PoE coming to Xbox and PS4 on August 29th! (Best News Ever?)

[GhostofAnakin]

I hope this happens with PoE2.  I already own PoE on the PC, so there's not much reason for me to buy it for the PS4.

[draego]

Its not that big a deal. Let the console user try it out. POE1 was great so far POE2 looks great.

[draego]

 

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3807509&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=203

 

Post: 

 

There's a preview over at GameSpot, though it doesn't have much in the way of info.

Also, obviously can't speak for rope kid, but considering this is ported by another studio, I imagine Obsidian and PoE2 have little to do with it, save for signing the contract.

 

Josh's Answer:

 

Obsidian didn't do any development for PoE on console. That was all Paradox Arctic. Deadfire is being developed only for Windows, Mac, and Linux.

 

End Post

 

So surprise this isn't an issue.

[IST]

More people enjoying PoE can only be a good thing, surely?

 

I'm PC centric as a gamer, but I would never want to deprive console gamers of a great RPG.

[Elerond]

Lack of console version was question of prioritizing resources and Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 slacking capacity to do things that Obsidian wanted to do (mostly because they don't have enough memory).

 

Xbox One and Playstation 4 removed capacity problems if you don't count controls as game control isn't optimal for PoE style gameplay and that is problem that never goes away.

 

And resource question went away as console version is made by different company with their own money, so this console port will not only not eat Obsidian's resources to make other games but actually it can give them more resources as they as IP owners probably will profit from the port. 

[Flouride]

1) Look at how every game of the so-called RPG renaissance has performed on consoles and you can understand that console players don't care about these RPGs, so what's the point in bringing them to consoles when at most they sell like 1/4 of the PC version if you combine PS4 and XO together?

 

 

 

You do have a point in saying that Obsidian has more to lose here than BioWare and EA, sure. But it would not be the first time that a dev try to dumb down its games to reach a new, bigger audience (most of the time failing, but that's another topic).

I don't even think it will really happen, but there's a slim chance now thanks to this useless porting and I don't like it.

 

2) You're right and in fact I'm sure that if they announce a console version of PoE right before their crowdfunding campaign people would give them the same amount of money sure, no one would be disappointing by seeing a dev that promised to make a spiritual successor of BG and a game exclusively made for PC would instead try to reach the console audience (and probably fail at it).

 

3) I don't follow you here. First you defend them by saying they were right to make a DLC right after release, now you defend their decision to do the exact opposite thing? Are you serious?

Also, I never said it's bad that they released DLCs six months after release, I don't care about that, I only said that Paradox's policies about DLCs are bad and they didn't improve PoE nor Tyranny's sales with their clueless decisions.

 

4) I don't know why you feel the need to defend Paradox's DLCs, what's next? Microtransactions? Freemium games? 

I'm happy to support a good company when they do something worthwhile, but a Portrait Pack should be given for free, not charged 4 euros. Look at CDP Red, The Witcher 3 sold a lot of copies, but they didn't start to milk their loyal consumers with useless DLCs, they gave all the small ones for free, that's something I can apreciate and support, not Paradox's way.

 

5) I'm pissed off about this port, because it serves no purpose and cannot bring anything good in the future of the series (at best, it will fail and everything will stay the same, stop). 

Tyranny was mediocre, and what's the point about your preaching about some poor people losing their jobs? It's not like I have money to waste at games I don't think are even that good (and I did buy Tyranny at d1, btw) just because otherwise someone gets fired.

By they way, I was talking about how Paradox handled Tyranny in a bad way, which is quite objective since the game sold less than expected, and their decision to split PoE's expansion wasn't fortunate as well. I don't care to talk about how no other publisher would work with Obsidian, or "but what about devs losing their jobs", since they have nothing to do with what I said, which, and I'll repeat myself here, is that Paradox proved to be a bad publisher for Obsidian.

Can you really say they did a good job and that Obsidian should continue to work with them, so that we might have the great benefit of seeing pointless and overpriced DLCs and see their Steam ratings drop because Paradox thinks itself so genius to raise the prices of their games and that players are too stupid to notice that?

