Pillars of Eternity II coming to consoles!

[Sedrefilos]

Yo, games aren't important. Better not waste energy on protesting against where they're trying to sell their products. It's just business. You don't like them? Skip them. Nothing's gonna change in your life.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Sedrefilos

[Wormerine]

Now, that's probably enough to get the porting money back and even some more, but if a developer want to do well on consoles the road to follow is the BioWare and Bethesda's ones, aka easier, more casual games.

Again, I like more casual and broader rpgs, like Mass Effect (1 and 2) or The Witcher 3 (which is a masterpiece imo, even if its systems kinda suck in some ways), but I want something else from PoE: I want something more in the veins of Baldur's Gate, which is a more hardcore and in-depth rpg focused on its PC roots. 

 

I get were you are coming from. I am just guessing, but I doubt simpler mechanics are reason why ME or Witcher3 sold better. It is not about simplifying mechanics - it’s about boosting presentation. No matter what you sell visuals are the best marketing tool. Even in music where visuals are pretty much meaningless and good cover album or an attractive artist has higher chances of success not matter how they sound. All those titles had great, expensive trailers. They sound and look great (well except Bethesda trash, but it’s trailer even made me dip into Skyrim). I havent seen someone who picked up PoE and said: it’s way to complicated. Most complains are: top down isn’t immersive, it’s not fully voiceacted, graphic look like 2003 etc.

 

Now, boosting presentation does come with cutting complexity - full dialogue with recognisable cast will encourage less writing and reactivity. High quality model of main character and full voice acting him/her will limit character creation choices. Design becomes more about reusing the same animations and set pieces without player feeling constrained instead of giving player space to role play and designing game around responding to those choices. Deadfire seem to open up compared to POE1 with more choices and freedom of exploration so is that really the case?

 

If PoE port made its money back and not much else... isn’t it worth porting it again? Even if gained just a bit of extra cash, from a narrow audience - that is still a gain right? Do they need to make (quoting Jim Sterling) not only some money but ALL OF THE MONEY? Couple sells last time, maybe more sales with Deadfire. If they don’t loose money by doing a port why not do it again? Nothing lost, potential future customers gained. If they hurry they could sell the DLC as well.

[Revan91]

 

Now, that's probably enough to get the porting money back and even some more, but if a developer want to do well on consoles the road to follow is the BioWare and Bethesda's ones, aka easier, more casual games.

Again, I like more casual and broader rpgs, like Mass Effect (1 and 2) or The Witcher 3 (which is a masterpiece imo, even if its systems kinda suck in some ways), but I want something else from PoE: I want something more in the veins of Baldur's Gate, which is a more hardcore and in-depth rpg focused on its PC roots. 

I get were you are coming from. I am just guessing, but I doubt simpler mechanics are reason why ME or Witcher3 sold better. It is not about simplifying mechanics - it’s about boosting presentation. No matter what you sell visuals are the best marketing tool. Even in music where visuals are pretty much meaningless and good cover album or an attractive artist has higher chances of success not matter how they sound. All those titles had great, expensive trailers. They sound and look great (well except Bethesda trash, but it’s trailer even made me dip into Skyrim). I havent seen someone who picked up PoE and said: it’s way to complicated. Most complains are: top down isn’t immersive, it’s not fully voiceacted, graphic look like 2003 etc.

 

Now, boosting presentation does come with cutting complexity - full dialogue with recognisable cast will encourage less writing and reactivity. High quality model of main character and full voice acting him/her will limit character creation choices. Design becomes more about reusing the same animations and set pieces without player feeling constrained instead of giving player space to role play and designing game around responding to those choices. Deadfire seem to open up compared to POE1 with more choices and freedom of exploration so is that really the case?

 

If PoE port made its money back and not much else... isn’t it worth porting it again? Even if gained just a bit of extra cash, from a narrow audience - that is still a gain right? Do they need to make (quoting Jim Sterling) not only some money but ALL OF THE MONEY? Couple sells last time, maybe more sales with Deadfire. If they don’t loose money by doing a port why not do it again? Nothing lost, potential future customers gained. If they hurry they could sell the DLC as well.

