How Should Obsidian Market Pillars of Eternity

[Lord Wafflebum]

I donated as much as I (reasonably) could at the time. I think that is likely true for most folks. Disposable income, ya'll! ...not that I have that anymore

[anameforobsidian]

 

I think that trying to second guess peoples motivation for contributing to the Kickstarter is non-productive.  I can state for a fact what my motivation was.  Whether the price of the game was low or high didn't even enter my mind what was important was the possibility of getting a game with a good story, in-depth characters, good dialogue, a game that challenged my mind and gave me pleasure to play.  I do not remember what my initial pledge was but it had nothing to do with the cost of the game.

 

However it does annoy me when I see posts saying that "I should be able to get the game for $25 USD because the backers got the game for that amount".    I am not going to try and guess at why Obsidian set that initial price for backers.  I have theories but that is all they are.  Based on other games it is not unusual for games in alpha development to have a lower price than a game that is completed.  Paradox is an experienced marketer and I am sure they have done their research.

Well you are a silver supporter, you are not the one we are talking about.

 

I would love to hear from more people that supported the game at lowest levels about their motivations for that amount.

 

I had to sell blood plasma to afford the bronze level.  Many people paid more money, but paid less dearly.

[Osvir]

I view it as, no matter how much you pledged, you made this happen

Fans who wanted to see a game like this happen, made it happen. The nature of Kickstarter and Crowdfunding.

I'm a slacker backer (something that popped up post-Kickstarter, after the campaign), but I was around since the KS started (which is why I think I have a K on my profile). Due to this fact, I can't say that I made the Kickstarter campaign succeed, technically.

 

So it's all thanks to you guys, massive kudos! :D without you, I wouldn't even have been able to "slack a back". I don't think it matters whether one pledged $10 or another pledged $20, and another pledged $500. In the end, fundamentally, we came, we saw, we conquered

[Nakia]

Yes, we all made this game possible and we can all take pride in that IMO.   

[Hassat Hunter]

For me... I really wanted a physical copy... but seeing the shipping costs, that was out of the question... So I took one of the lower digitals instead, still paying way more than I have done any game for the past 3 years or so...

[Tsuga C]

With a 4 minute Superbowl ad, of course. They will have to spend all that Kickstrter funding somewhere...

Don't try to appeal to the casual gamers & hack 'n' slash crowd (God of War, anyone?) as did EAWare with their grossly ill-advised "This is the New Sh**" add for Dragon Age. This is primarily a game for grognards, so be honest about its throwback nature and fewer of the non-cRPG players who purchase PoE will shriek and sling poop on the forums.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Tsuga C

[Lephys]

I have no problem with the sheer existence of "the new sh%#," as it were... but what I don't understand is why companies such as EA feel the need to go all do-or-die with it. "THIS IS THE FUTURE!" Why can't improving on the old stuff AND making simplified, more accessible games for people be the future?

 

Hell, I'm pretty much never going to buy a sports game, ever. They're fun and all, but I am not their demographic. If you try to make them more like a medieval fantasy RPG, you're not improving the sports genre. NOW, if they decided to try and make ONE game that was like, medieval fantasy sports (Something like Quiddich? *shrug*), then that might actually be kind of cool. But, you don't just take Madden and make next year's version Quiddich instead.

 

The future isn't homogeneous, for crying out loud. What are we, the Business Borg? Haha.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

Why should I pay full price for a game that is mostly likely released full of bugs, when I can play the same games fully patched a year later for half the price (or less)? I've got so many games to play or replay, that I'm not exactly sitting around waiting for a game to be released.

See, this is where I differ from you, and many, many other gamers - and why this discussion about price points seems trivial to me. I *don't* have a lot of games to play. I purchase games relatively infrequently. (I tend to re-play my favorite games over and over to kill time between anticipated releases). At most I'll buy, 1 or 2 games a year, and sometimes none. (I bought zero games in 2010 and 2012, for example). So when a game I'm looking forward to does get released, I'm usually one of the guys who Pre-orders the collectors edition of it, then looks at the clock and waits for 12:01 to come so I can unlock the DRM and start playing.

 

And that being the case, paying $60 or more for a game is no big deal for me. I see video games as a great entertainment bargain at their usual $50-$60 full price, and to be honest, I'd willingly pay MUCH more without complaining if there was some industry-wide price hike one day. Back in 2000 when I bought BG2's collectors edition for $54.99, if I had known then how many YEARS of gaming pleasure it would end up giving me, I'd have happily bought it for $1000...or more. That's really how much that game is worth in money measurements.