 

 

 

1. Well if DoS:EE sold 300-400k copies on consoles, I hardly call that disappointing. With those numbers a 10 month development cycle makes perfect  sense for Paradox. The point is extra revenue, more brand recognition and catering to the rpg fans on consoles, obviously there are some or otherwise DoS wouldn't have sold so well.

Also, it wouldn't be first time a developer doesn't dumb down their game, just because someone ports their game on consoles.

 

2. I must have missed the part where they promised that the game would be a PC exclusive for eternity. You are talking about a scenario that didn't even happen. None of what you said happened, none of it. The console port doesn't change anything, it's not a financial risk for Obsidian. PoE2 development will continue, PoE1 will still be playable in it's current state on PC.

Oh, and even Baldur's Gate series made it to consoles. 

 

3. Uh, the DLC didn't come out right after release and if they hadn't released it in parts it would have taken ~a year which is too long or at least with the info they had they thought it would be too long. Especially since they heavily tweaked the game when the expansion came out, making it a lot better.

With Tyranny they have taken a different course, although they did release few DLC's for it to show the game is still being supported. So one could say that they've either learned from PoE or they are trying to see if 10 months without a bigger DLC won't have an impact on sales. Either way they are reacting to what went on with PoE's expansion. 

 

4. I just don't care what Paradox does with these small packs. If they have a market for it, fine. I personally couldn't care less about any additional portraits for their games, hence I just won't buy them. If someone else is willing to pay for such content, fine. 

 

5. It doesn't serve any purpose to YOU. Take the blinds off your eyes and look around, there's a world around you and everything doesn't revolve around you and your well being and needs. 

Since you clearly have some psychic abilities as well, why don't you look to the future and check EuroJackpot winning numbers for tomorrow.

 

I'm not preaching, I'm just stating a fact that severing all ties with Paradox would mean job losses and one less publisher to work with in the future, when there's already too few to begin with. That is not the way to run a business if you want to stay alive. You don't burn the bridges, you try fix what went wrong and learn from the mistakes. If you look at Paradox's portfolio they haven't release games like PoE or Tyranny before. PoE had the Kickstarter campaign giving it a huge boost, Tyranny didn't. Paradox's marketing is heavily focused on streaming and they benefit a lot from streaming,  crgp's aren't really streamable and now they need to figure out a different plan to promote games like Tyranny in the future.

[Revan91]

 

1) Look at how every game of the so-called RPG renaissance has performed on consoles and you can understand that console players don't care about these RPGs, so what's the point in bringing them to consoles when at most they sell like 1/4 of the PC version if you combine PS4 and XO together?

 

 

 

You do have a point in saying that Obsidian has more to lose here than BioWare and EA, sure. But it would not be the first time that a dev try to dumb down its games to reach a new, bigger audience (most of the time failing, but that's another topic).

I don't even think it will really happen, but there's a slim chance now thanks to this useless porting and I don't like it.

 

2) You're right and in fact I'm sure that if they announce a console version of PoE right before their crowdfunding campaign people would give them the same amount of money sure, no one would be disappointing by seeing a dev that promised to make a spiritual successor of BG and a game exclusively made for PC would instead try to reach the console audience (and probably fail at it).

 

3) I don't follow you here. First you defend them by saying they were right to make a DLC right after release, now you defend their decision to do the exact opposite thing? Are you serious?

Also, I never said it's bad that they released DLCs six months after release, I don't care about that, I only said that Paradox's policies about DLCs are bad and they didn't improve PoE nor Tyranny's sales with their clueless decisions.

 

4) I don't know why you feel the need to defend Paradox's DLCs, what's next? Microtransactions? Freemium games? 

I'm happy to support a good company when they do something worthwhile, but a Portrait Pack should be given for free, not charged 4 euros. Look at CDP Red, The Witcher 3 sold a lot of copies, but they didn't start to milk their loyal consumers with useless DLCs, they gave all the small ones for free, that's something I can apreciate and support, not Paradox's way.

 

5) I'm pissed off about this port, because it serves no purpose and cannot bring anything good in the future of the series (at best, it will fail and everything will stay the same, stop). 

