Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Dec 2017
F
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
F
Joined: Dec 2017
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Firesong
Good sales means more RPG fodder in the future and maybe a D:OS3.
I wouldn't say that good sales [of BG3] means maybe a D:OS3. If anything, relatively disappointing sales of BG3 would be more likely to give us a DOS3, as Larian would decide that making D&D games isn't profitable and go back to their golden goose. Assuming of course that sales of BG3 are good enough that Larian doesn't go bankrupt, which is already true I think.

Whereas if BG3 sells 10M+ copies, then I doubt we'll see another DOS game for a while.

...or Larian goes BIG and starts production of BG4 and D:OS3 at the same time.

Would be interesting because of engine synergies.

Can you imagine what Divinty Engine 5.0 will be like? hehe

Also there would be another interesting RPG IP... Lord British, the Avatar, the virtues... starting in the ruins of Skara Brae, I bet Ultima X would be absolutely amazing when done by Larian.

Like a dream.


Larian, please improve QoL / UX.

And give us Halsin as companion, please.
Joined: Sep 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
When I talk sales here I am speaking purely in a commercial and marketing context. A game that sells just a couple of million can still be a success in many other ways, including being a "fan favorite." For me, then, AAA success amounts to the sales numbers of games like Skyrim and Witcher 3, 42 M and 35 M respectively. Even games like DA:I and ME3 have sold around 10 M. By contrast, commercially successful AA games like The Outer Worlds 1 have sold around 3 M, and older games like DA:O and ME2 sold around 5 M. And then you have games like D:OS2 and P:Km with sales in the 2+ M range. So this gives me a sense of where the cutoff point may be for sales "success" between a AA game and a AAA game, and that seems to be around 5 M. In other words, if it's a AA game, sales of about 2-3 M would be good and around 5 M would be excellent. Whereas for a AAA game, around 10 M is the low point for being viewed as a success.

But the bottom line is that this is just my personal take. People can see this in whatever way they want. I'm sure there are people out there who will sing the sales success of a game that sold 2 M even while putting down another game that sold 5 M, all because they personally loved the first game and hated the second game. All people are ultimately subjective, myself included.

some numbers need to be updated here:
Outer World has sold 4m:
https://www.vg247.com/the-outer-worlds-4-million-copies
PK has sold 1m after nearly 3 years (so it is far from being in 2+ M and it is not in the same league in terms of sales compared to DOS2 which has reached this number in 2 months)
https://gameworldobserver.com/2021/...sold-almost-three-years-after-its-launch
and again with some of the Bioware titles (DA: I and ME3) where I really tried to find any source to show if these titles have sold 10M but I really cannot find any except for the source that has been provided here before so I really want to know your source if you can find it.
and of course, we have DOS2 which we don't have any source (after 1M) about how successful the game is

Joined: Sep 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Firesong
Good sales means more RPG fodder in the future and maybe a D:OS3.
I wouldn't say that good sales [of BG3] means maybe a D:OS3. If anything, relatively disappointing sales of BG3 would be more likely to give us a DOS3, as Larian would decide that making D&D games isn't profitable and go back to their golden goose. Assuming of course that sales of BG3 are good enough that Larian doesn't go bankrupt, which is already true I think.

Whereas if BG3 sells 10M+ copies, then I doubt we'll see another DOS game for a while.

I think BG3 could reach 7-8M

but if they really want to explode in terms of sales(10M+) then they should make Divinity 3 (Not DOS3).

A third person and real-time combat and all the cinematic would easily outsell any top-down RTwP or TB games (whether it is BG3/4 or DOS3)

Last edited by Human; 13/10/21 03:55 PM.
Joined: Dec 2017
F
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
F
Joined: Dec 2017
Originally Posted by Human
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Firesong
Good sales means more RPG fodder in the future and maybe a D:OS3.
I wouldn't say that good sales [of BG3] means maybe a D:OS3. If anything, relatively disappointing sales of BG3 would be more likely to give us a DOS3, as Larian would decide that making D&D games isn't profitable and go back to their golden goose. Assuming of course that sales of BG3 are good enough that Larian doesn't go bankrupt, which is already true I think.

Whereas if BG3 sells 10M+ copies, then I doubt we'll see another DOS game for a while.

I think BG3 could reach 7-8M

but if they really want to explode in terms of sales(10M+) then they should make Divinity 3 (Not DOS3).

A third person and real-time combat and all the cinematic would easily outsell any top-down RTwP or TB games (whether it is BG3/4 or DOS3)

It would compete with Horizon series... compete with Horizon series...


