I really liked both PoE 1 and 2. Clearly there is *some* built in audience for PoE 3. So... I wonder if the correct call on this is to make it on a small budget rather than a large one.
If you make a game on BG3 budget you'd better sell it like BG3. Maybe they could do that with PoE3, but I would not bet that way. On the other hand, PoE 3 might succeed wildly as a low budget niche game. Ditch the voice acting and possibly even scale down the graphics. Tell a story without all the bells and whistles of a AAA game. I would buy it.
Yeah, this is my take as well. Very few BG3 fans have been willing to acknowledge and conceed the most important and central fact about BG3's sales success: that BG3 has 15 million D&D TT fans out there as an already built-in base of fans who would buy the game (and then plus additional fanbases such as cRPG fans and Larian game fans who don't overlap with the D&D fanbase). Other cRPG franchises such as PoE simply do not have that HUGE built-in advantage. So, even a PoE3 that is made with the MONSTER budget of BG3 and all of BG3's bells and whistles is very unlikely to record BG3-like sales because ... no D&D fanbase to count on.
Put very bluntly, no non-D&D AAA cRPG will ever have (even the possibility of) BG3-like sales success. Never ever.
Probably, but not necessarily. Everybody in the industry took notice of BG3. It shows this model can be successful. That makes it seem less risky. If anybody can convince MS to give them the budget to make this sort of game, it’s Obsidian.
No, there is no "model" in BG3 for others to follow. The only model is BG3 being a D&D game. Without that there's nothing else for any other studio to "follow." And in fact, in his comments, Sawyer very clearly talks about the many problems and weaknesses of BG3 that he would want to avoid or fix in any PoE3 game. The only "pluses" from BG3 he really brought up were designing combat encounters with TB combat in mind (though he also clearly said he would retain the option of both TB and RTwP in the game, which would be a HUGE improvement over BG3 right there), and including AAA cinematics.
By model all I meant was high budget CRPG. Nobody else tries to make these, and even BioWare has been moving away from them. Larian showed studio execs that these can be highly profitable, making them seem less risky.
Probably, but not necessarily. Everybody in the industry took notice of BG3. It shows this model can be successful. That makes it seem less risky. If anybody can convince MS to give them the budget to make this sort of game, it’s Obsidian.
No, there is no "model" in BG3 for others to follow. The only model is BG3 being a D&D game. Without that there's nothing else for any other studio to "follow." And in fact, in his comments, Sawyer very clearly talks about the many problems and weaknesses of BG3 that he would want to avoid or fix in any PoE3 game. The only "pluses" from BG3 he really brought up were designing combat encounters with TB combat in mind (though he also clearly said he would retain the option of both TB and RTwP in the game, which would be a HUGE improvement over BG3 right there), and including AAA cinematics.
We had that discussion a few times, kani, but I still think, this is subjective - you don't like BG3 at all, so of course, you wouldn't see it as a role model, I like the game and would hope, that other studios would follow the lead tbh. I like PoE, but it never sucked me in like BG3 did. I was drawn into the story, I like the characters (apart from Halsin) and I was throughly entertained by the game. Could the third act need a bit of polishing? Yes, of course. But it is still fun. And I think, Warlocke meant, that the industry saw with the success of BG3, that crpgs are a market if done well - which (since I can already see you disagreeing :-D) does mean something different for you and for me ... well, not exactly, since I like the games, you like and BG3 on top of it. I do think, as someone nearly exclusevly playing crpgs and none other type of game, that the success of BG3 will help that game type - and maybe will make a PoE3 possible.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
[quote=dwig] Put very bluntly, no non-D&D AAA cRPG will ever have (even the possibility of) BG3-like sales success. Never ever.
This would mirror that all other Infinity Engine games back then sold but a fraction of either BG1+2... despite being based on D&D, btw. Regardless, FromSoftware just as well as Larian generally have shown that in the AAA space you don't need to completely change your games in order to expand audiences. That's one of the best things to happen in the bigger budget space to me in the last couple years. Plus: It's "but" D&D. D&D more recent even tanked at the movies. What were to happen if somebody would pair CRPG + LOTR, Star Wars and Harry Potter?
This is full circle, by the way. Back in 1998, CRPGs were proclaimed bloody dead. Diablo, hack&slash and action adventure-ish games such as Lands Of Lore were king. Interplay forecast practically zero revenue for the UK for BG and hoped to just break even in general. Clearly Bioware didn't care. They were confident enough to sell enoough to warrant a sequel and keep making games. By the early 2000s, that changed. Bioware wanted larger audiences, but questioned the very type of game they were making. Both Kotor and even more Jade Empire were games of a different mould already. And that's continued since (with Origins as the distraction -- but even that was simplified some, moreso on consoles).