Tyranny was mediocre, and what's the point about your preaching about some poor people losing their jobs? It's not like I have money to waste at games I don't think are even that good (and I did buy Tyranny at d1, btw) just because otherwise someone gets fired.

By they way, I was talking about how Paradox handled Tyranny in a bad way, which is quite objective since the game sold less than expected, and their decision to split PoE's expansion wasn't fortunate as well. I don't care to talk about how no other publisher would work with Obsidian, or "but what about devs losing their jobs", since they have nothing to do with what I said, which, and I'll repeat myself here, is that Paradox proved to be a bad publisher for Obsidian.

Can you really say they did a good job and that Obsidian should continue to work with them, so that we might have the great benefit of seeing pointless and overpriced DLCs and see their Steam ratings drop because Paradox thinks itself so genius to raise the prices of their games and that players are too stupid to notice that?

 

 

 

1. Well if DoS:EE sold 300-400k copies on consoles, I hardly call that disappointing. With those numbers a 10 month development cycle makes perfect  sense for Paradox. The point is extra revenue, more brand recognition and catering to the rpg fans on consoles, obviously there are some or otherwise DoS wouldn't have sold so well.

Also, it wouldn't be first time a developer doesn't dumb down their game, just because someone ports their game on consoles.

 

2. I must have missed the part where they promised that the game would be a PC exclusive for eternity. You are talking about a scenario that didn't even happen. None of what you said happened, none of it. The console port doesn't change anything, it's not a financial risk for Obsidian. PoE2 development will continue, PoE1 will still be playable in it's current state on PC.

Oh, and even Baldur's Gate series made it to consoles. 

 

3. Uh, the DLC didn't come out right after release and if they hadn't released it in parts it would have taken ~a year which is too long or at least with the info they had they thought it would be too long. Especially since they heavily tweaked the game when the expansion came out, making it a lot better.

With Tyranny they have taken a different course, although they did release few DLC's for it to show the game is still being supported. So one could say that they've either learned from PoE or they are trying to see if 10 months without a bigger DLC won't have an impact on sales. Either way they are reacting to what went on with PoE's expansion. 

 

4. I just don't care what Paradox does with these small packs. If they have a market for it, fine. I personally couldn't care less about any additional portraits for their games, hence I just won't buy them. If someone else is willing to pay for such content, fine. 

 

5. It doesn't serve any purpose to YOU. Take the blinds off your eyes and look around, there's a world around you and everything doesn't revolve around you and your well being and needs. 

Since you clearly have some psychic abilities as well, why don't you look to the future and check EuroJackpot winning numbers for tomorrow.

 

I'm not preaching, I'm just stating a fact that severing all ties with Paradox would mean job losses and one less publisher to work with in the future, when there's already too few to begin with. That is not the way to run a business if you want to stay alive. You don't burn the bridges, you try fix what went wrong and learn from the mistakes. If you look at Paradox's portfolio they haven't release games like PoE or Tyranny before. PoE had the Kickstarter campaign giving it a huge boost, Tyranny didn't. Paradox's marketing is heavily focused on streaming and they benefit a lot from streaming,  crgp's aren't really streamable and now they need to figure out a different plan to promote games like Tyranny in the future.

 

1) D:OS sold that on console (which is not that much, btw), and 1.3 millions copies on Steam alone, which probably means the total PC sales are like 1.5 million if you include GOG and other stores, which means both consoles combined have sold like 1/4 or 1/5 of the PC version alone. Consoles were also so successful that Larian is making D:OS2 only for PC now, and maybe will bring it to xbox and ps4 later, instead of releasing it as a multiplatform game.

Also, D:OS is also more successful than PoE (about 400k copies more on Steam) and was released on consoles two years ago, I don't think PoE will go even near those numbers on consoles today.

 

2) They also never said that they would only make classic top-down rpgs, so I guess it would be also fine if they make PoE3 an action rpg. 

And lol about BG, they made a ****ty spin-off for consoles, they didn't port the games. Also, what a fiffing example considering Interplay died just a few years after it decided to focus on consoles and failed. 

 

3) I don't know why you're trying to defend their decisions, but look at facts: they suggest to split TWM --> it fails commercially; they handle Tyranny's marketing and business side of things ---> it fails commercially. Don't you see a pattern?