 

I kinda agree with you: presentation is king and having great graphics helps really a lot of course. 

But in a game with top-down perspective you cannot have the visual appeal of, say, The Witcher 3. It can look good of course, and in fact both PoE and PoE2 even more do look good, but it cannot have the graphical impact that something like TW3 has. 

 

Besides that, complex mechanics are still a huge turn-off for some people (and a pro for someone else), so even with the best graphics possible if the game is complex and "hard" it won't sell as much as something that looks great and is also easy to play/understand. Which is why Dragon Age: Origins sold way less than Skyrim: DA:O is not particularly complex as an rpg (it's a lot more casual than PoE and even way more if compared to Fallout 1 and even BG2), but it was way more complex than the average AAA rpg those days, it sold pretty well because of marketing and pleasant enough graphics (although it wasn't the best graphics of the time, nowhere near), but more action-focused games, with less complexity sold way better.

Ironically, BioWare then tried to make Dragon Age more and more casual and action-focused with each game, but it didn't translate in better sales, so there's a lesson to be learned too.

[Mannock]

Ironically, BioWare then tried to make Dragon Age more and more casual and action-focused with each game, but it didn't translate in better sales, so there's a lesson to be learned too.

Indeed, and it's spelled "more loot boxes".

[MortyTheGobbo]

The reasons DA2 and DA:I had problems selling are many and mostly unconnected to being "casual", whatever the hell that even means (in case you're curious, it means nothing). Correlation doesn't imply causation. Dragon Age Origins was also released on consoles, anyway, and its combat system is absolutely dreadful... but those two have nothing to do with one another.

 

Besides, POE2 isn't being simplified in any measurable way. Nor is it undergoing any other chances we could logically chalk up to a console port, so... why are we even discussing it in the first place?

Edited February 7, 2018 by MortyTheGobbo

[Valmy]

The reasons DA2 and DA:I had problems selling are many and mostly unconnected to being "casual", whatever the hell that even means (in case you're curious, it means nothing). Correlation doesn't imply causation. Dragon Age Origins was also released on consoles, anyway, and its combat system is absolutely dreadful... but those two have nothing to do with one another.

 

Besides, POE2 isn't being simplified in any measurable way. Nor is it undergoing any other chances we could logically chalk up to a console port, so... why are we even discussing it in the first place?

 

Yes. It is because of stuff that happened years in the past to other companies. PTSD I guess. I mean sure the fact that EA was running Bioware created messed up priorities but in this case Obsidian has nothing to do with the console port besides hiring/partnering with another company to make one. Why would they change their design for consoles when they are not even the ones doing the console version?

 

And don't give me slippery slope arguments. Of all the games Obsidian has ever made only two have ever not been on consoles (that I am aware of anyway): NWN2 and Tyranny. So if this is the thin edge of the wedge that is taking us down a slope to DOOM and corruption we would have arrived there long ago.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Valmy

[Archaven]

seems like it's also coming to switch. saying that deadfire design decision wasn't impacted due to controllers does not convince me. now that i think back.. it seems they dont really need the figstarter to begin with. they are quite far in the development already.  i'm thinking of starting a business and where can i find loyal fans on the internet that help me defend or attack customers that complain about me in real life? 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Archaven

[Valmy]

seems like it's also coming to switch. saying that deadfire design decision wasn't impacted due to controllers does not convince me. now that i think back.. it seems they dont really need the figstarter to begin with. they are quite far in the development already.  i'm thinking of starting a business and where can i find loyal fans on the internet that help me defend or attack customers that complain about me in real life? 

 

If you produce great products like Obsidian you probably can develop a loyal fanbase.

 

And who is complaining about you in real life? Who is attacking you in real life? What are you talking about? I am talking about arguments made and why I do not find them convincing. I am not attacking anybody. You guys are all passionate fans and I respect that.