 

And there have been other games over the years that really *really* acquitted their price. Divinity Original Sin, for instance, is a steal at $40, and IMO, a missed opportunity for Larian. They could have easily priced it at $50 or $60 like any other AAA title and it would have been completely justified. Even Skyrim is very much worth twice its full price if you buy it on PC, due to its size and the seemingly bottomless pool of Mods that can turn that game into anything you wish it to be.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Stun

[grievance]

As a 42 year old RPG fan from way back in the Pool of Radiance gold box days up to DA: Inquisition. I actually liked "THE NEW @#%$" trailer, it was one of my favorite game trailers. It set the tone for the universe fairly well for me. Was it a representation of gameplay, lol no. But I still liked it.

 That being said, I am really looking forward to some IE style gaming when this comes out. Maybe I will stop playing Baldur's Gates and Icewind Dales for a while.

[archangel979]

I have no problem with the sheer existence of "the new sh%#," as it were... but what I don't understand is why companies such as EA feel the need to go all do-or-die with it. "THIS IS THE FUTURE!" Why can't improving on the old stuff AND making simplified, more accessible games for people be the future?

 

Hell, I'm pretty much never going to buy a sports game, ever. They're fun and all, but I am not their demographic. If you try to make them more like a medieval fantasy RPG, you're not improving the sports genre. NOW, if they decided to try and make ONE game that was like, medieval fantasy sports (Something like Quiddich? *shrug*), then that might actually be kind of cool. But, you don't just take Madden and make next year's version Quiddich instead.

 

The future isn't homogeneous, for crying out loud. What are we, the Business Borg? Haha.

Because their suits said that their programmers time costs money and their calculations show better return on that money if all programmers work on games that sell well to casuals.

[rjshae]

 

With a 4 minute Superbowl ad, of course. They will have to spend all that Kickstrter funding somewhere...

Don't try to appeal to the casual gamers & hack 'n' slash crowd (God of War, anyone?) as did EAWare with their grossly ill-advised "This is the New Sh**" add for Dragon Age. This is primarily a game for grognards, so be honest about its throwback nature and fewer of the non-cRPG players who purchase PoE will shriek and sling poop on the forums.

 

I was being satirical...

[Bryy]

 

I have no problem with the sheer existence of "the new sh%#," as it were... but what I don't understand is why companies such as EA feel the need to go all do-or-die with it. "THIS IS THE FUTURE!" Why can't improving on the old stuff AND making simplified, more accessible games for people be the future?

 

Hell, I'm pretty much never going to buy a sports game, ever. They're fun and all, but I am not their demographic. If you try to make them more like a medieval fantasy RPG, you're not improving the sports genre. NOW, if they decided to try and make ONE game that was like, medieval fantasy sports (Something like Quiddich? *shrug*), then that might actually be kind of cool. But, you don't just take Madden and make next year's version Quiddich instead.

 

The future isn't homogeneous, for crying out loud. What are we, the Business Borg? Haha.

Because their suits said that their programmers time costs money and their calculations show better return on that money if all programmers work on games that sell well to casuals.

 

Reality said their programmers time cost money.

[Lephys]

Because their suits said that their programmers time costs money and their calculations show better return on that money if all programmers work on games that sell well to casuals.

I get that. I'm wondering what legitimate reason actually fueled their decision-making process. The answer is pretty much "none." Or rather, they follow a very skewed version of reasoning when they make such decisions. 'Cause, the idea seems to be "if we don't follow this model, we don't make lots of money." Which isn't true.

 

*shrug*. I don't get how someone can be like "Oh, people LOVE my cakes! Better just make like 3. I don't wanna take the time to make 50 cakes, and make 50-times the profit. I'll just try to make those 3 cakes appeal to people who are allergic to eggs, milk, and sugar."

[Katarack21]

 

Because their suits said that their programmers time costs money and their calculations show better return on that money if all programmers work on games that sell well to casuals.

I get that. I'm wondering what legitimate reason actually fueled their decision-making process. The answer is pretty much "none." Or rather, they follow a very skewed version of reasoning when they make such decisions. 'Cause, the idea seems to be "if we don't follow this model, we don't make lots of money." Which isn't true.