 

4) Fine, then let everyone come up with terrible and anti-consumers models, who cares right?

 

5) Again, you don't answer my point and make up excuses than have nothing to do with the fact that Paradox doesn't know how to market rpgs. 

Also, my "cut the ties with Paradox" proposal didn't mean that Feargus should've gone to a meeting and say "**** off" to them, he has talked about self-publishing and taking a more active role with PoE himself, I'm not making **** up. It's not like he can't do that because otherwise Paradox will react like a 4 yo boy and get offended, like you seem to suggest.

 

By the way, I feel this discussion is pointless, none of us will change his position and we're also repeating the same sentences at this point. You have your opinion, I have mine.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how PoE fares on consoles. My guess is it won't sell that well because the audience for this kind of games on consoles is almost non-existent, but we'll see.

[Messier-31]

Couldn't care less, but good for some more people that might be happy with the game, yo.

[Night Stalker]

IGN has released a 13 minute gameplay video of the very start of the (just after character creation).

[Liser]

IGN has released a 13 minute gameplay video of the very start of the (just after character creation).

 

Great stuff! The radial menu and the "cycle through targets" mechanic seem a lot better than the old PC interface.

 

I hope this will be available for mouse+keyboard users as well!

[Revan91]

IGN has released a 13 minute gameplay video of the very start of the (just after character creation).

And surprise surprise, it looks terrible to play with a pad, even if it's just the beginning and there are no more than three PCs to control in the party, and none of them is a caster. Who could ever have imagined that a game like, with a lot of micromanaging and and a gameplay precisely studied for m&k, this would've played terribly with a pad? 

[Night Stalker]

I hope this will be available for mouse+keyboard users as well!

I am afraid this is unlikely to happen.

[Bill Gates' Son]

IGN has released a 13 minute gameplay video of the very start of the (just after character creation).

 

That looks extremely clunky to control.

[rheingold]

Thing is, apparently the fig investors only get payed out for a pc version. I posted this some time back. Which is why it makes perfect sense for deadfire to end up on consoles. And it really is not a problem at all. Consoles do NOT have to mean dumbing down - the target market is what decides that. It has nothing to do with the platform. You can make more complex games on a console if you put your mind to it. Personally I think it's a win/win situation - Obs make more money which means that they make more games.

To elaborate on the console dumbing down theory, I don't agree with some things that are being changed - but nothing I have heard from Sawyer suggests the changes are related to consoles.

[boffmoffet]

Good for the consoles I suppose, doesn't seem like it would be a great return on investment. Consoles have not shown a great interest in the genre from what I can gather, though the divinity series seems to want to change that.

 

I am not surprised Paradox is choosing to do this. Their pricing for Pillars of Eternity and its expansions post release seems kinda out of sync with the rest of the industry. The products kept to their original price points for far longer than is normal, with some markets worse than others. It has kept the game out of two thirds of my role playing friends. I thought my D&D group would get into this but only the other fan of isometrics bought it, while the others were on a long wait for a sales train that came to late.

 

Hey Paradox, after your done with that port there is a dead horse out back that needs kicking and a bloodstone that needs squeezing, get on it! 

[Flouride]

1) D:OS sold that on console (which is not that much, btw), and 1.3 millions copies on Steam alone, which probably means the total PC sales are like 1.5 million if you include GOG and other stores, which means both consoles combined have sold like 1/4 or 1/5 of the PC version alone. Consoles were also so successful that Larian is making D:OS2 only for PC now, and maybe will bring it to xbox and ps4 later, instead of releasing it as a multiplatform game.

 

 

 

 

Also, D:OS is also more successful than PoE (about 400k copies more on Steam) and was released on consoles two years ago, I don't think PoE will go even near those numbers on consoles today.

 

2) They also never said that they would only make classic top-down rpgs, so I guess it would be also fine if they make PoE3 an action rpg. 

And lol about BG, they made a ****ty spin-off for consoles, they didn't port the games. Also, what a fiffing example considering Interplay died just a few years after it decided to focus on consoles and failed. 