This culminated in Mass Effect, (successfuly) aiming at the big cover shooter crowd with every sequel. The Old Republic, meant to be a WOW killer. Inquisition, the semi-open world game in the wake of Skyrim. And Anthem, but let's not go there. Instead of confidence, there was a fear that the very games they were making weren't destined for more. Instead of setting trends, as they did in 1998 by resurrecting the CRPG, they followed them. And that's started way before EA. Enter Larian Studios and CRPGs being relegated back to the indie space... tbf, when BG3 was announced and that it was to be of AAA project scale, I had immediately suspected them to change much more about their recent games than "but" giving them a cinematic coat of paint... Such suspicious has taught me the predictable history of the big budget RPG. In fact, there was a part of me that saw BG3 as a Witcher / Assassin's Creed clone already, just set on the Sword Coast this time. Whatever's the most popular at the moment+BG=bingo. And even later interviews didn't do much for me, like: "Missing isn't fun!" https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gate-3-will-combine-the-best-of-divinity-and-dandd-5th-edition/
As of PoE3, I'd like Obsidian to scale it back as well. Clearly a part of the disappointment was to level up the investment both in full VO as well as everything else (this game for sure doesn't look like "ass" ). Which means the game HAD to sell significantly more to please management as much as PoE1 did, let alone more, as was the aim. Deadfire was a bet and that bet didn't pay off for reasons unknown (it may have well just been a case of releasing at the wrong time and with finite fanfare, as the game made a profit in the longer haul). That doesn't mean you can't make a PoE3 that is profitable as PoE1 though. Ideally, the success of BG3 may lead to a somewhat higher crossover audience anyway. Like people going upon finishing: "Is there anything else that's sorta like this?"
Customizable testicles. Sex and naughty romances. Bear sex.
There you just quadruple your audience. NOTHING to do with being D&D, turn-base game or a Crpg. People are thinking way too hard.
If BG2 back in the day had FMVs for all companion Gettin' Jiggy Wit It you can bet your acorns that sales would of been even better.
Last edited by Count Turnipsome; 28/10/2304:06 PM.
It just reminded me of the bowl of goat's milk that old Winthrop used to put outside his door every evening for the dust demons. He said the dust demons could never resist goat's milk, and that they would always drink themselves into a stupor and then be too tired to enter his room..
Thats why I'm curious about Rogue Trader, whether that will manage to pick up anyone from BG3's release, plus it's including co-op which might entice those types of players too.
For the current modern cRPGs, as far as Steam Charts go, none of them really saw a major uptick on players (hundred at most, and aside from DOS2, go figure). Also, oof Wasteland 2 with 11 people.
Quote
Bear sex.
Owlcat really missed their chance for not making and marketing a Griffon romance option for Ulbrig
By model all I meant was high budget CRPG. Nobody else tries to make these, and even BioWare has been moving away from them. Larian showed studio execs that these can be highly profitable, making them seem less risky.
Okay, fair enough. I still do not want developers to waste (yes, my subjective view) resources on such things as high-end graphics, cinematics, and full voice-acting, but I can certainly understand their draw for other people.
Probably, but not necessarily. Everybody in the industry took notice of BG3. It shows this model can be successful. That makes it seem less risky. If anybody can convince MS to give them the budget to make this sort of game, it’s Obsidian.
No, there is no "model" in BG3 for others to follow. The only model is BG3 being a D&D game. Without that there's nothing else for any other studio to "follow." And in fact, in his comments, Sawyer very clearly talks about the many problems and weaknesses of BG3 that he would want to avoid or fix in any PoE3 game. The only "pluses" from BG3 he really brought up were designing combat encounters with TB combat in mind (though he also clearly said he would retain the option of both TB and RTwP in the game, which would be a HUGE improvement over BG3 right there), and including AAA cinematics.
We had that discussion a few times, kani, but I still think, this is subjective - you don't like BG3 at all, so of course, you wouldn't see it as a role model, I like the game and would hope, that other studios would follow the lead tbh. I like PoE, but it never sucked me in like BG3 did. I was drawn into the story, I like the characters (apart from Halsin) and I was throughly entertained by the game. Could the third act need a bit of polishing? Yes, of course. But it is still fun. And I think, Warlocke meant, that the industry saw with the success of BG3, that crpgs are a market if done well - which (since I can already see you disagreeing :-D) does mean something different for you and for me ... well, not exactly, since I like the games, you like and BG3 on top of it. I do think, as someone nearly exclusevly playing crpgs and none other type of game, that the success of BG3 will help that game type - and maybe will make a PoE3 possible.