 

*shrug*. I don't get how someone can be like "Oh, people LOVE my cakes! Better just make like 3. I don't wanna take the time to make 50 cakes, and make 50-times the profit. I'll just try to make those 3 cakes appeal to people who are allergic to eggs, milk, and sugar."

 

It's much more complicated then that. You have to compute how much 50 cakes will cost in various ingredients, how many you'll sell, how many you'll sell vs the amount of time put into production, compare that with the same experience in 3 cakes, etc. It's a cost/benefits analysis that takes hundreds of factors into account.

 

It's the same reason Hollywood makes the same blockbusters, and the same reason everything published by Tor in 1992 was essentially the same fantasy novel, etc. Basically, if you can have 1 product that appeals to 100 people, you will make more money than if you have 100 products that appeal to 1 person because of the money that be saved by simple, efficient mass production of one item versus the specialized production neccessary for 100 unique items. The problem is that over diversification of appeal eventually leads to everything being virtually the same, which then breeds a loss of interest in the population over time. At this point, the major producers are convinced that the games, movies, etc. have to be huge spectacles to even get our attention, with special effects and incredibly expensive marketing campaigns and other such. This massively inflates the cost of production, thus throwing the entire calculation off.

 

Once this self-reinforcing cycle of mass appeal/cost inflation get's going, a small producer making an alternative, viably unique product for a comparatively small opening investment can move in to the market that's being ignored and make a killing overnight. That's what Obsidian is hoping to do.

[Lephys]

It's much more complicated then that. You have to compute how much 50 cakes will cost in various ingredients, how many you'll sell, how many you'll sell vs the amount of time put into production, compare that with the same experience in 3 cakes, etc. It's a cost/benefits analysis that takes hundreds of factors into account.

I get that. I was referring more to the effort quantity. Not so much in just raw effort. I realize hundreds of people work their arses off on every new version of Call of Duty, but someone decides "make it basically exactly like the last one, but with a more ridiculous single-player campaign that starts in space and has an action dog, and no one really likes it anymore" on the conceptual level. Instead of "Hey, let's try to make some improvements and put out something that's very similar, but has actual new stuff that isn't just new for the sake of being new."

 

It's like they're robotizing the creative process. And you can't do that. You can't calculate creativity. And I realize they gather mountains and mountains of numbers, and crunch them all, but, I dare say they always make far more conclusive decisions than the data actually provides. That's why, after 5 iterations of some game, the 6th one finally ends up selling like half as well as the previous. And they're all scratching their heads, "Hmmmm, what went wrong?! We followed the ultimate formula precisely!". It's clearly not the ultimate formula, then.

 

Then, you have indie games come through, from people who are just like "I thought this would be a really great game idea, and I objectively thought about it to make sure it was feasible and intelligently designed." They didn't collect a Hollywood's worth of consumer market research data to design that game. They just mixed their imaginative creative design with their objective technical smarts and make a cool game, and it sells like hotcakes on Steam. People who didn't even like that GENRE say "Hmmm, saw a friend playing it, and it's actually pretty awesome, so I picked it up."

 

My point is just that businesses tend to run things like everything can be calculated with certainty. If they at least took into account that that information only tells you so much, and that there's a whole 'nother factor to human function when it comes to appreciating creatively-designed things, we'd all be better off.

[illathid]

Hell, I'm pretty much never going to buy a sports game, ever. They're fun and all, but I am not their demographic. If you try to make them more like a medieval fantasy RPG, you're not improving the sports genre. NOW, if they decided to try and make ONE game that was like, medieval fantasy sports (Something like Quiddich? *shrug*), then that might actually be kind of cool. But, you don't just take Madden and make next year's version Quiddich instead.

 

 

You mean Blood Bowl:

[teknoman2]

Never said those other games were not expensive. Though, Blackguards was not crowd-funded (that means someone put their own money in it) and D:OS was partialy crowd-funded.

Anyway that was mostly a complain about this game's prize since it is 100% crowd funded, meaning OE paid 0 $ from their pockets to develop it and Paradox will gain money from the sells of a game they didn't also put a dime in. These for me are good enough reasons that the game should be of much lower price than 40$.

 

And to point something else out, selling a game so high when it cost you nothing, is unethical.

i think they try to follow the Apple policy: sell it overpiced and everyone will run to buy it because "more expensive = better"

[Lephys]

You mean Blood Bowl:

I don't mean Blood Bowl, specifically. I was just making an example. I had heard the name, but didn't even know what it was until you brought it up in direct reference, here. It's a good example, I suppose, of how you can make some different games without taking all your games in the same direction in one giant wave.