 

 

1. For a game that was ported to consoles year after the PC release it is a good and solid number. It's a niche market even on PC, selling 300-400k on consoles is amazing and I'm sure they made a hefty profit with those numbers.

They aren't releasing it as a multiplatform game because they asked money on Kickstarter and it would be just bad PR to do that, not to mention the company doesn't have endless resources. For them it's more important to get the game out on PC than release it on all platforms at the same time because their core audience is on PC. With the 300-400k copies sold, I'm sure they will end up releasing D:OS2 on consoles as well later on.

 

2. No, they didn't port the games because back then it would have been technically pretty much impossible to do that, so instead they came up with a way to bring the franchise on consoles. Dark Alliance games were one of the few succesful games Interplay released on consoles. Interplay was late to the console party and went under because of that, not because they focused on consoles. PC piracy was ridicilous back in those days, I'm pretty sure everyone at my school who played Fallout had it as a pirate copy. You can't succeed when 75% of your potential clients won't pay for the content but will get it for free instead.

[Flouride]

Good for the consoles I suppose, doesn't seem like it would be a great return on investment. Consoles have not shown a great interest in the genre from what I can gather, though the divinity series seems to want to change that.

 

I am not surprised Paradox is choosing to do this. Their pricing for Pillars of Eternity and its expansions post release seems kinda out of sync with the rest of the industry. The products kept to their original price points for far longer than is normal, with some markets worse than others. It has kept the game out of two thirds of my role playing friends. I thought my D&D group would get into this but only the other fan of isometrics bought it, while the others were on a long wait for a sales train that came to late.

 

Hey Paradox, after your done with that port there is a dead horse out back that needs kicking and a bloodstone that needs squeezing, get on it! 

 

It's not just Paradox. D:OS is still at 16 euros on Steam sales. It's like Larian just refuses to sell it at 10 euros

[Revan91]

 

1) D:OS sold that on console (which is not that much, btw), and 1.3 millions copies on Steam alone, which probably means the total PC sales are like 1.5 million if you include GOG and other stores, which means both consoles combined have sold like 1/4 or 1/5 of the PC version alone. Consoles were also so successful that Larian is making D:OS2 only for PC now, and maybe will bring it to xbox and ps4 later, instead of releasing it as a multiplatform game.

 

 

 

 

Also, D:OS is also more successful than PoE (about 400k copies more on Steam) and was released on consoles two years ago, I don't think PoE will go even near those numbers on consoles today.

 

2) They also never said that they would only make classic top-down rpgs, so I guess it would be also fine if they make PoE3 an action rpg. 

And lol about BG, they made a ****ty spin-off for consoles, they didn't port the games. Also, what a fiffing example considering Interplay died just a few years after it decided to focus on consoles and failed. 

 

 

1. For a game that was ported to consoles year after the PC release it is a good and solid number. It's a niche market even on PC, selling 300-400k on consoles is amazing and I'm sure they made a hefty profit with those numbers.

They aren't releasing it as a multiplatform game because they asked money on Kickstarter and it would be just bad PR to do that, not to mention the company doesn't have endless resources. For them it's more important to get the game out on PC than release it on all platforms at the same time because their core audience is on PC. With the 300-400k copies sold, I'm sure they will end up releasing D:OS2 on consoles as well later on.

 

2. No, they didn't port the games because back then it would have been technically pretty much impossible to do that, so instead they came up with a way to bring the franchise on consoles. Dark Alliance games were one of the few succesful games Interplay released on consoles. Interplay was late to the console party and went under because of that, not because they focused on consoles. PC piracy was ridicilous back in those days, I'm pretty sure everyone at my school who played Fallout had it as a pirate copy. You can't succeed when 75% of your potential clients won't pay for the content but will get it for free instead.

 

1) How can those be amazing numbers when PC alone (one platform vs two platforms) sold about 1.5 million copies? Of course it's not a Witcher 3 which can sold like 10 million copies, but still it had great sales on PC, so there's a not so small audience there, while on consoles the audience for this kind of games is much smaller.