Larian, please improve QoL / UX.

And give us Halsin as companion, please.
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
There's naturally another possible scenario, in theory:

BG3 doesn't go big enough (and Larian have now grown significantly as a studio, AFAIK there's now well over 200 people in-house plus about the same number externally) that they roll back to where they aimed to be prior to DOS1:

Another AA/A studio making the same type of game that all other AA/A games studios in the market focus on, as there's more copies to be sold there. DOS1 after all seems to have been an attempt to save the game company (or what was there left of it) -- had Larian's prior Divinity games fared better, which were much closer to your average AA/A RPG, there would have been no need to do it. Whilst Larian may have been burnt pretty heavily by trying to compete in this AA/A space (and told stories about how they were rejected by publishers when wanting to do a TB game, say), that doesn't mean they'd never really try again. At least from a budget / team size perspective, BG3 as pointed out IS an AAA game, but one that masks itself as the fairly traditional, stats and numbers crunching TT conversion AAA RPGs don't deal in anymore in favor of movie-like experiences, romances and action combat in order to appeal to an ever larger audience.

As of actual profits, would be interesting what fared better for an AA/A company such as Obsidian, btw. The first POE game (the second flopped, naturally, as did Tyranny) or The Outer Worlds. COnsidering Urquhart's interviews at the time of POE1's success, it seemed that didn't do too shabby business. Naturally, as a studio of a certain size, you can't exclusively do small/er projects such as PoE. Still curious about the game that Josh Sawyer is working on, which is apparently being done with a very small team. As projects such as this can also take more risks, there's apparently also actually little combat being involved, when most RPGs, including indies, are full of combat.

Studios all seem to aim to be growing anyways (that's how Bioware of old eventually changed, too, every new game needed to be bigger and reach a wider audience than the last, some ex-employees called that the "blockbuster mentality") -- so maybe that's the "natural" route to take. First you make fairly specialized, comparably niche games, and then go you bigger the further you grow. Here's hoping that companies such as Owlcat who seem to be doing actually even better with their second game still stay reasonably specialized. I don't think in the future they'll exclusively make Pathfinder games (a Starfinder game was in the rumours a while back already). But they could specialize as the TT conversion company, say.

To me an actually healthy market is all about diversity. And for a period prior to the Kickstarter renaissance, outside of REALLY small indies on shoestring budgets (a torch guys like Jeff Vogel and Spiderweb had been carrying for decades), there wasn't all that much choice. In parts that's because the games industry was in a transition stage: The origins of Western RPGs are firmly planted into the home computer/PC space. Then suddenly there was the demand to focus on multi-platform releases. And then basically all the former big dogs outside of Bioware and Bethesda, who quickly made that transition just flat out died (Troika, Sir-Tech, Origin, Black isle, New World Computing, Interplay, SSI, Westwood, Attic etc. etc.) . Even Bethesda was almost broke before Morrowind came out and basically saved the company, btw.

Don't think that's happened to any other genre since, not in these volumes.

Last edited by Sven_; 13/10/21 06:01 PM.
Joined: May 2019
veteran
Online Sad
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Here's my problem with your analysis, and I asked about it in my post: How many of those sales numbers are people buying multiple copies? I own The Witcher once, and 2 copies of both 2 and 3. One each for PC and XBox. The same applies to all of the ME games, including the recent release. I have 2 copies of Skyrim, but I'm not buying the recent release, and I didn't touch the VR version. Skyrim is an interesting choice here, since there's Vanilla for all platforms, then the Special Edition, and 3 or 4 other re-releases. Then there's the platform issue. Currently, this game isn't available on consoles. So let's compare apples to apples, what are the Skyrim sales for PC/Stadia? How do they compare? The same for the Witcher series. Then, let's compare initial release sales for the one platform. It's not that I think this game's going to be a record setter, although it might, but when I see people comparing sales numbers from 5 or 6 platforms, over 10 years, vs a single platform release, in EA, I start scratching my head, wondering what they're trying to prove.

