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

[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.

 

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...

You're looking at it in the wrong way as most people here in the thread are.

 

You can't say "CD Projekt Red earned the trust of consumers and that's how it got its fanbase when The Witcher 3 released" because it's not true, The Witcher 3's first million in sales was before the game even released, it wasn't off of CD Projekt Red's reputation before that but a hunch that the game would be good. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Great games can get poor marketing and still have great sales, crappy games can have good marketing and sell millions as well (we see this every year).

 

The industry has alot to do with luck, sure there are other variables but if everything was really how people here are saying then the games industry would be in a much better place and every game with a big budget, hardworkers, custom engines and good marketing would sell well.

 

Lucky I think is the perfect word. 6 million sales in the first 6 weeks rarely happens with a framchise in which the developer has only put out two other avergae/sub-par games. If you show a E3 demo and people are impressed enough to buy your game regardless of a mediocre history, then you are lucky. Everything else about the free dlc, good user reviews, trust, etc can only be spoken about after the game has released for a while, right?

 

I think this is in interesting story that people should read...

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-06-seeing-red-the-story-of-cd-projekt

 

I went into this expecting that most people would not agree with me on this and that's okay. Alot of people look at The Witcher 3 as if it's some kind of messiah to modern rpg games, I don't. I actually look at it and compare it more to Rise Of The Tomb Raider than any rpg. Still, I do love CD Projekt Red and The Witcher 3 franchise.

 

I think when you do a thorough check on the history of the company, it really does prove my point.

 

http://nichegamer.com/2017/03/22/cd-projekt-red-began-with-passionate-gamers-who-had-no-clue-how-to-make-games/

 

Anyways, that's about it. With 2 mediocre games before their $80 million budget game, I'd hope it would be good but nobody knew until they got their hands on it. After all, any game with a huge budget can still be a flop. As every project in the industry is a gamble anyway. Luck.

[Quillon]

First 2 games are mediocre how? They have their flaws but for most people who played those 2 games they are great. CDPR certainly earned my trust and they showed good stuff(however controversial) so new people to the series also got excited, they didn't magically got "lucky".

 

The luck part is not for the reception, reception relies on marketing and game being good. Luck is a factor for the ones who pay the bills; publishers/investors for the game turning out good or bad. 

[SonicMage117]

First 2 games are mediocre how? They have their flaws but for most people who played those 2 games they are great. CDPR certainly earned my trust and they showed good stuff(however controversial) so new people to the series also got excited, they didn't magically got "lucky".

 

The luck part is not for the reception, reception relies on marketing and game being good. Luck is a factor for the ones who pay the bills; publishers/investors for the game turning out good or bad.

 

I always associate some amount of luck with the gamble that the industry has become. I can't help but think that if there wasn't a new console generation (PS4/XB1) to play The Witcher 3 on, it wouldn't have received the hype nor the attention that it deserved. Considering that most of its sales were on PS4. Regardless of having an amazing E3 demo, being great on pc, etc.

[Quillon]

 

First 2 games are mediocre how? They have their flaws but for most people who played those 2 games they are great. CDPR certainly earned my trust and they showed good stuff(however controversial) so new people to the series also got excited, they didn't magically got "lucky".

 

The luck part is not for the reception, reception relies on marketing and game being good. Luck is a factor for the ones who pay the bills; publishers/investors for the game turning out good or bad.

I always associate some amount of luck with the gamble that the industry has become. I can't help but think that if there wasn't a new console generation (PS4/XB1) to play The Witcher 3 on, it wouldn't have received the hype nor the attention that it deserved. Considering that most of its sales were on PS4. Regardless of having an amazing E3 demo, being great on pc, etc.

 

 

They were set out to make a multiplatform game, they were even unlucky to be overestimating new consoles' power so the E3 2013 fiasco happened, maybe this also helped as in "no such thing as bad publicity". It sold on PS4 more cos there are a lot more PS4 owners than xbone. Overall they were very clever & bold.

 

I don't trust them today as I did before tho. They are getting too big too quickly, still hiring "designers" for a game they announced back in 2012 which is very discomforting and investing in features like "seamless multiplayer" which I'm not at all excited about. Also Witcher 3 was good and all but I'm still disappointed about the save import stuff, Witcher 2 as a game rendered meaningless with how they handled continuity. 

[SonicMage117]

 

 

First 2 games are mediocre how? They have their flaws but for most people who played those 2 games they are great. CDPR certainly earned my trust and they showed good stuff(however controversial) so new people to the series also got excited, they didn't magically got "lucky".

 

The luck part is not for the reception, reception relies on marketing and game being good. Luck is a factor for the ones who pay the bills; publishers/investors for the game turning out good or bad.

 

I always associate some amount of luck with the gamble that the industry has become. I can't help but think that if there wasn't a new console generation (PS4/XB1) to play The Witcher 3 on, it wouldn't have received the hype nor the attention that it deserved. Considering that most of its sales were on PS4. Regardless of having an amazing E3 demo, being great on pc, etc.