Actually I am fine with this, @fylimar, except for that my point was that without the cRPG being a D&D-based game, it won't be a huge sales success no matter how big of a budget it has. And I thing studios like Bioware and Obsidian understand exactly this point which is why they've thus far been loathe to devote that level of budgeting for a cRPG. I don't blame them for that at all. Even when they call a cRPG a AAA game, as inXile is doing with its recently-revealed steampunk cRPG, the resources being used to develop that game are a tiny fraction of what Larian expended on BG3. With the kind of money Larian has poured into BG3, most studios (correctly) would insist the game needs to be mainstream enough to sell in the tens of millions. And that kind of mainstreaming of a cRPG can happen only if it is tied to a very well-established and already highly popular franchise (i.e. D&D).
God I hated POE1 and 2. Such boring mechanics and combat systems + RTWP and then they slapped on a half-assed turn-based mode. I played both games and can't even remember what the story was because it was so forgettable, can't recall a single character because they were so milquetoast. Both games I got to 90% complete and then just stopped because I was so bored it felt like work, totally lacked any semblance of challenge either intellectually, tactically or creatively. I guess some people like that sort of dreck.
Anyway, Obsidian seems to have shifted completely to Action RPG's with Outer Worlds 2 and Avowed. I'd love to see them tackle another Fallout. No more isometric pseudo DnD trash though, it's a niche audience anyway.
By model all I meant was high budget CRPG. Nobody else tries to make these, and even BioWare has been moving away from them. Larian showed studio execs that these can be highly profitable, making them seem less risky.
Okay, fair enough. I still do not want developers to waste (yes, my subjective view) resources on such things as high-end graphics, cinematics, and full voice-acting, but I can certainly understand their draw for other people.
I agree that if full voice acting and mocap became the norm it would be bad for cRPGs - major movie studios made the move towards go big or go home a while back and it's meant that we get fewer good sci fi and fantasy movies. We either stunning spectacles like Dune or we get nothing. We small indie productions and we have big budget one but the middle of that continuum has gone away. That could happen to cRPGs
At the same time I want some of things Larian established to become the norm in the industry:
Games should be playable on release - there's no comparing day one WotR to day one BG3. BG3 was playable, WotR had main quest blockers two weeks after the release date. Solasta is another positive example, a game I could play that on release
No micro transactions - like with BG2, PoE etc I shouldn't have to pay extra to complete a quest. If I want to pay for sizeable expansion that's fine but paying for the armor I need to complete a quest? No way.
Hundreds of hours - In this Larian did indeed live up to the standard set by BG2. Did they do that in every way? Hell no. But in playable hours? Yes, the delivered. This must become the new normal.
So it's a mixed bag - like you I don't want to see the line between video games and movies blurred even further but I do want other companies to follow suit on playable hours, best attempt at bug free game, etc
I agree that if full voice acting and mocap became the norm it would be bad for cRPGs - major movie studios made the move towards go big or go home a while back and it's meant that we get fewer good sci fi and fantasy movies. We either stunning spectacles like Dune or we get nothing. We small indie productions and we have big budget one but the middle of that continuum has gone away. That could happen to cRPGs
I think that they are pretty much the norm now, at least as far as AAA games are concerned. Its fine as long as its well done with a big budget and good actors (like BG3) but I'd like to see more AA or A devs lean in on text and good writing rather than voice.
PoE 3 probably shouldn't be a AAA title, so maybe there is some hope for those of us who did like it. I doubt that Microsoft will veto any (relatively) low budget games as long as games like Avowed and Outer Worlds 2 deliver (although if I'm being honest, I didn't much care for Outer Worlds 1).
PoE 3 probably shouldn't be a AAA title, so maybe there is some hope for those of us who did like it. I doubt that Microsoft will veto any (relatively) low budget games as long as games like Avowed and Outer Worlds 2 deliver (although if I'm being honest, I didn't much care for Outer Worlds 1).
I'd tried it, but every single more indepth review and analysis paints it as basically a shallower version of New Vegas -- including quests that solve themselves due to markers being a) non-optional and b) even completely guiding you from the quest giver like 20 feet away to your destination if it's but that far (one of the biggest turn-offs admiteddly in gaming for me, guess that's what kanisatha feels like for turn-based combat).