I agree that D:OS2 will probably get ported to consoles about one year after PC release, as D:OS1, but the fact that it will be out for PC first proves that consoles are a secondary market for this type of rpgs. If it sold as much on consoles as it did on PC, D:OS2 would probably release as a multiplatform title.

 

2) You do have a point here, PC gaming back then was not at its best.

Still, I don't think that making a spin-off for consoles like Dark Alliance means BG got ported to consoles too, and Interplay failed because of mismanagement more than anything else, Icewind Dale, BG and even Fallout all made profits (although BG made far more money than the other IPs) and those were PC-centric games, but their non-RPG departments wasted too much money and BIS' success couldn't save the company.

[Flouride]

1) How can those be amazing numbers when PC alone (one platform vs two platforms) sold about 1.5 million copies? Of course it's not a Witcher 3 which can sold like 10 million copies, but still it had great sales on PC, so there's a not so small audience there, while on consoles the audience for this kind of games is much smaller.

 

 

I agree that D:OS2 will probably get ported to consoles about one year after PC release, as D:OS1, but the fact that it will be out for PC first proves that consoles are a secondary market for this type of rpgs. If it sold as much on consoles as it did on PC, D:OS2 would probably release as a multiplatform title.

 

 

 

1. What other western turnbased/proper RPG can claim numbers like that on consoles? It shows there's a viable market for such games and not only for Final Fantasy and Skyrim and it's clones. When you compare the numbers, you have to take into account that the PC version has been out much longer, has been on multiple sales and was part of the D:OS2 Kickstarter campaign. Yes, even without those it would still be in favour of the PC version. But the port is also cheaper to make than building the game from ground up on PC. In that sense the sale numbers are great.

 

If the game had sold more... well it depends. Does Larian go all in and hire plenty of more staff members and do they skip the Kickstarter for D:OS2. I doubt they would want to skip the Kickstarter campaign even in that scenario. It's free marketing for a small company and I don't see Larian doing a Kickstarter for multiplatform version of D:OS2 since it would alienate PC gamers and the risk is just too big to take.

[Revan91]

 

1) How can those be amazing numbers when PC alone (one platform vs two platforms) sold about 1.5 million copies? Of course it's not a Witcher 3 which can sold like 10 million copies, but still it had great sales on PC, so there's a not so small audience there, while on consoles the audience for this kind of games is much smaller.

 

 

I agree that D:OS2 will probably get ported to consoles about one year after PC release, as D:OS1, but the fact that it will be out for PC first proves that consoles are a secondary market for this type of rpgs. If it sold as much on consoles as it did on PC, D:OS2 would probably release as a multiplatform title.

 

 

 

1. What other western turnbased/proper RPG can claim numbers like that on consoles? It shows there's a viable market for such games and not only for Final Fantasy and Skyrim and it's clones. When you compare the numbers, you have to take into account that the PC version has been out much longer, has been on multiple sales and was part of the D:OS2 Kickstarter campaign. Yes, even without those it would still be in favour of the PC version. But the port is also cheaper to make than building the game from ground up on PC. In that sense the sale numbers are great.

 

If the game had sold more... well it depends. Does Larian go all in and hire plenty of more staff members and do they skip the Kickstarter for D:OS2. I doubt they would want to skip the Kickstarter campaign even in that scenario. It's free marketing for a small company and I don't see Larian doing a Kickstarter for multiplatform version of D:OS2 since it would alienate PC gamers and the risk is just too big to take.

 

If by proper RPG you mean "old-school" rpgs, probably nothing else. WL2 sold definetely less, T:ToN failed terribly and well, most of the other post-Kickstarter rpgs (or even some indies like AoD, Underrail, etc.) never released on consoles so we can't compare their numbers to Larian and inXile's titles.

D:OS sold definetely enough to cover the cost of the conversion (which were probably low) and get some profit out of it, but it's also the most successful rpg of this kind in the last years. I don't know if WL2 made much of a profit on consoles, for instance (probably a small one). So, one fail (T:ToN) and two games that managed to get some profit, but none of them were huge successes, unlike D:OS and PoE on PC.

 

Looking at the numbers I think it's fair to say that the audience for this genre is mostly on PC. 