 

Explain why they did not not need the Figstarter? What evidence do you have for this and how is being in development prove that? And what does that have to do with a console port, and why would they make design decisions for a port they are not even doing themselves?

 

But feel free to outline what design decisions in the game were made for consoles if you find some. I might be convinced.

[Wormerine]

seems like it's also coming to switch. saying that deadfire design decision wasn't impacted due to controllers does not convince me. now that i think back.. it seems they dont really need the figstarter to begin with. they are quite far in the development already.

 

It’s difficult to find convincingly disprove a false accusation. You can’t come up with a proof that game was dumbed down - we can’t do anything else beyond pointing out that the design is pretty much the same and folks who work on the game are not responsible for the port.

 

No one ever claimed that Deadfire couldn’t be made without funding. They couldn’t make first PoE, true, but they were going to release Deadfire no matter how campaign would go, from what I understand. It wouldn’t be as robust title as it is shaping up to be, but probably would comeout. Most of the stretch goals were tied to production value (more VO, more translations, more companions, orchestral soundtrack) or were tied to features that could be cut from release, limiting scope and bringing it closer to first title. It is all guessing of course. Non of us knows how Obsidian budget looks like.

 

While funding game by itself might seem like noble thing to do (afterall, why fans should pay for production of a game?) devs who did that felt that advertising power of crowdfunding and community is a significant one. For Banner Saga3 Stoic turned back to crowdfunding after self funded BS2. Review were positive, fan reaction was positive, but it didn’t get traction BS1 got. They believe it is due to lack of push and attention which crowdfunded game gets. Tyranny didn’t work for obsidian nearly as well as PoE1 did. Did that push them to try crowdfunding well once again? Were they planning it all along? I have no idea. However, I find developing sequel for a year and coming to crowdfunding with gameplay footage and clear idea of what the game will be like to be a fair deal. They are developing game I want to play and be as good as it can be, I am happy to chip in some money more ina form of donation than purchase. If Obsidian betrays my trust, or they game start disinteresting me I will not support their campaigns further. Do you see any promises from the campaign broken? Complaining about extra platform makes as much sense as getting angry that extra translation being in production.

 

If porting game to consoles really breaks your heart so much, feel free to ask Obsidian for a refund. Not so long one of the fans disappointed with game progress received one, they might give you one as well. Problem solved. Those dirty consoles won’t get a port of a game funded by your cash.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Wormerine

[Flouride]

Hi, first time poster here.

 

I know that Obsidian is not responsible for the console ports, and I have no idea if they will even have any contact with the company doing the port, but there are two things that would greatly improve the console versions:

 

1. Dramatically decrease the loading times.

 

I have no idea how bad loading times were on the PC version, but they were a plague in the PS4 version. At later points in the game it really killed my enjoyment. Resting at Brighthollow involved going through 4 long loading screens to get to my room and back outside. I don't really see a reason for loading times to be so ridiculously bad.

 

The loading times were horrible without SSD even on Windows. I'm quite sure I actually had a laptop running NetFlix next to my desktop to fight boredom. With SSD the loading times were a bit better, but still really awful.

It had something do with Unity engine and they weren't able to fix it completely, they optimized it for Tyranny (which helped a bit) and claimed to have fixed it / made it a lot better for Deadfire.

 

At least Backer Beta load times have been quite good.

[Flouride]

Console players are not retarded and not capable of understanding vancian magic, but still they're used to action gameplay or cooldowns and other casual stuff, hence if they see something a bit more "hardcore" like PoE or even D:OS they don't exactly rush to buy it. In fact, the market for these kind of rpgs on consoles is less than 1/4 than what it is on PC.

 

Now, that's probably enough to get the porting money back and even some more, but if a developer want to do well on consoles the road to follow is the BioWare and Bethesda's ones, aka easier, more casual games.

Again, I like more casual and broader rpgs, like Mass Effect (1 and 2) or The Witcher 3 (which is a masterpiece imo, even if its systems kinda suck in some ways), but I want something else from PoE: I want something more in the veins of Baldur's Gate, which is a more hardcore and in-depth rpg focused on its PC roots. 