They even released a whodunnit kinda DLC, but with so much handholding, I have no idea how that would even work in a really compelling way. Bad memories of Lady Boyle's Party in Dishonored, where you are assigned to find out who your assassination target is between three almost identical looking masked targets. They even randomize that target each time you start that mission and then destroy the idea by having a deus ex machina kind of NPC spawning into the level after but a couple minutes, approaching you and telling you who your target is. Why do this? Apparently their playtesters were quite.... interesting or at the very least solely exposed to games that don't let you explore a thing for youself. https://www.pcgamer.com/dishonored-clues-hints/ This sticks even out more as in Dishonored "helping hands" else ARE fully optional and the game is not designed around them (as so many games are... if you try to play Witcher 3 without witcher senses, good luck with that).
I agree that if full voice acting and mocap became the norm it would be bad for cRPGs - major movie studios made the move towards go big or go home a while back and it's meant that we get fewer good sci fi and fantasy movies. We either stunning spectacles like Dune or we get nothing. We small indie productions and we have big budget one but the middle of that continuum has gone away. That could happen to cRPGs
The AA gaming industry is, much like the mid-range budget Hollywood movie, already virtually non-existent.
Almost all of the CRPGs up until now have been smaller, indie titles. The only recent AA game I can think of is DOS2.
Indie titles will keep coming out regardless, but those aren’t usually my cup of tea, so if we get one or two decent AAA CRPGs, I’ll be very content.
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Warlocke
By model all I meant was high budget CRPG. Nobody else tries to make these, and even BioWare has been moving away from them. Larian showed studio execs that these can be highly profitable, making them seem less risky.
Okay, fair enough. I still do not want developers to waste (yes, my subjective view) resources on such things as high-end graphics, cinematics, and full voice-acting, but I can certainly understand their draw for other people.
Ya, lots of CRPGs fan don’t prioritize the bells and whistles of high end production, which is fine. I actually don’t think that sort of stuff is necessary myself, but I do enjoy very good art direction and creative design, which for me is lacking in most indie games.
I think Larian’s art direction is a pretty mixed bag. A CRPG with FromSoft level art direction would be a dream Come true.
Ya, lots of CRPGs fan don’t prioritize the bells and whistles of high end production, which is fine. I actually don’t think that sort of stuff is necessary myself, but I do enjoy very good art direction and creative design, which for me is lacking in most indie games.
I think Larian’s art direction is a pretty mixed bag. A CRPG with FromSoft level art direction would be a dream Come true.
That said, good art direction doesn't necessarily need the latest tech. Not a CRPG studio, but WolfEye are built around that, visually -- as a studio of former AAA developers who've "had enough" spending the bulk of their time and budget on that every frame of animation looks perfect. A healthy genre has variety though. I don't think AAA-scaled CRPGs "proper" are a bad thing. It appeals to a wider range of people and may get them interested. However, there's a reaon why so many AAA publishers and studios have been looking for additional ways to fund (microtransactions, etc.). Contemporary AAA development is just so damn expensive and the costs still keep rising alongside to the challenge it is to manage teams of hundreds and up (see also Cyberpunk).
If things stay that way, more studios will likely scale back as they're forced to, and there will be more of a middle ground. Larian too have already announced that their next project is likely to be smaller in scale. It's unlikely that they blew near as much on marketing alone as the actually big dogs (no Keanu Reeves and Hollywood celebrities promoting the game, no much exposure on mass TV / media), they're still going for a smaller thing now. It may be several smaller projects, given their size. Fallen Heroes getting resurrected as a second project, anyone?
Speaking about From (and thinking about Bloodborne in particular), it's amazing to me that outside of tiny indies, there hasn't been a gothic/horror themed CRPG since like Bloodlines. The 1980s/1990s even had dungeon crawls themed that way (The Legacy published by Microsoft), D&D games too (both Ravenloft games publushed by SSI). Sure, there's often horror elements and a quest here and there. But a game built around that and diving deep, nope. Dwarves&Elves, space ships, Pip-Boys&Nukes and since rather recent, Cyberpunk, that's all there is. And unlike Pirates, say, horror doesn't even seem to be that unpopular.
Doesn't surprise me that PC gamers in particular have been craving for a Bloodborne port since it came out. That game looks stellar and in terms of design, even by FromSoft standards, the monsters are hella twisted. Sure, playing it safe and all. But anybody who'd do a Ravenloft game nowadays would be instantly sticking out just by doing that.