Beyond that, we should also consider that to many console players D:OS was probably the first game of this style that they tried, they may have found a new genre that they like but they may also have tried out of curiosity and discover it's not really what they want, so It's not certain that next "classic" rpgs would sell even as much as D:OS.

[Flouride]

If by proper RPG you mean "old-school" rpgs, probably nothing else. WL2 sold definetely less, T:ToN failed terribly and well, most of the other post-Kickstarter rpgs (or even some indies like AoD, Underrail, etc.) never released on consoles so we can't compare their numbers to Larian and inXile's titles.

 

 

 

 

D:OS sold definetely enough to cover the cost of the conversion (which were probably low) and get some profit out of it, but it's also the most successful rpg of this kind in the last years. I don't know if WL2 made much of a profit on consoles, for instance (probably a small one). So, one fail (T:ToN) and two games that managed to get some profit, but none of them were huge successes, unlike D:OS and PoE on PC.

 

Looking at the numbers I think it's fair to say that the audience for this genre is mostly on PC. 

Beyond that, we should also consider that to many console players D:OS was probably the first game of this style that they tried, they may have found a new genre that they like but they may also have tried out of curiosity and discover it's not really what they want, so It's not certain that next "classic" rpgs would sell even as much as D:OS.

 

 

Yes, I mean old school ones. Dragon Age:Origins would probably make the cut, at least it had some effort. The sequels were EA rubbish.

 

The console versions don't need to be huge successes, they are meant for extra profit, especially in PoE's case since the core audience will be on PC's for a long time. Although in some cases the company might have an existing fanbase even on consoles. if you look at Obsidian's portfolio there's plenty of multiplatform games there so having a customer base on consoles isn't far fetched idea in that case..

 

Yes, the core audience is on PC. That much is clear, as the games will be better on PC. 

I think it comes down to which company is making the game. InXile doesn't have much of a following outside the PC gamers, even there they are slipping.

In Larian's case the IP is old, but still fresh unlike Wasteland IP. Divinity 2 was released on XBOX360, so there might be some existing fans on consoles as well. 

[Revan91]

 

If by proper RPG you mean "old-school" rpgs, probably nothing else. WL2 sold definetely less, T:ToN failed terribly and well, most of the other post-Kickstarter rpgs (or even some indies like AoD, Underrail, etc.) never released on consoles so we can't compare their numbers to Larian and inXile's titles.

 

 

 

 

D:OS sold definetely enough to cover the cost of the conversion (which were probably low) and get some profit out of it, but it's also the most successful rpg of this kind in the last years. I don't know if WL2 made much of a profit on consoles, for instance (probably a small one). So, one fail (T:ToN) and two games that managed to get some profit, but none of them were huge successes, unlike D:OS and PoE on PC.

 

Looking at the numbers I think it's fair to say that the audience for this genre is mostly on PC. 

Beyond that, we should also consider that to many console players D:OS was probably the first game of this style that they tried, they may have found a new genre that they like but they may also have tried out of curiosity and discover it's not really what they want, so It's not certain that next "classic" rpgs would sell even as much as D:OS.

 

 

Yes, I mean old school ones. Dragon Age:Origins would probably make the cut, at least it had some effort. The sequels were EA rubbish.

 

The console versions don't need to be huge successes, they are meant for extra profit, especially in PoE's case since the core audience will be on PC's for a long time. Although in some cases the company might have an existing fanbase even on consoles. if you look at Obsidian's portfolio there's plenty of multiplatform games there so having a customer base on consoles isn't far fetched idea in that case..

 

Yes, the core audience is on PC. That much is clear, as the games will be better on PC. 

I think it comes down to which company is making the game. InXile doesn't have much of a following outside the PC gamers, even there they are slipping.

In Larian's case the IP is old, but still fresh unlike Wasteland IP. Divinity 2 was released on XBOX360, so there might be some existing fans on consoles as well. 

 

Well, DA:O had a way higher budget, so it's not fair to compare it with the likes of D:OS, PoE and WL2. I liked it and it's probably the last good rpg from BioWare, but with that budget and marketing it's obvious that it sold quite a lot, on consoles as well as PC.