 

Of course, it seems like it was made up a while back, as a tabletop game, then adapted into a video game. I'm talking more about new/original IP's and such. Just, the ideas these business folk get behind (or allow their creative folks to come up with) in today's big game companies.

 

I realize that it's a business, but so is a restaurant. You can just cover everything in chocolate/cheese, respectively, and you'll probably get a lot of business. But that doesn't get you the position as one of the best restaurants. Hard work, effort, and passion about your food is what does that.

 

The main problem with businesses today is that the formula has become far too much "How can we get money from people?" and not enough "How can we earn people's business?". Better to gain a customer who LIKES to give you their money, than one who simply feels there's not an alternative.

 

I dunno... it's hard to describe in a couple of simple statements. It's not that you can't take into consideration what a lot of people would like. It's just that your priority shouldn't be "maximize the people who would show some interest in this," whilst "make this game idea as great as it can be" gets drowned out.

[Katarack21]

 

You mean Blood Bowl:

I don't mean Blood Bowl, specifically. I was just making an example. I had heard the name, but didn't even know what it was until you brought it up in direct reference, here. It's a good example, I suppose, of how you can make some different games without taking all your games in the same direction in one giant wave.

 

Of course, it seems like it was made up a while back, as a tabletop game, then adapted into a video game. I'm talking more about new/original IP's and such. Just, the ideas these business folk get behind (or allow their creative folks to come up with) in today's big game companies.

 

I realize that it's a business, but so is a restaurant. You can just cover everything in chocolate/cheese, respectively, and you'll probably get a lot of business. But that doesn't get you the position as one of the best restaurants. Hard work, effort, and passion about your food is what does that.

 

The main problem with businesses today is that the formula has become far too much "How can we get money from people?" and not enough "How can we earn people's business?". Better to gain a customer who LIKES to give you their money, than one who simply feels there's not an alternative.

 

I dunno... it's hard to describe in a couple of simple statements. It's not that you can't take into consideration what a lot of people would like. It's just that your priority shouldn't be "maximize the people who would show some interest in this," whilst "make this game idea as great as it can be" gets drowned out.

 

It's the difference between people who want to make good games because they love games, and who are as interested in the rewards of respect and accolades from their peers and admiration in their industry as they are in the material rewards, and companies who make "good" games only because "good" games sell better and will make them a higher profit.

 

It's the difference between Stephen Spielberg and Michael Bay.

[Nakia]

Hmm...Interesting.  The AAA companies are like Starbuck, tell people they arethe best in town, sell at inflated prices, appeal to the masses. ???

[Lord Wafflebum]

Stephen Spielberg oversaw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Analogy defeated.

[Katarack21]

Stephen Spielberg oversaw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Analogy defeated.

Bah! You understood what I meant perfectly. My analogy was entirely successful!

 

Though you can replace Spielberg with Guillermo Del Toro and it would also work.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Katarack21

[archangel979]

 

It's much more complicated then that. You have to compute how much 50 cakes will cost in various ingredients, how many you'll sell, how many you'll sell vs the amount of time put into production, compare that with the same experience in 3 cakes, etc. It's a cost/benefits analysis that takes hundreds of factors into account.

I get that. I was referring more to the effort quantity. Not so much in just raw effort. I realize hundreds of people work their arses off on every new version of Call of Duty, but someone decides "make it basically exactly like the last one, but with a more ridiculous single-player campaign that starts in space and has an action dog, and no one really likes it anymore" on the conceptual level. Instead of "Hey, let's try to make some improvements and put out something that's very similar, but has actual new stuff that isn't just new for the sake of being new."

 

It's like they're robotizing the creative process. And you can't do that. You can't calculate creativity. And I realize they gather mountains and mountains of numbers, and crunch them all, but, I dare say they always make far more conclusive decisions than the data actually provides. That's why, after 5 iterations of some game, the 6th one finally ends up selling like half as well as the previous. And they're all scratching their heads, "Hmmmm, what went wrong?! We followed the ultimate formula precisely!". It's clearly not the ultimate formula, then.