 

I'll admit I overreacted a bit initally, tbh, because it's true and I know it now that I cooled off a bit, but still I want the money that goes on PoE to be spent on the PC game and improving that, not on making console ports (even if I know that it doesn't cost too much it's money I'd rather see spent on something else, even VO - and I don't care much about that either) I don't care about and that are kinda useless for a RTwP rpg that is a nightmare to play with anything other than mouse and keyboard. 

 

 

What makes you think they are using any of the Fig money on the porting? PoE has sold steadily both on PC and consoles since the Fig campaign. Not to mention, they just started selling Deadfire on Steam. Porting it isn't actually all that expensive, nor does it take huge amount of time once they've locked up the content for PC version. They have the 2nd hand experience from Paradox Arctic on how to do the port, which helps them even further to develop Deadfire.

 

The fact that they are again going on consoles with PoE clearly points that the console versions were profitable and that there's a fanbase they want to be able to play the game as well. They have the data to show how much it cost to port the 1st game and how much it sold and made money to Paradox and to them. Just because it sells much less than on PC doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it if it's economically viable. Which it clearly is.

 

If everyone thought like you do, consoles would never have a market for certain games. Gamers play the games they are able to play on their platforms. If no one ever bothers to release strategy game or old school crpg to consoles with the console controllers actually in mind, how are you ever going to create a market for such games on consoles? You have to start from somewhere, the market doesn't just appear from thin air once you publish 1 or 2 games.

 

Your posts just make you seem like a selfish little child. It's all about what you want, your preferences, your sandbox, your toys, no one else is supposed to touch them or play with them.

Backer Beta has proved that Obsidian hasn't so far dumbed the game down at all. Someone else is still making the console version, sparing Obsidian from that burden and leaving them to work on the DLCs for Deadfire and whatever comes next.

[Flouride]

 

Never said there's anything wrong with that. I don't care whom they work with - it's their company - but the whole crowdfunding craze started based on the pitch that "publishers won't like our stuff and even if they do they'll put their filthy hands all over them and they'll ruin the initial idea of the game" etc, and then, after the game comes up, what do they do? They go stike deals with those they said they wouldn't work with and that's why they asked for our money in advance. Well, tbh, I find it somewhat of a scam.

Now, I don't care that much since I get to buy the game cheaper, I get what I was promised I'll get and they didn't get the money and run, but let's call it what it is, right?

Crowdfunding is all part of the same system and games are not important stuff so, eh, I can live with that.

 

 

What you call scam is just a reality of life. Let's look at the 1st game and Paradox. Paradox freed Obsidian from the burden of sending out 70k people all the backer stuff and their European customers were saved from all the customs fees and VAT taxes (I for one was very glad that I didn't have to pay 24% more because of taxes). Paradox was able to get the game on actual stores, not just virtual ones. In certain areas of Europe, having your game on actual shelf will sell PC games. Paradox didn't get to own the IP, they didn't dictate what the game should be like. They worked together, not one company for the other.

Game sold well enough fund much of the development of the sequel and probably few other games at Obsidian.

 

Imagine the same scenario without Kickstarter. Obsidian goes to Paradox claiming they want to make a game. 1st Paradox takes the IP to themselves. They will have a certain budget and quite strict release date. Paradox controls the marketing and what the developers are free to say to the public, taking away much of the KS experience with it.

Obsidian is just work for hire and even though the game sells well, most of the profits go into Paradox's pocket. Obsidian is again desperately looking for more work for their other teams. Project Indiana might not launch at all since Obsidian doesn't have the cash to support the pre-production before Private Division gets involved. There's no Pathfinder: Adventures game and Obsidian is still in quite dire situation.

 

That is if it even gets funded by Paradox and if it did, I bet the game would have had publishers handprints all over it. Scam, my ***.

[Flouride]

seems like it's also coming to switch. saying that deadfire design decision wasn't impacted due to controllers does not convince me. now that i think back.. it seems they dont really need the figstarter to begin with. they are quite far in the development already.  i'm thinking of starting a business and where can i find loyal fans on the internet that help me defend or attack customers that complain about me in real life? 

