Can PoE grow as a franchise the way the Witcher did?

[Katarack21]

 

If we look now best selling "RPG games" like...

like BG2 and KOTOR? Because those were best-selling RPG games.

 

What I don't understand and would like to figure out is exactly what happened to make RTwP go from best-selling RPG's to...not.

[firkraag888]

 

 

If we look now best selling "RPG games" like...

like BG2 and KOTOR? Because those were best-selling RPG games.

 

What I don't understand and would like to figure out is exactly what happened to make RTwP go from best-selling RPG's to...not.

 

newer 3d modeling technology

[Quillon]

Sure it might be interesting to see "Pillars of Eternity V: ...

 

Has a nice ring to it :D

[Jozape]

Isn't Dragon Age: Inquisition RTwP? That was one of BioWare's best selling games...at launch. I haven't heard anything about post-release sales. I doubt it's anything like The Witcher 3 or Fallout 4.

[Quillon]

Its third person action game more than anything else, it had a tactical interface no one used.

[Ninjamestari]

Its a ****ty third person action game more than anything else, it had a tactical interface no one used.

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself, I just had to adjust that one minor detail ^^

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

If we look now best selling "RPG games" like...

like BG2 and KOTOR? Because those were best-selling RPG games.

 

What I don't understand and would like to figure out is exactly what happened to make RTwP go from best-selling RPG's to...not.

 

newer 3d modeling technology

 

But KOTOR was very much 3D...

[Varana]

Not having 3D technology in itself.

The ability to render more realistic environments and characters while keeping smooth gameplay at the same time.

 

Also, the appeal of action-oriented gameplay was always there. Diablo was a milestone in that direction - creating a game that actually catered to that demand.

 

Fast-paced action gameplay will always outsell slow-moving games that require lots of time investment, as a general rule. It's just a question of how good the games available at the moment are.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Varana

[Katarack21]

Not having 3D technology in itself.

The ability to render more realistic environments and characters while keeping smooth gameplay at the same time.

 

 

 

 

 

If we look now best selling "RPG games" like...

like BG2 and KOTOR? Because those were best-selling RPG games.

 

What I don't understand and would like to figure out is exactly what happened to make RTwP go from best-selling RPG's to...not.

 

newer 3d modeling technology

 

But KOTOR was very much 3D...

 

 

[Katarack21]

Not having 3D technology in itself.

The ability to render more realistic environments and characters while keeping smooth gameplay at the same time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If we look now best selling "RPG games" like...

like BG2 and KOTOR? Because those were best-selling RPG games.

 

What I don't understand and would like to figure out is exactly what happened to make RTwP go from best-selling RPG's to...not.

 

newer 3d modeling technology

 

But KOTOR was very much 3D...

 

[Duskshift]

I don't think The Witcher series naturally grew. Barely anyone played the first, only a handful played the second. When the 3rd was shown off at E3, it got a public buzz and alot of hype.

 

The first game was terrible, the second game was just okay but some parts - like the invisible walls and children speaking with adult voices.

 

The Witcher 3 is nearly a perfect action rpg though, it seems to me that CD Projekt Red got lucky, because The Witcher 1 and 2 were less than average.

 

Of course, I own all 3 and have completed each of them more than once.

 

Do I think that PoE has the chance to become as big? Hmmm... maybe. The thing is that alot of people don't like real-time with pause games anymore, they would rather play something a bit more "accessible" and in your face like but then, Crpg's seem to be coming back in a big way so it might generate some waves of love for PoE in the future, years after the rest of us have already played the games.

Sigh - Yes I suppose they were really 'lucky' enough to 'barely' get the money together to selfpublish. Also - what a coincidence, that they modeled TW3 after a game that released around the same time as TW2 and was vastly more successful. Or that the Engine used could draw on a lot of lessons learned. Yes, i mean there is no progression at all. 

 

Success is rarely spontaneous.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Duskshift

[Karkarov]

Lol why did this turn into a discussion about Game of Thrones and the Witcher?  That question out of the way, the Witcher 2 was very successful and had enormous positive spin.  It was played by considerably more people than "a handful".  The Witcher 1 is a pretty crap game though, it's combat is literally tic tac toe.  What Witcher 1 allowed was for the creation of GoG, which made the money to fund Witcher 2, which made the money to make GoG bigger, which is why Witcher 3 was such a huge title.

It took a lot of time, effort, and planning.  That's how real businesses operate and succeed.