 

They were set out to make a multiplatform game, they were even unlucky to be overestimating new consoles' power so the E3 2013 fiasco happened, maybe this also helped as in "no such thing as bad publicity". It sold on PS4 more cos there are a lot more PS4 owners than xbone. Overall they were very clever & bold.

 

I don't trust them today as I did before tho. They are getting too big too quickly, still hiring "designers" for a game they announced back in 2012 which is very discomforting and investing in features like "seamless multiplayer" which I'm not at all excited about. Also Witcher 3 was good and all but I'm still disappointed about the save import stuff, Witcher 2 as a game rendered meaningless with how they handled continuity.

Very true.

 

I hope they turn out to continue to do well, I guess we'll see

[rjshae]

The soul-oriented nature of this setting could lend itself well to a unique console offering. For example, how about a protagonist who can switch souls with another body by subduing them in combat? This could easily provide all sorts of variety as each body adopted would have a different standing with the major factions in the world and possibly possess a unique set of special abilities. Every play through could have completely different consequences and outcomes.

[KDubya]

If you make PoE 3 on consoles you will lose what makes PoE stand out from the crowd, namely the great writing (which incidentally requires reading). Console gamers are not going to read so that'd be the first thing they'd cut from the game. Next is  the deep character building which requires knowledge of the game mechanics in order to be successful, especially with some of the more oddball builds that are available and viable, that is much too complicated for console gamers. Real time with Pause would be the next casualty.

 

You'd end up with something unrecognizable by the PoE fans. This would then create a market for a new developer to produce old school RPG for us, the niche market.

 

Or Obsidian could pass on trying to jump into the AAA console game world with PoE and just continue to make well received, moderately budgeted games that sell enough to keep everyone employed.

[firkraag888]

If you make PoE 3 on consoles you will lose what makes PoE stand out from the crowd, namely the great writing (which incidentally requires reading). Console gamers are not going to read so that'd be the first thing they'd cut from the game. Next is  the deep character building which requires knowledge of the game mechanics in order to be successful, especially with some of the more oddball builds that are available and viable, that is much too complicated for console gamers. Real time with Pause would be the next casualty.

 

You'd end up with something unrecognizable by the PoE fans. This would then create a market for a new developer to produce old school RPG for us, the niche market.

 

Or Obsidian could pass on trying to jump into the AAA console game world with PoE and just continue to make well received, moderately budgeted games that sell enough to keep everyone employed.

unfortunately OBS ceo feargus has stated he would like to see pillars go in the direction of skyrim. 

 

lets hope he was high when he said that.

[Sonntam]

 

If you make PoE 3 on consoles you will lose what makes PoE stand out from the crowd, namely the great writing (which incidentally requires reading). Console gamers are not going to read so that'd be the first thing they'd cut from the game. Next is  the deep character building which requires knowledge of the game mechanics in order to be successful, especially with some of the more oddball builds that are available and viable, that is much too complicated for console gamers. Real time with Pause would be the next casualty.

 

You'd end up with something unrecognizable by the PoE fans. This would then create a market for a new developer to produce old school RPG for us, the niche market.

 

Or Obsidian could pass on trying to jump into the AAA console game world with PoE and just continue to make well received, moderately budgeted games that sell enough to keep everyone employed.

unfortunately OBS ceo feargus has stated he would like to see pillars go in the direction of skyrim. 

 

lets hope he was high when he said that.

 

Obsidian as a company has NOTHING against high budget first/third person games. The problem is that you need money for it. But if Uruqhart gets the money, he will be right on it shovelling money at the devs to expand the franchise and to make PoE a big, famous franchise.

 

Of course, that is not happening. What kind of publisher would give **** ton of money to build up a franchise that does not even belong to the publisher? So, that's idle musings at this point.

[Bill Gates' Son]

 

If you make PoE 3 on consoles you will lose what makes PoE stand out from the crowd, namely the great writing (which incidentally requires reading). Console gamers are not going to read so that'd be the first thing they'd cut from the game. Next is  the deep character building which requires knowledge of the game mechanics in order to be successful, especially with some of the more oddball builds that are available and viable, that is much too complicated for console gamers. Real time with Pause would be the next casualty.

 

You'd end up with something unrecognizable by the PoE fans. This would then create a market for a new developer to produce old school RPG for us, the niche market.

 

Or Obsidian could pass on trying to jump into the AAA console game world with PoE and just continue to make well received, moderately budgeted games that sell enough to keep everyone employed.

unfortunately OBS ceo feargus has stated he would like to see pillars go in the direction of skyrim. 

 

lets hope he was high when he said that.

 

 

Nothing wrong with doing both style of games.

[Regggler]

 

Nothing wrong with doing both style of games.

