAN WANTED TO MAKE THIS GAME not wanted to make profit.

I don't think you're realizing that the two aren't mutually exclusive, though. What you're making a good point about is when you pit one against the other for priority status. Their desire for profit is secondary, in this case. Doesn't mean that if they somehow make a profit, they'll un-desire it, and send it back or something. "Whoa, whoa! Guys, we fulfilled all the backer rewards and broke even. SET THE PRICE TO FREE NOW FOR ALL POST-FULFILLMENT SALES!"

 

,  Lephys, The two are not exclusive but based on blogs/updates/interviews from the Kickstarter period I don't think Obsidian was thinking PROFIT but thinking about a game they themselves really wanted to make.  It is quite possible that the sucess of the Kicksarter got thinking "Hey, we might be able to make some money from this".  Nothing wrong with that.

 

As I stated I hope they do make money.  My quarrel is not with Obsidian by any means and they can give the game away, sellit for %6 USD or whatever they want.  My quarrel is people who think they have the right to tell Obsidian to change the game to fit them.  I It is highly unlikely that anyone will succeed in doing that but it really annoys me.

 

Note: Just for the record I am a woman which means nothing or should be mean nothing in these discussions.  

Edited December 3, 2014 by Nakia

[Sheikh]

... Ummm... the entire business world is founded on codependency. They need people who desire products in order to feasibly make those products without literally wasting their time and resources, and we need products to fulfill our desires for those products because we cannot make them ourselves the same way. We get games, they get money. They use money to make games, and they sell games (because we want them) to make money.

Hell, the very definition of Kickstarter is codependency. They were literally dependent upon our individual pledges for the game in order to make the game in the first place. So, hoping they make money via sales is no different from hoping their next Kickstarter gets sufficient funding. It's simply hoping for a fortunate probability.

 

For the people, the point of the company making products is so that they could use that product. For the company, $$ and thats all. They do not sell games because we want them, they sell games because they want $$.

 

No its not. We dont have to make a kickstarter project, you dont have to back it. Its purely voluntary - the very opposite of codependency. They are not dependent upon our pledges because they dont have to make the project if they dont get what they want.

 

Your thinking of reality is codependent, the reality isnt.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Sheikh

[Lephys]

,  Lephys, The two are not exclusive but based on blogs/updates/interviews from the Kickstarter period I don't think Obsidian was thinking PROFIT but thinking about a game they themselves really wanted to make.  It is quite possible that the sucess of the Kicksarter got thinking "Hey, we might be able to make some money from this".  Nothing wrong with that.

I think we're talking about two different specific things. I very much agree that they weren't thinking "PROFIT!". But, I don't think they weren't at all even considering or desiring an outcome in which this game makes them profit. I don't think they designed the game around profit-generation, but I also don't think they just couldn't even care less about profit. For one thing, they want to make a sequel, and profit could allow them to make a sequel without having to launch another Kickstarter for it. So... I mean, desiring profit doesn't just mean "Yeah, I'm gonna buy gold sofas and pay a bunch of stockholders" or anything. A direct interest in making an excellent game sort of segues into expanding that game/franchise/narrative, and profit is a resource that better allows those plans to come to fruition, without having to rely solely on another Kickstarter (or publisher funding, which is what's being avoided in all this because it oft comes with publisher directives).

 

Also, how dare you be female!

 

For the people, the point of the company making products is so that they could use that product. For the company, $$ and thats all. They do not sell games because we want them, they sell games because they want $$.

That isn't necessarily true. I mean, sure some companies out there are only motivated by money. But, plenty are, at the very least, motivated by some combination of good quality need fulfillment AND money.

 

You're looking at the world in an awfully black-and-white fashion.

 

No its not. We dont have to make a kickstarter project, you dont have to back it. Its purely voluntary - the very opposite of codependency.

 

We seem to be dealing with two different connotations. When I say "dependency," I'm talking about contextual dependency. I don't mean that we, the consumers, require video games for survival, or that a company requires video game sales for money/survival/what-have-you. They could make some other product, or just not have a company, etc. And we don't have to play video games. What I mean is, whether or not video games get made is dependent upon whether or not people want and will buy video games. And whether or not people will buy video games depends on whether or not anyone's willing to make them. We have money and want video games but can't make them (for the most part... not like a big company can... the key word being "can" and not "always does"), and they have video games but need money to not go broke making them.

 

Within the video game industry, gamers and developers are codependent. Not for survival. Just for the existence of a video game industry.

[Sheikh]

I think we're talking about two different specific things. I very much agree that they weren't thinking "PROFIT!". But, I don't think they weren't at all even considering or desiring an outcome in which this game makes them profit. I don't think they designed the game around profit-generation, but I also don't think they just couldn't even care less about profit. For one thing, they want to make a sequel, and profit could allow them to make a sequel without having to launch another Kickstarter for it

You dont know what they want to do. In fact your whole thinking of what Obsidian is thinking is codependent because Obsidian doesnt need you to think of how they think in order to think.