As for Game of Thrones?  It isn't Dark Fantasy, it is just bad Fantasy.  I was there before it was "cool", I own a first printing of the first book (I should sell that on ebay to some mook), and the series did start strong but had very little to no "fantasy" elements.  All the fantasy elements started becoming stronger in later books, as the writing and plot got weaker, and the story got sloppier.  The Game of Thrones as it is now is something I watch on HBO and have no plan to buy the books.  Mostly because the HBO version though different, is legitimately better as it drops all the retarded fluff, and has a more logical story.  Well most of the time it does...

Edited March 25, 2017 by Karkarov

[Quillon]

I didn't like the combat either but Witcher 1 was far from a "crap game". Combat in the second or third Witcher wasn't much good either, except they looked good. Combat has never been the strong suit of CDPR, we'll see if it'll change with CP77 in 2077 I guess. Tho the reason people don't like/hate "The Witcher" in this thread isn't even combat.

 

Also CDPR could have gone under between Witcher 1 and 2, they spent too much money on a Witcher 1 console port which never happened.

 

People who "complain" about The Witcher series deserve Bio & Bethesda crap.

[Varana]

I really liked Witcher 1 and hated Witcher 2 to the point of never playing more than a quarter or a third of it. *hides*

[/OT]

[SonicMage117]

 

I don't think The Witcher series naturally grew. Barely anyone played the first, only a handful played the second. When the 3rd was shown off at E3, it got a public buzz and alot of hype.

The first game was terrible, the second game was just okay but some parts - like the invisible walls and children speaking with adult voices.

The Witcher 3 is nearly a perfect action rpg though, it seems to me that CD Projekt Red got lucky, because The Witcher 1 and 2 were less than average.

Of course, I own all 3 and have completed each of them more than once.

Do I think that PoE has the chance to become as big? Hmmm... maybe. The thing is that alot of people don't like real-time with pause games anymore, they would rather play something a bit more "accessible" and in your face like but then, Crpg's seem to be coming back in a big way so it might generate some waves of love for PoE in the future, years after the rest of us have already played the games.

 

Sigh - Yes I suppose they were really 'lucky' enough to 'barely' get the money together to selfpublish. Also - what a coincidence, that they modeled TW3 after a game that released around the same time as TW2 and was vastly more successful. Or that the Engine used could draw on a lot of lessons learned. Yes, i mean there is no progression at all.

Success is rarely spontaneous.

Success can often be spontaneous and it spontaneously happens more than you think... all it takes is a good product with the right decisions. The Witcher and The Witcher 2 didn't have good decisions, neither did the series appeal to the wide-scale audience. Furthermore, I could give hundreds of examples of new succesful indie IP's that got lucky, as well as series that were not popular that became popular with one entry and vice-versa.

 

I don't think Witcher 2 did as well as people think, especially looking at the longevity of sales.

 

Like I said, The Witcher as a franchise wasn't widely received until the E3 demo was shown of Witcher 3 and wow'd everybody's socks off. Probably because it was so beautiful and open that it was seen as one of the first games to take full advantage of new console hardware - that's also a good valid point to remember.

 

Before The Witcher 3 released, the fan base was very very small. I know there will always be that handful of loyal people who want to say otherwise but sales and the longevity of sales speak for what it is.

Edited March 25, 2017 by SonicMage117

[Bill Gates' Son]

I really liked Witcher 1 and hated Witcher 2 to the point of never playing more than a quarter or a third of it. *hides*

[/OT]

 

Same.  I honestly like Witcher 1 better than witcher 2, but I still think Witcher 2 is a good game.

[Duskshift]

 

 

I don't think The Witcher series naturally grew. Barely anyone played the first, only a handful played the second. When the 3rd was shown off at E3, it got a public buzz and alot of hype.

[stuff]

[stuff]

Success can often be spontaneous and it spontaneously happens more than you think... all it takes is a good product with the right decisions. The Witcher and The Witcher 2 didn't have good decisions, neither did the series appeal to the wide-scale audience. Furthermore, I could give hundreds of examples of new succesful indie IP's that got lucky, as well as series that were not popular that became popular with one entry and vice-versa.

 

I don't think Witcher 2 did as well as people think, especially looking at the longevity of sales.

 

Like I said, The Witcher as a franchise wasn't widely received until the E3 demo was shown of Witcher 3 and wow'd everybody's socks off. Probably because it was so beautiful and open that it was seen as one of the first games to take full advantage of new console hardware - that's also a good valid point to remember.

 

Before The Witcher 3 released, the fan base was very very small. I know there will always be that handful of loyal people who want to say otherwise but sales and the longevity of sales speak for what it is.