 

Don't they? The were able to make the game better/bigger with our money. Fig/KS works as huge marketing campaing for the game as well. Just compare Pillars of Eternity and Tyranny when it comes to marketing and sales.

[Valmy]

Man people sure are paranoid about being screwed. But I guess in this industry you cannot blame them.

[Dant3]

 

 

This is a ****ing betrayal of your player base, Obsidian.

Next time you go to crowdfunding make sure to say it before that you're making a ****ing console game, instead of a more hardcore RPG made for PC. Also, you can do without my money in advance. 

 

I know you posted this in earnest so don't take this personally but...

 

This is hilarious. Not only is this an insane over-reaction but they really have to say in their crowdfunding campaign that their sequel to a game that was on console is going to be on console or it is a betrayal? Oh my god I am dying laughing here. I don't know why I find this so funny.

 

I was overreacting, you're right. Still, when you go to crowdfunding asking money in order to make an in-depth PC rpg that's what people is gonna expect, announcing a console version is not something I gave them money for.

Then again, maybe it's a perfect world and the game will be great (I certainly expect it to be at least good) and not at all compromised for console players, but we won't know for sure until we play it. Having said that, some of the changes to the game kinda look in a different way, now that we know of the porting, since coincidentally they all happen to make it easier for console gamers.

And anyway, PoE was ported to console more than two years after its release, I wasn't happy about it tbh, but obviously it never interfered with the PC version. Now they're announcing it even before the game is released. If they keep up this pace, PoE3 will be multiplatform from the start (which would definitely impact the game as well).

 

 

 

This is a ****ing betrayal of your player base, Obsidian.

Next time you go to crowdfunding make sure to say it before that you're making a ****ing console game, instead of a more hardcore RPG made for PC. Also, you can do without my money in advance. 

 

This is crazy talk. Just by looking at all the beta streamings it's pretty much clear that the game has been developed with a PC in mind. The menus, the controls, everything screams "This is a PC game!".

 

The changes they've made have been based on player feedback and also their own ideas. So nothing has been dumbed down, expecially not for consoles.

 

Also, there was no way they could say during the crowfounding campaign that there was going to be a console port since they probably didn't even think about it, because they were busy developing the game on PC first.

 

Besides, more people that buy the game = more money Obsidian gains = more likely they'll keep making PoE games. Also, there'd be more people with whom to share opinions and geek out about the game, that should also be a plus.

 

More people buy the game = we're all happier isn't really true. Just look at BioWare and how going for consoles changed their games, definitely not for the better since we stopped getting BGs and we got Dragon Age II, Inquisition and ME3. 

Console gamers have different tastes, they don't like (generally, ofc a very very small number of them do) these games, and in fact you can look at the sales data to realize it: since D:OS (the most commercially successful rpg of this kind by far) sold more than 1,5 millions of copies on Steam alone, while on both consoles together it sold less than a third of that number. T:ToN flopped hard on PC as well, but according to Fargo its console sales were even worse, and I've never seen PoE on any console chart since its release on ps4 and xbox, and I would guess it sold pretty poorly as well (enough to get the porting costs back and maybe get a little profit, since porting the game wasn't expensive, but again nowhere near PC sales).

If you want your games to go well on consoles you have to change them. If you port a somewhat classic rpg and leave it at that, basically no one will buy it for their ps4 or xbox. When they hear or read "rpg" they think of Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls, nuFallout, The Witcher 3 (which is a masterpiece even if it's pretty casualized, but it's rare), not Pillars of Eternity spiritual heir of Baldur's Gate, a game the 99% of them never heard of. 

So, if developers want to do better on consoles, the way is to casualize the games, make it more spectacular, cinematic, full of action and "awesome", and while I wouldn't have a problem if Obsidian wanted to make a multiplatform action rpg that can sell millions of copies on PC and consoles like the ones I named before (in fact Project Indiana will be multiplatform and not an hardcore rpg, and I'm fine with that, well actually I'm very hyped about it), that's not the direction I want them take with PoE, a game that was funded by fans to see something very different from that.