 

I agree with you that Obsidian is surely more known by console players than inXile and Larian, so there might be some fans there who could try more of their games, although PoE is very different than New Vegas, KotOR II and the other multi-platform games they made, so while a new NV-style game would probably be very successful I don't think too many of them will be willing to try PoE's console versions.

On that note, maybe Cain and Boyarsky's project, which should be multi-platform, will be more welcome by console players, although of course it's too early to say anything about it, since we know nothing about that game right now.

[Archaven]

 

Deadfire still looks 95% the same, UI-wise, as Pillars of Eternity, so I am not worried (for now). Nothing against bringing the game to consoles if the original is still made with PCs in mind. I shall, of course, be disappointed if a possible PoE3 breaks from this, but I like to think Obs has more sense than that. I am quite curious to see how they adapted the game to suit consoles.

 

Having 1 lesser party character is a clear sign. Many would mindlessly defend Obsidian here but i would not. Their initial plan was 4 party characters. Due to how well the reception on Tyranny (if you asked me, Obsidian testing the water). And they know making Deadfire with 4 party characters and hell will break lose and so they go with 5. The issue here isn't consoles. It's the controller. Many cRPGs designed with controller in mind would ruin that game hard. If it sells like hot cakes on consoles, then say goodbye to Pillars franchise. Is the same as Dragon Age. It is why we have Dragon Age 2 and Inquistion. Button mashers. Also i have completed Inquisition on the highest difficulty. There's no tactics. It's an action game. Sure many would say more moneys to devs the better. I agree. But you really like the franchise to get watered down in terms of gameplay and design because of controllers? Nope. I'd rather it stay exclusive.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Archaven

[draego]

 

 

Deadfire still looks 95% the same, UI-wise, as Pillars of Eternity, so I am not worried (for now). Nothing against bringing the game to consoles if the original is still made with PCs in mind. I shall, of course, be disappointed if a possible PoE3 breaks from this, but I like to think Obs has more sense than that. I am quite curious to see how they adapted the game to suit consoles.

 

Having 1 lesser party character is a clear sign. Many would mindlessly defend Obsidian here but i would not. Their initial plan was 4 party characters. Due to how well the reception on Tyranny (if you asked me, Obsidian testing the water). And they know making Deadfire with 4 party characters and hell will break lose and so they go with 5. The issue here isn't consoles. It's the controller. Many cRPGs designed with controller in mind would ruin that game hard. If it sells like hot cakes on consoles, then say goodbye to Pillars franchise. Is the same as Dragon Age. It is why we have Dragon Age 2 and Inquistion. Button mashers. Also i have completed Inquisition on the highest difficulty. There's no tactics. It's an action game. Sure many would say more moneys to devs the better. I agree. But you really like the franchise to get watered down in terms of gameplay and design because of controllers? Nope. I'd rather it stay exclusive.

 

 

"Their initial plan was 4 party characters." where are you getting this. Is there an interview you can point to, to show this otherwise you are just making stuff up (thats fine to speculate but dont act as if this is fact if its not without proof). I think the console thing is no big deal. You can see gameplay already and it doesn't look all that different than POE1 except for some nice visual improvements and I love POE1. The devs did say they were open to doing a POE tactics or some other version of POE but i believe they would inform the user what type of game they are making.

Edited June 27, 2017 by draego

[Mygaffer]

I understand why people are wary, I am too. That being said I don't see this game selling better on console than PC, the diehard fans willing to spend millions of dollar backing this series are on PC, not console, and so I don't think it will significantly impact the design of Pillars games going forward.

 

There are realities of game development and if we want Obsidian to remain independent we should hope for them to have a lot of successful products which they own. They tried to sell themselves not too long ago and thankfully it didn't happen, hopefully the success of Pillars and other future products will convince ownership it is worth staying independent, squeezing more money out of Pillars on console could help that happen. 

 

If Deadfire comes out and the design sucks or feels like it was compromised with consoles and controllers in mind I'll complain loudly and often. Until then I think they've earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

I will say that the specific exclusions of sales from other platforms on the Fig share returns now make a little more sense and at the same time don't seem quite fair, as while porting does cost money the base game is still the base game.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Mygaffer