Also, how dare you be female! 

Feminine, not female. Female is a material concept, femininity is a spiritual concept.

That isn't necessarily true. I mean, sure some companies out there are only motivated by money.

Yes it is true, the end. A company as such is always motivated by money. People in the company may have other motivations, but the company is the defininig factor because you work for the company, the company does not work for you. That means the company, which wants to make money, controls you not the other way around.

We seem to be dealing with two different connotations. When I say "dependency,

We were talking about codependency, not dependency. Codependency is an addiction. It means "I cant have what I want unless I also give you what you want, but what I dont really want to give". If you still dont understand what codependency is, google it. I am not going to explain it anymore because google has it. Dont be codependent on me to know what codependency is.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Sheikh

[Nakia]

Lephys, We are talking about two different things.    Here is what the OP stated.

Just read the latest blog report on game status.   Read about how complex and fast the game was and how steep the 'learning curve' is. 

I really hope they work on that.   I have never played an RPG (I'm a big 4X gamer) but thought this might be a good one to try.  

Well, maybe not.   I'll be sure to read the reviews before I buy because it looks like this is turning out to be yet ANOTHER 'RPG game for RPG grognards. 

Games need to be more accessible.   At least that's my take on PC games and it's been that way for twenty years.   

I think that the OP has brought forward some important things,;  Are the game play mechanics hard to learn?   For those who are unfamiliar with the IE games I think it will be very hard to learn how to play unless there is a very comprehensive tutorial and even so this will not be a game to rush into.

 

Is the game easy to play?  Even the devs said that the easy setting is hard.  I am having a hard time with combat playing on easy.  This can be discouraging to new players.  Strategy is important in this type of game right from the moment you create your main character.

 

Can Obsidian address these points without watering down the game?  I think so.  I also think because of the complexity of the game there will be a prolonged learning curve and that potential buyers should be aware of that.  

 

I think that discussing the OP's points would be a lot more productive than trying to second guess Obsidian's thinking about money/profits. 

 

Off topic:   As for being a woman I didn't get to choose and in fact I enjoy being one.

[Yellow Rabbit]

OP's concern yet remains to be seen. Game is still at beta version stage, if there, and may change vastly before it's out. Especially in regards to combat mechanics since it seems to be main issue and the first candidat for changing/adjusting.

 

Were IE games really that hard to get into? I never had problems with them. Person liking 4x type games shouldn't have any problems even more so.

[Sheikh]

Off topic:   As for being a woman I didn't get to choose and in fact I enjoy being one.

Good for you. Women are just as important as men and femininity is just as important as masculinity.

Were IE games really that hard to get into?

I feel they were very easy.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Sheikh

[Nakia]

OP's concern yet remains to be seen. Game is still at beta version stage, if there, and may change vastly before it's out. Especially in regards to combat mechanics since it seems to be main issue and the first candidat for changing/adjusting.

 

Were IE games really that hard to get into? I never had problems with them. Person liking 4x type games shouldn't have any problems even more so.

Baldurs Gate was my second CRPG and I played through without assistance other than the game guide book which I actually read.  I did have a problem with IWD II and found an IE fan forum to get help.  However it is my opinion that game players including me have been "spoiled" by newer games.  

It is true that until the game is actually released and we have a chance to play it we won't know what the problems may or may not be.  

Added: As for 4X players if they like strategy they probably will do well with this game.  Maybe.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Nakia

[Yellow Rabbit]

Baldurs Gate was my second CRPG and I played through without assistance other than the game guide book which I actually read.  I did have a problem with IWD II and found an IE fan forum to get help.  However it is my opinion that game players including me have been "spoiled" by newer games.  

It is true that until the game is actually released and we have a chance to play it we won't know what the problems may or may not be.  

Added: As for 4X players if they like strategy they probably will do well with this game.  Maybe.

I think the main problem newcomer's going to have with the game of this kind is ruleset. Once you have a grasp on that, you can relatively easy figure out how to make a playable character, play through certain encounters etc. The very first character most likely going to be half-witted cripple even with IE veterans (those who didn't play backer beta of course).

 

IE games was working on D&D ruleset. It was developed for PnP gaming, evolved for very long time and because of that tended to complexity. Not very much, but still. Besides, it had suffered a little from transition from tabletop turn-based game into computer-handled real-time one.

 

Ruleset for PoE was designed from scratch for computer natively and, imho, should be easier to grasp, althgough it's borrowing concepts from PnP games here and there. Mostly to make combat challenging, as far as I know. Is it right?