 

 

 

ME3 was bad, but not because it was published both on PC and consoles, it got ruined by the fact that Casey Hudson decided at the last minute he wanted to make his very own version of 2001: A Space Odissey and obviously faling because the ME series wasn't originally trying to tell that kind of story. Thus, it resulted in a flop and it would have been such even if it had been a PC exclusive.

I won't comment on the DA series because I'm admittedly biased there as so far I like them all.

 

Tides of Numenera sold poorly probably because many expected a carbon copy of Planescape and obviously didn't get what they wanted; honestly it wasn't an easy task trying to make a successor to Planescape. And this probably would have been the case even without having a console port.

 

Also, it's not really true that to have a game successful on console you must "casualize" it (whatever that means). Hell, just look at the Dark Souls/Bloodborne series which were born for console and only after ported on PC: they aren't what I'd call dumbed down games, there is no hand holding there and the games barely explain what the controls are - and not even in full, some of the intricacies you have to discover yourself; there's no map, no quest objective, the enemies - thank God - do not wait their turn to beat on you while you're engaging another foe (I'm looking at you, Assassin's Creed) but gang up on you as it should be if you're not smart and use pulling tactics to separate them, etc. So, a series of console games not dumbed down, not simplified, not "casual friendly", that sold quite well on both consoles and PC.

 

Anyway, the point is that Deadfire isn't being "consolified"...the beta already shows that it's a game that was pretty much created with PC in mind, just by looking at UI and controls. It doesn't look like they're going back on any promises made during the campaign either. The console port is just a plus, that's all.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Artemis Leonhart

[Sedrefilos]

@Flouride, man, I know how things work. But saying one thing and doing another is lying. Plain and simple. Now it's not a big deal here because what they did didn't affect the development of the game or the backers and they didn;t say anything about not going to publishers, as they did the first time. You wanna call it an innocent lie, ok. Personally I don't care much. I paid relatively cheap for a game I know it was going to be good, made by developers I respect and like their design ideas. I still believe Obs could have done it without crowdfunding and that crowndfunding platforms is the golden egg laying goose for the geek industry because of the culture surrounding it and part of the same system.

[Valmy]

I am not particularly worried about the streamlined and consolitis issues because I think the industry has moved on to other things. Things that are equally as bad, but different things.

 

Back in those days the idea was you wanted to get your game as streamlined as possible so it could satisfy as many people as possible and be made as quickly as possible. So they wanted Bioware to make a freaking DA or ME game every year. The turnaround time between DA:I and DA2 was hilariously short and this went on with many other games of that era. 

 

But then Skyrim happened. Dark Souls happened. The mobile game era really got going. Now the powers that be want games that are just like one, two, or all three of things at once. So we get big open world action titles with loot boxes. That sucks but it is a different sort of suck. I mean the marketing for PoE2 is about how much bigger and open world it is, that would have never happened during the streamlining era.

 

So I am not worried. There is also the fact that if Obsidian was going to go that way they would have done so a decade ago. I am far more worried that the content will become bloated and generic. I am interested to see what all this island exploring looks like in PoE2.

[Osvir]

I can't quite shake the thought pattern so I have to vent it out:

Trending now!
"Headphone listeners outraged by speaker listeners"

Coming up! In-depth analysis!
"Are speaker listeners left in the dust? Find out more here*!"

* I couldn't resist, sorry xD

EDIT: For anyone who hasn't played the Backer Beta, there is absolutely nothing to worry about about the console announcement. It won't affect how the game is running or playing on PC

Edited February 7, 2018 by Osvir

[Wormerine]

I can't quite shake the thought pattern so I have to vent it out:

 

Trending now!

"Headphone listeners outraged by speaker listeners"

 

Coming up! In-depth analysis!

"Are speaker listeners left in the dust? Find out more here*!"