 

 

True - by all means, do make dialogue wheel cinematic shooters with light RPG elements, as long as we get old school / traditional RPGs as well. I'd be rather unhappy though if Obsidian mirrored Bioware's evolution of only ever producing the former. A valid business decision, but just not my mug of grog.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

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.

 

You're missing the point.  He is not saying that hard work automatically equals success, but that to get 'lucky' in this business you still need to put the hard work in and develop a good game to get lucky with.  It's like the lottery: you can only get 'lucky' and win it if you actually play it, but playing it does not mean you will be automatically lucky.  You put the work in and then hope you get lucky.  Of course, where you put the work doesn't necessarily mean the game in the gaming business, EA shows you can get lucky if you pour the hard work into advertising and marketing instead, but that's a debate for another time.

[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.

You're missing the point.  He is not saying that hard work automatically equals success, but that to get 'lucky' in this business you still need to put the hard work in and develop a good game to get lucky with.  It's like the lottery: you can only get 'lucky' and win it if you actually play it, but playing it does not mean you will be automatically lucky.  You put the work in and then hope you get lucky.  Of course, where you put the work doesn't necessarily mean the game in the gaming business, EA shows you can get lucky if you pour the hard work into advertising and marketing instead, but that's a debate for another time.

Precisely. That's why I said it wasn't "dumb" luck in a prior comment.

 

While we're on the subject, allow me to say that CD Projekt Red didn't/doesn't work harder than any other developer. In fact, I'm going to go so far as to say that I know 1-5 person indie game developer teams work much harder on games that may never be seen by anyone here. They will never play the lottery and they deserve more of a chance than CD Projekt Red. I don't expect people here to agree with me because I know that there are alot of Witcher lovers on this forum. I love Witcher too though so it's okay

[Huinehtar]

Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire just should be renamed: The Watcher II: Assassins of Gods.

 

And The Watcher III would be an Openworld.

 

[Quillon]

Stop stealing my ideas!

 

The Watcher 2: Assassins of Gods

[Messier-31]

The Watcher 3: Wild Land (it will be in the Living Lands, yo)

[firkraag888]

 

 

If you make PoE 3 on consoles you will lose what makes PoE stand out from the crowd, namely the great writing (which incidentally requires reading). Console gamers are not going to read so that'd be the first thing they'd cut from the game. Next is  the deep character building which requires knowledge of the game mechanics in order to be successful, especially with some of the more oddball builds that are available and viable, that is much too complicated for console gamers. Real time with Pause would be the next casualty.

 

You'd end up with something unrecognizable by the PoE fans. This would then create a market for a new developer to produce old school RPG for us, the niche market.

 

Or Obsidian could pass on trying to jump into the AAA console game world with PoE and just continue to make well received, moderately budgeted games that sell enough to keep everyone employed.

 

unfortunately OBS ceo feargus has stated he would like to see pillars go in the direction of skyrim. 

 

lets hope he was high when he said that.

 

Obsidian as a company has NOTHING against high budget first/third person games. The problem is that you need money for it. But if Uruqhart gets the money, he will be right on it shovelling money at the devs to expand the franchise and to make PoE a big, famous franchise.

 

Of course, that is not happening. What kind of publisher would give **** ton of money to build up a franchise that does not even belong to the publisher? So, that's idle musings at this point.

Who the hell gave witcher $85,000,000 to make witcher 3?

 

If it's happened before it can happen again.

 

What I'm worried about is that obsidian will attempt to chase the mainstream $$$ and completely ruin a good thing. Just like bioware did at the end of the baldurs gate series. Look at what a disaster that was.

[injurai]

I think CDPR has a very specific vision for the type of company that they want to be. They essentially want to run a business model like Rockstar. Focus on 1 or 2 big games at a time that have staggered development windows, take turns cycling through their IPs. Avoid IP fatigue. They also benefit from Poland's relatively lower cost of living, while selling a product at a market price in countries like the United States.

 

Plus they have gone after franchises that have established fans, that they could venture into on the relative cheap. The Witcher and Cyberpunk 2020.

[Katarack21]

Let's make this clear: Obisidian loves making games, and Obsidian loves making character-driven computer RPG's, but at the end of the day Feargus runs a *business*, and his goal is to make a profit. Not to make fanboys love him.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Katarack21

[Huinehtar]

Stop stealing my ideas!

 

The Watcher 2: Assassins of Gods

 

 

Didn't see that, sorry

[Quillon]

Let's make this clear: Obisidian loves making games, and Obsidian loves making character-driven computer RPG's, but at the end of the day Feargus runs a *business*, and his goal is to make a profit. Not to make fanboys love him.

 

They want both There is nothing wrong with multiplatform action RPGs *if* Obs is making them. Obs wouldn't not love(-what) to make sequels to New Vegas or Alpha Protocol or an Elder Scrolls(which would obviously be the closest if Obs makes an AAA action RPG out of PoE). And anyone who isn't overly nostalgic wouldn't say no to potential games like these.