 

I can however remember a lot of recent-ish failed ventures, with good products and decisions (Dredd 3D ring a bell with its failed marketing?). And i would like to see these many indie games with an AA / AAA budget or sales (with the exception of minecraft, duh). Edit: I mean we are talking about the level of success of TW series here right - thread title and all....

 

I am also going to kindly refer you to page 4, where you should ppl (re-)read some stuff. TW1 had its flaws, but TW3 heavily built on it with the knowledge and understanding of TW2 (their own engine for example, ffs) as well tailoring their game to fit a very specific style inspired by a certain game.

 

I also pointed out, that there are some other factors to consider, which make it so that TW3 can't really be considered [yes hyperbole, i know] 'dumb luck'. Not that i could also refer to the fact that sales of TW2 where apparently (8+ Million) very good for such a small studio and that there was quite some media coverage about a big number of pirated copies and a few other .. incidents. After all selfpublishing a game with a budget of ~70-80 Million USD is not something i would consider to be able if the game wasn't as widely recieved.

 

Now i see you propably don't follow news coverage as much and are not as involved in modding as i am, and that is fine. Be that as it may, i *do* want to apologize for the condeceding tone.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Duskshift

[SonicMage117]

 

 

 

I don't think The Witcher series naturally grew. Barely anyone played the first, only a handful played the second. When the 3rd was shown off at E3, it got a public buzz and alot of hype.

[stuff]

 

[stuff]

Success can often be spontaneous and it spontaneously happens more than you think... all it takes is a good product with the right decisions. The Witcher and The Witcher 2 didn't have good decisions, neither did the series appeal to the wide-scale audience. Furthermore, I could give hundreds of examples of new succesful indie IP's that got lucky, as well as series that were not popular that became popular with one entry and vice-versa.

I don't think Witcher 2 did as well as people think, especially looking at the longevity of sales.

Like I said, The Witcher as a franchise wasn't widely received until the E3 demo was shown of Witcher 3 and wow'd everybody's socks off. Probably because it was so beautiful and open that it was seen as one of the first games to take full advantage of new console hardware - that's also a good valid point to remember.

Before The Witcher 3 released, the fan base was very very small. I know there will always be that handful of loyal people who want to say otherwise but sales and the longevity of sales speak for what it is.

I can however remember a lot of recent-ish failed ventures, with good products and decisions (Dredd 3D ring a bell with its failed marketing?). And i would like to see these many indie games with an AA / AAA budget or sales (with the exception of minecraft, duh). Edit: I mean we are talking about the level of success of TW series here right - thread title and all....

I am also going to kindly refer you to page 4, where you should ppl (re-)read some stuff. TW1 had its flaws, but TW3 heavily built on it with the knowledge and understanding of TW2 (their own engine for example, ffs) as well tailoring their game to fit a very specific style inspired by a certain game.

 

I also pointed out, that there are some other factors to consider, which make it so that TW3 can't really be considered [yes hyperbole, i know] 'dumb luck'. Not that i could also refer to the fact that sales of TW2 where apparently (8+ Million) very good for such a small studio and that there was quite some media coverage about a big number of pirated copies and a few other .. incidents. After all selfpublishing a game with a budget of ~70-80 Million USD is not something i would consider to be able if the game wasn't as widely recieved.

 

Now i see you propably don't follow news coverage as much and are not as involved in modding as i am, and that is fine. Be that as it may, i *do* want to apologize for the condeceding tone.

Hmmm.....

 

Maybe read my comment again, sounds like either you didnt understand what I was trying to say.

 

I never said that every game was guarenteed success if it was backed would good decsions. I said there are many indies that have become successful spontaneously because of good decisions alone. I never compared the revenue/sales of indies and The Witcher 3. That's two different things so I'm kinda confused.

 

With games like Terrarria, Super Meat Boy, and many more, these are all games that became spontaneously successful - developers didn't plan for it. They just... were. Nor do they need a AAA budget to be successful as The Witcher series at this point. Claiming so wouldn't be very smart. Popularity can come from left field, even from something like selling a shirt at Hot Topic.

 

I'll kindly reject your offer to go to page 4, as I'm not here to start an arguement or debate with people. Just wanted to state the fact that The Witcher series was on a string until The Witcher 3 came out. Then you saw massive sales spike for The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2. Why? Most people didn't even know about The Witcher series until The Witcher 3 released.

 

Getting lucky doesn't necessarily mean "dumb" luck. Obviously CD Projekt Red has *some* experience (now more than ever) but I think we both know that CD Projekt Red never thought The Witcher 3 would become as big as it did. When I say they got lucky, I meant the time of release, the hype that they got with E3 demo, coupled with the inexperienced messes that were The Witcher 1 and The Witcher 2. Nothing more, nothing less. I would never say that they are dumb in any way. They were smart to get WB to publish their game in America which helped tremendously as well.