 

* I couldn't resist, sorry xD

 

*

 

* I couldn't resist too, sorry.

[Revan91]

What makes you think they are using any of the Fig money on the porting? PoE has sold steadily both on PC and consoles since the Fig campaign. Not to mention, they just started selling Deadfire on Steam. Porting it isn't actually all that expensive, nor does it take huge amount of time once they've locked up the content for PC version. They have the 2nd hand experience from Paradox Arctic on how to do the port, which helps them even further to develop Deadfire.

 

The fact that they are again going on consoles with PoE clearly points that the console versions were profitable and that there's a fanbase they want to be able to play the game as well. They have the data to show how much it cost to port the 1st game and how much it sold and made money to Paradox and to them. Just because it sells much less than on PC doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it if it's economically viable. Which it clearly is.

 

If everyone thought like you do, consoles would never have a market for certain games. Gamers play the games they are able to play on their platforms. If no one ever bothers to release strategy game or old school crpg to consoles with the console controllers actually in mind, how are you ever going to create a market for such games on consoles? You have to start from somewhere, the market doesn't just appear from thin air once you publish 1 or 2 games.

 

Your posts just make you seem like a selfish little child. It's all about what you want, your preferences, your sandbox, your toys, no one else is supposed to touch them or play with them.

Backer Beta has proved that Obsidian hasn't so far dumbed the game down at all. Someone else is still making the console version, sparing Obsidian from that burden and leaving them to work on the DLCs for Deadfire and whatever comes next.

 

I haven't said they used Fig money on it (although it's possible and other devs do things like that, see inXile and how they used T:ToN's money on WL2, but I think Obsidian is way more trustworthy than scam artist Fargo), just that I would rather have them use their money on something else.

Also, you keep treating me like an idiot for saying that these games don't go well on consoles, but it's common knowledge. You know what happens when a game is successful? It makes the news, see every piece on IGN, Game Informer, PC Gamer (etc.) about how well D:OS and PoE sold on PC. Have you seen anything like that about the console versions? I'll answer for you: no.

About a year ago, maybe more Swen said to the Codex that D:OS sold about 1.5 million copies on all platforms, then just looking at Steamspy the game was at 1.1 million, just there, and it's not counting GOG. Which means that both ps4 and xone sold about 300k copies together, about 1/4 of the PC version alone. And it's the most successful KS rpg we're talking about, PoE was less successful and its console versions were released later on and probably sold even less.

It's a viable market? Probably so. It's worth to chase it? It depends, I guess, but compared to the PC market it's really small (and i provided some data to back my claims).

And you say "if everyone thinks like I do then it's always gonna be a small market", well hopefully so. Because if it becomes the bigger market you can dream of having an rpg made with PC in made, and instead will get controls and UI studied for a gamepad. No thanks.

 

And while I like your vision about having games on all platforms makes everyone happy and all, history tells us that it comes at a cost. Just look at BioWare and the constant decline in both quality and complexity, since they became more and more console-focused. 

Call me selfish, but I don't want a new BioWare, the old one is already enough for me. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Revan91

[Taurus]

So, we could have had Sea Monster Hunting , but now in the latest hour we have another kind of surprise.

 

Kinda shady, really. 

 

EDIT: Just read the second quote from original post, now I'm more releaved. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by Taurus

[Taurus]

Edited: Canceled.

Edited February 7, 2018 by Taurus

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

And while I like your vision about having games on all platforms makes everyone happy and all, history tells us that it comes at a cost. Just look at BioWare and the constant decline in both quality and complexity, since they became more and more console-focused. 

Call me selfish, but I don't want a new BioWare, the old one is already enough for me. 

 

 

The "decline", if we can even call it that, has nothing to do with consoles. Both of BioWare's flagship products of the last decade were on all sorts of platforms since their inception. Whatever changes they've undergone and troubles they encountered are completely unrelated to consoles, as people have repeatedly pointed out.