I really liked both PoE 1 and 2. Clearly there is *some* built in audience for PoE 3. So... I wonder if the correct call on this is to make it on a small budget rather than a large one.
If you make a game on BG3 budget you'd better sell it like BG3. Maybe they could do that with PoE3, but I would not bet that way. On the other hand, PoE 3 might succeed wildly as a low budget niche game. Ditch the voice acting and possibly even scale down the graphics. Tell a story without all the bells and whistles of a AAA game. I would buy it.
Yeah, this is my take as well. Very few BG3 fans have been willing to acknowledge and conceed the most important and central fact about BG3's sales success: that BG3 has 15 million D&D TT fans out there as an already built-in base of fans who would buy the game (and then plus additional fanbases such as cRPG fans and Larian game fans who don't overlap with the D&D fanbase). Other cRPG franchises such as PoE simply do not have that HUGE built-in advantage. So, even a PoE3 that is made with the MONSTER budget of BG3 and all of BG3's bells and whistles is very unlikely to record BG3-like sales because ... no D&D fanbase to count on.
Put very bluntly, no non-D&D AAA cRPG will ever have (even the possibility of) BG3-like sales success. Never ever.
Very true.
Also I see a lot of critique here for PoE2.
PoE2 was made out of what likely less-than half of the budget for DOS2.
Despite its limitation (imo) the game has better designed, better written and better direction than DOS2.
Nobody can beat 100 mil+ funded Baldur's Gate 3 with the backing of a lot of fans, especially now.
I think for, say, Double AA/Indie cRPG, they should follow either Solasta or Pathfinder model to survive.
Larian is in the big league now, let's hope they keep making BG/DOS games and not turn into BioWare and make a Mass Effect.
Actually I am fine with this, @fylimar, except for that my point was that without the cRPG being a D&D-based game, it won't be a huge sales success no matter how big of a budget it has. And I thing studios like Bioware and Obsidian understand exactly this point which is why they've thus far been loathe to devote that level of budgeting for a cRPG. I don't blame them for that at all. Even when they call a cRPG a AAA game, as inXile is doing with its recently-revealed steampunk cRPG, the resources being used to develop that game are a tiny fraction of what Larian expended on BG3. With the kind of money Larian has poured into BG3, most studios (correctly) would insist the game needs to be mainstream enough to sell in the tens of millions. And that kind of mainstreaming of a cRPG can happen only if it is tied to a very well-established and already highly popular franchise (i.e. D&D).
Oh, I see. Yes, of course, D&D helped with the popularity, but I do hope, that it might stir people towards the genre in general and changes studios views on crpgs.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
[quote=dwig] Put very bluntly, no non-D&D AAA cRPG will ever have (even the possibility of) BG3-like sales success. Never ever.
I will not say never but I agree with the basis of your premise. The use of the DnD franchise as well as the Baldur's Gate legacy was easily worth a more than doubling of the sales from those two aspects alone.
As for a model, well the only real breakout from the mainstream was announcing no microtransactions and likely no DLC. This is a huge change for gamers today and stands out. However overall it is, as you seem to note a minor model change as many games have done this in the past.
The "model" I think that could change CRPGs is the use of the idea of the 'Adventure Pack'. No expansions, but rather whole new adventures using the same base game. A few games have taken this approach and it has been fairly well received.
Originally Posted by fylimar
Oh, I see. Yes, of course, D&D helped with the popularity, but I do hope, that it might stir people towards the genre in general and changes studios views on crpgs.
I do think the success has made them take notice but the extra cost and complexity of designing a CRPG will turn off a lot of studios. The profit ratio for a CRPG is just gonna be lower. I am hopeful the smaller studios that have already shown some skill at this like Obsidian, Tactical Adventures, Owlcat Games, inXile Entertainment and Hairbrained Schemes will step more heavily into CRPG. They will have to temper expectations however as dealing with WotC will be a turn off for studios to seek out DnD liscencing.
I am hopeful the smaller studios that have already shown some skill at this like Obsidian, Tactical Adventures, Owlcat Games, inXile Entertainment and Hairbrained Schemes will step more heavily into CRPG. They will have to temper expectations however as dealing with WotC will be a turn off for studios to seek out DnD liscencing.
There's other newcomers stepping up, and I disagree with the expressed notion in this thread that indies / smaller projects all have bad art.