 

Forgive me for not being a Witcher fanboy on this thread, although I really do love The Witcher series. I can admit when it got noticed.

 

How can you tell if I follow news or not? What makes you assume that I'm not up to par with modding. If you saw my Steam profile it would likely debunk that but what does that have to do with the legit examples I've written here?

 

The Witcher 2 sold 1.7 million copies in its first year, most copies were due to sales with a large cut-price.

 

The Witcher 3 sold over 6 million copies in the first 6 weeks alone, that's virtually a million a week. It literally outsold The Witcher 2 in its first week alone - according to news.

 

Now with all that out of the way, hopefully you can see now exactly what I mean when I say that CD Projekt Red got lucky. The Witcher 3's success wasn't due because of fanbase that CD Projekt Red acquired with The Witcher 1 or The Witcher 3, it sold well due to good hype and a great reveal which wow'd people.

 

Til this day, The Witcher 1 and Witcher 2 have average sales numbers but the other factor that people seem to leave out is how much revenue was made? Not very much since Witcher 1 and Witcher 2's main sales numbers come from Steam sales with massive discount, but yeah they were boosted only because people got curious after they played The Witcher 3. Like I said, this wasn't a natural success but an unnatural one. It happens, I'm not sure why people think that this is a bad thing though. Success is success and The Witcher 3 is a great game.

[Jozape]

Nice cherry picking. The Witcher series had sold 6 million copies only a year after The Witcher 2 itself had sold 1.7 million copies.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-10-25-cd-projekt-red-announces-6-million-the-witcher-sales

 

By the end of 2014, the series had already surpassed 8 million copies sold.

 

http://segmentnext.com/2014/09/05/witcher-witcher-2-sales-reach-8-million-mark/

 

Though the price may not have been that high many copies were sold thus many people were exposed to the game. The franchise grew. This really isn't debatable.

[SonicMage117]

Nice cherry picking. The Witcher series had sold 6 million copies only a year after The Witcher 2 itself had sold 1.7 million copies.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-10-25-cd-projekt-red-announces-6-million-the-witcher-sales

 

By the end of 2014, the series had already surpassed 8 million copies sold.

 

http://segmentnext.com/2014/09/05/witcher-witcher-2-sales-reach-8-million-mark/

 

Though the price may not have been that high many copies were sold thus many people were exposed to the game. The franchise grew. This really isn't debatable.

You're just repeating what I just said lol What I know is that sales were on Steam (by 2014 people were buying Witcher 1 for $0.99 or Witcher 2 for $2.49) Now how many people played it vs how many people have it in their backlog among hundreds of other games in their library? Is there any way to gauge it?

 

Now, most importantly, look at that article and then look at when The Witcher 3 was revealed. Notice the boost of sales that happened both when The Witcher 3 ws revealed and when it released. This isn't being picky so much as it is realizing the small details that no one else follows up on.

 

What's silly is that people are saying that The Witcher franchise had a huge fan base before The Witcher 3 debuted. It didn't. This must be the fourth time I say it. The Witcher fan base got a huge boost when The Witcher 3 was revealed, add to that the importance of a new comsole generation and you have a hit... not because of the games before it but because it impressed people with flashy graphics, a huge open world and 200 hours of gameplay. None of that which was in the other two games.

 

Of course the franchise grew, nobody here said it didn't. The argument seems to be the way that it grew. There's an importance to understanding the difference though.

Edited March 26, 2017 by SonicMage117

[KDubya]

I find in life that the harder I work the more lucky I get.

 

Attributing the success of Witcher 3 to luck insults all the truly hard work that CD Projekt put into the game.

 

 

On topic of PoE, to get into the big league AAA they'd have to have a game that works on consoles in order to get into the mass market that is console gaming. Real time with pause, isometric 2D and lots of good reading does not translate well into the world of consoles.

[Katarack21]

They could easily make a successful AAA game in this setting. But PoE itself? No.

[SonicMage117]

I find in life that the harder I work the more lucky I get.

 

Attributing the success of Witcher 3 to luck insults all the truly hard work that CD Projekt put into the game.

 

 

On topic of PoE, to get into the big league AAA they'd have to have a game that works on consoles in order to get into the mass market that is console gaming. Real time with pause, isometric 2D and lots of good reading does not translate well into the world of consoles.

An answer I'm used to hearing and one that contradicts itself. I mean, if that was the case, every developer who pours in hours of hard work would get rewarded, no? Every good/great game would be a success and no developer would be closing their doors, this obviously isn't so.