[Gilthas]

I think that the argument that games "are simplified for console" is simply not true. It's kind of a veiled insult that implies that people who play on consoles only like simple games. The truth is that games get simplified or streamlined to appeal to more people. Hell, it's very common to see people on gaming boards complaining that games are too simple on both PC and console games. Of course, shiny graphics really does sell console games, but that is true for PC too.

 

Additionally, I don't think that the lower console sales of D:OS and PoE are solid proof that these kinds of games can't do well on consoles. In both cases the console port was released over a year after the PC release. Basically, you can't compare the sales of a fresh game to a one-year old game (2 years for PoE). There wasn't much of a promotional campaign for PoE either, I only found out it was releasing on the PS4 because I saw an online review of it on eurogamer.

 

Lastly, although Paradox did a good enough job with PoE, the UI needs further work to really be comfortable to play with a controller. I still maintain that offering the PC UI as an option would be the best choice for the console release, but barring that, they need to find a way to:

 

- make it easier to select multiple PCs. They need to allow the "targeting reticule (?)" to function more like a mouse. If I'm not mistaken in the PS4 version they allowed you to select targets and locations with it, but they should add a drag function to let us also select areas with it.

 

- targeting objects/containers/doors needs to be greatly improved. I could have my analogue stick point to an object near me but the character would actually target an object that sometimes would be in the opposite direction.

 

- inventory navigation needs to be greatly improved to. Messing with your grimoire, selecting chants, shops, etc, felt clunky. I think these really need to be rebuilt from the ground up.

[Flouride]

I haven't said they used Fig money on it (although it's possible and other devs do things like that, see inXile and how they used T:ToN's money on WL2, but I think Obsidian is way more trustworthy than scam artist Fargo), just that I would rather have them use their money on something else.

 

Also, you keep treating me like an idiot for saying that these games don't go well on consoles, but it's common knowledge. You know what happens when a game is successful? It makes the news, see every piece on IGN, Game Informer, PC Gamer (etc.) about how well D:OS and PoE sold on PC. Have you seen anything like that about the console versions? I'll answer for you: no.

About a year ago, maybe more Swen said to the Codex that D:OS sold about 1.5 million copies on all platforms, then just looking at Steamspy the game was at 1.1 million, just there, and it's not counting GOG. Which means that both ps4 and xone sold about 300k copies together, about 1/4 of the PC version alone. And it's the most successful KS rpg we're talking about, PoE was less successful and its console versions were released later on and probably sold even less.

It's a viable market? Probably so. It's worth to chase it? It depends, I guess, but compared to the PC market it's really small (and i provided some data to back my claims).

And you say "if everyone thinks like I do then it's always gonna be a small market", well hopefully so. Because if it becomes the bigger market you can dream of having an rpg made with PC in made, and instead will get controls and UI studied for a gamepad. No thanks.

 

And while I like your vision about having games on all platforms makes everyone happy and all, history tells us that it comes at a cost. Just look at BioWare and the constant decline in both quality and complexity, since they became more and more console-focused. 

Call me selfish, but I don't want a new BioWare, the old one is already enough for me. 

 

 

Their involvement on the console versions is minimal as is the money they are putting on to those versions. They aren't making the game, their publisher with the help of a brazilian 3rd party is making it. In this scenario Obsidian doesn't have to spend a dime on the game. Sure, they might have to answer questions from the brazilian developers. Why you bring up Inxile is beyond me. They had their internal teams working on the console ports, totally different situation.

 

You like to hang onto those sales numbers. It doesn't matter if the game sells 20k copies or 300k copies, Obsidian's risk is non-existant financially. Sure if the game sells 500k copies, they will get more money while doing pretty much nothing to get the game ported on consoles.

 

Every game doesn't have to be highly succesful to warrant a port to consoles, it's enough that it makes a profit and fans enjoy it. So, I really don't know why you bring in success into the conversation.

 

BioWare is owned by a publicly traded company, that has a board of directors and investors. Obsidian is an independent company. Can't really compare the two. One of the companies can actually decide where they want to focus on a project like Deadfire and the other will have to make the game to as broad audience as possible.