 

Then, you have indie games come through, from people who are just like "I thought this would be a really great game idea, and I objectively thought about it to make sure it was feasible and intelligently designed." They didn't collect a Hollywood's worth of consumer market research data to design that game. They just mixed their imaginative creative design with their objective technical smarts and make a cool game, and it sells like hotcakes on Steam. People who didn't even like that GENRE say "Hmmm, saw a friend playing it, and it's actually pretty awesome, so I picked it up."

 

My point is just that businesses tend to run things like everything can be calculated with certainty. If they at least took into account that that information only tells you so much, and that there's a whole 'nother factor to human function when it comes to appreciating creatively-designed things, we'd all be better off.

 

Only difference between Obsidian (PoE) and Rockstar (GTA 5) is that Rockstart can invest 100 mil $ and earn 1.5 billion $ while Obsidian can invest few million and will earn about 10 million back.

 

Both games take a few years to make. Now, why would anyone able to invest 100 million $ ever want to make games Obsidian does?

Edited December 22, 2014 by archangel979

[Luckmann]

 

 

It's much more complicated then that. You have to compute how much 50 cakes will cost in various ingredients, how many you'll sell, how many you'll sell vs the amount of time put into production, compare that with the same experience in 3 cakes, etc. It's a cost/benefits analysis that takes hundreds of factors into account.

I get that. I was referring more to the effort quantity. Not so much in just raw effort. I realize hundreds of people work their arses off on every new version of Call of Duty, but someone decides "make it basically exactly like the last one, but with a more ridiculous single-player campaign that starts in space and has an action dog, and no one really likes it anymore" on the conceptual level. Instead of "Hey, let's try to make some improvements and put out something that's very similar, but has actual new stuff that isn't just new for the sake of being new."

 

It's like they're robotizing the creative process. And you can't do that. You can't calculate creativity. And I realize they gather mountains and mountains of numbers, and crunch them all, but, I dare say they always make far more conclusive decisions than the data actually provides. That's why, after 5 iterations of some game, the 6th one finally ends up selling like half as well as the previous. And they're all scratching their heads, "Hmmmm, what went wrong?! We followed the ultimate formula precisely!". It's clearly not the ultimate formula, then.

 

Then, you have indie games come through, from people who are just like "I thought this would be a really great game idea, and I objectively thought about it to make sure it was feasible and intelligently designed." They didn't collect a Hollywood's worth of consumer market research data to design that game. They just mixed their imaginative creative design with their objective technical smarts and make a cool game, and it sells like hotcakes on Steam. People who didn't even like that GENRE say "Hmmm, saw a friend playing it, and it's actually pretty awesome, so I picked it up."

 

My point is just that businesses tend to run things like everything can be calculated with certainty. If they at least took into account that that information only tells you so much, and that there's a whole 'nother factor to human function when it comes to appreciating creatively-designed things, we'd all be better off.

 

Only difference between Obsidian (PoE) and Rockstar (GTA 5) is that Rockstart can invest 100 mil $ and earn 1.5 billion $ while Obsidian can invest few million and will earn about 10 million back.

 

Both games take a few years to make. Now, why would anyone able to invest 100 million $ ever want to make games Obsidian does?

 

 

Because it's the only way you reach that niche market.

 

It's the argument between mass-market wide appeal and the tailored target. The thing is, it's not mutually exclusive.

 

Fancy restaurants are still in business, despite McDonalds having a higher market share than any individual real restaurant.

 

Also, a dedicated fan base is far less fickle, and have proven time and again that they are willing to "work with" the companies they support, while the mass market is incredibly fickle, essentially a house of cards where a single major investment gone awry will hurt you far more in the long run.

 

Relatively speaking, there's a huge market out there of people that aren't going to eat **** just because that's what the big corps are serving. EA and others are refusing to exploit that market, and by all indications have no idea how to, and Obsidian (and others) are reaping the benefits.

[Nakia]

Who owns these companies?  EA owns Bioware but who owns EA?  ZenMax owns Bethesda but who owns ZenMax.

Who owns Obsidian?

 

I ask this because creativity is not a simple process.  It starts in the human mind.  I have been watching some of TED's videos on creativity and found them very interesting.  Creativity  cannot be robotized.     New ideas, new creations can come about in casual ways with people just tossing out ideas, discussing something that they are interested in or wonder about.  

 

Why are we posting on this forum?  Why did 77,000 back Obsidian?  In fact why did Obsidian go for a Kickstarter, why not just continue making games that some publisher wanted?  Why don't we gamers just buy the games that AAA gamers give us?

 

Why?