 

I can't relate the gaming industry to all things in life, maybe musicians... Musicians would be a valid work hard and only out of luck do they become noticed. It's about as close to a real example I can get. Everyone works hard, or at least they say they do. As far as getting rewarded for it - well, that all depends on the person's definition of rewarded.

 

Hard work can be coupled with luck, usually with alt of competitors, it's just that. Something I have learned over the years is that the games industry is a different kind of business, sure it's easy to say "The Witcher 3 is a phenomenal game" but what if it wasn't? It would still have those 1 million pre-sales... all because of hype and a great demo. This industry has alot to do with luck, whether people want to admit it or not.

 

Let's also get to another fact that The Witcher 3 was bought mostly by people who had never even played a Witcher game before.

 

Anyways back to the OP's question,an important thing to keep mind about PoE franchise is that they're crowd funded games and only on one platform.

[Flouride]

Can Eternity become a "mega mainstream hit"?

 

Uh... no, not in it's current form.  It is an isometric RPG, very much a niche genre that is outside anything involving the word "mainstream".

 

The better question would be "can they make real money on Eternity and turn it into a franchise?"  The answer to that is most definitely yes.  Can they over time consider making an open world 3D action RPG similar to say the Witcher or Dark Souls based in the world of Eora?  Sure they can, and that could be a game with much more mainstream appeal.

 

The thing is that a game like that requires much more staff, and much more money, than Obsidian can commit at this time.  Don't kid yourself, you are not going to kick/figstart a open world RPG on par with something like Fallout 4 or Mass Effect Andromeda.  The budget required is way out of the realm of public funding.

 

I will say that Josh Sawyer said in a live stream that he really liked the "Dark Souls formula" and would not be opposed to doing a game similar to that one day.

 

If Deadfire can do what BG2 did, then it's the 1st step towards growing bigger as a company for Obsidian. Keeping the sales figures (hopefully even adding some) from PoE while making the game and IP more prestigious.

 

The could use that money + going for investors and Fig they could get a budget around 15-20 million for the game. While that is not enough for a 60 hour FNV/Witcher like game, it's enough for them to try a 20-30 hour open world game. Not on every platform though, which would hurt the initial sales, but they might be able to port it on other platforms later.

 

That said it's highly doubtful as they would need a larger team for such a game and an engine and putting all eggs into one basket doesn't seem like a move Feargus would make. So if they end up making a open world game like that it would have to happen with the help from a publisher.

 

So rather than going for a Witcher/FNV like game, they are more likely to finish the "trilogy" by doing a 3rd game similar to the 2 others, using some of the profits to fund Sawyer's medieval game and rest on PoE3 and pitches to publishers.

Hopefully they get to keep IP on Project Indiana and it creates more opportunities for them as a company.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Flouride

[Quillon]

 

I find in life that the harder I work the more lucky I get.

 

Attributing the success of Witcher 3 to luck insults all the truly hard work that CD Projekt put into the game.

 

 

On topic of PoE, to get into the big league AAA they'd have to have a game that works on consoles in order to get into the mass market that is console gaming. Real time with pause, isometric 2D and lots of good reading does not translate well into the world of consoles.

An answer I'm used to hearing and one that contradicts itself. I mean, if that was the case, every developer who pours in hours of hard work would get rewarded, no? Every good/great game would be a success and no developer would be closing their doors, this obviously isn't so.

 

I can't relate the gaming industry to all things in life, maybe musicians... Musicians would be a valid work hard and only out of luck do they become noticed. It's about as close to a real example I can get. Everyone works hard, or at least they say they do. As far as getting rewarded for it - well, that all depends on the person's definition of rewarded.

 

Hard work can be coupled with luck, usually with alt of competitors, it's just that. Something I have learned over the years is that the games industry is a different kind of business, sure it's easy to say "The Witcher 3 is a phenomenal game" but what if it wasn't? It would still have those 1 million pre-sales... all because of hype and a great demo. This industry has alot to do with luck, whether people want to admit it or not.

 

Let's also get to another fact that The Witcher 3 was bought mostly by people who had never even played a Witcher game before.

 

Anyways back to the OP's question,an important thing to keep mind about PoE franchise is that they're crowd funded games and only on one platform.

 

I agree with the contradiction but not on luck; making a good game is more hard work than luck and making the right game & great marketing is more like being clever than lucky. Investing into their own engine & best marketing in recent history(free DLCs!), being bold & trusting themselves that they can deliver even if they couldn't "redefine the RPG" etc etc. Pfft. yeah they got lucky...