Edit: Upon re-reading this it seems rather snarky, and that's not my intent. Sorry if it seems rude.
Np. I didn't feel anything offensive. smile

To your question, though, I just don't see any issue there at all. Yes some people do buy double copies for whatever reasons, usually to get the game on PC and a console, but so what? Firstly, we don't have any numbers on this question, and I personally would project those numbers are small. Furthermore, the issue is going to be roughly equal across all games, so its effect should be pretty neutral. But secondly and more importantly, a person willing to shell out more money to buy additional copies of a game only means even more evidence of that game's popularity. So I'm sorry, it's clear you see this as a really big issue and that's fine. I just don't see it as an issue at all.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Online Sad
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Sven_
There's naturally another possible scenario, in theory:

BG3 doesn't go big enough (and Larian have now grown significantly as a studio, AFAIK there's now well over 200 people in-house plus about the same number externally) that they roll back to where they aimed to be prior to DOS1:

Another AA/A studio making the same type of game that all other AA/A games studios in the market focus on, as there's more copies to be sold there. DOS1 after all seems to have been an attempt to save the game company (or what was there left of it) -- had Larian's prior Divinity games fared better, which were much closer to your average AA/A RPG, there would have been no need to do it. Whilst Larian may have been burnt pretty heavily by trying to compete in this AA/A space (and told stories about how they were rejected by publishers when wanting to do a TB game, say), that doesn't mean they'd never really try again. At least from a budget / team size perspective, BG3 as pointed out IS an AAA game, but one that masks itself as the fairly traditional, stats and numbers crunching TT conversion AAA RPGs don't deal in anymore in favor of movie-like experiences, romances and action combat in order to appeal to an ever larger audience.

As of actual profits, would be interesting what fared better for an AA/A company such as Obsidian, btw. The first POE game (the second flopped, naturally, as did Tyranny) or The Outer Worlds. COnsidering Urquhart's interviews at the time of POE1's success, it seemed that didn't do too shabby business. Naturally, as a studio of a certain size, you can't exclusively do small/er projects such as PoE. Still curious about the game that Josh Sawyer is working on, which is apparently being done with a very small team. As projects such as this can also take more risks, there's apparently also actually little combat being involved, when most RPGs, including indies, are full of combat.

Studios all seem to aim to be growing anyways (that's how Bioware of old eventually changed, too, every new game needed to be bigger and reach a wider audience than the last, some ex-employees called that the "blockbuster mentality") -- so maybe that's the "natural" route to take. First you make fairly specialized, comparably niche games, and then go you bigger the further you grow. Here's hoping that companies such as Owlcat who seem to be doing actually even better with their second game still stay reasonably specialized. I don't think in the future they'll exclusively make Pathfinder games (a Starfinder game was in the rumours a while back already). But they could specialize as the TT conversion company, say.

To me an actually healthy market is all about diversity. And for a period prior to the Kickstarter renaissance, outside of REALLY small indies on shoestring budgets (a torch guys like Jeff Vogel and Spiderweb had been carrying for decades), there wasn't all that much choice. In parts that's because the games industry was in a transition stage: The origins of Western RPGs are firmly planted into the home computer/PC space. Then suddenly there was the demand to focus on multi-platform releases. And then basically all the former big dogs outside of Bioware and Bethesda, who quickly made that transition just flat out died (Troika, Sir-Tech, Origin, Black isle, New World Computing, Interplay, SSI, Westwood, Attic etc. etc.) . Even Bethesda was almost broke before Morrowind came out and basically saved the company, btw.

Don't think that's happened to any other genre since, not in these volumes.
Again, to repeat for like the millionth time, neither PoE2 nor Tyranny "flopped" for Obsidian. Both games have delivered a net profit for them. Furthermore, both games received significant critical acclaim. There's a huge difference between a game not delivering spectacular sales versus being a "flop."

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Here's my problem with your analysis, and I asked about it in my post: How many of those sales numbers are people buying multiple copies? I own The Witcher once, and 2 copies of both 2 and 3. One each for PC and XBox. The same applies to all of the ME games, including the recent release. I have 2 copies of Skyrim, but I'm not buying the recent release, and I didn't touch the VR version. Skyrim is an interesting choice here, since there's Vanilla for all platforms, then the Special Edition, and 3 or 4 other re-releases. Then there's the platform issue. Currently, this game isn't available on consoles. So let's compare apples to apples, what are the Skyrim sales for PC/Stadia? How do they compare? The same for the Witcher series. Then, let's compare initial release sales for the one platform. It's not that I think this game's going to be a record setter, although it might, but when I see people comparing sales numbers from 5 or 6 platforms, over 10 years, vs a single platform release, in EA, I start scratching my head, wondering what they're trying to prove.

Edit: Upon re-reading this it seems rather snarky, and that's not my intent. Sorry if it seems rude.
Np. I didn't feel anything offensive. smile

To your question, though, I just don't see any issue there at all. Yes some people do buy double copies for whatever reasons, usually to get the game on PC and a console, but so what? Firstly, we don't have any numbers on this question, and I personally would project those numbers are small. Furthermore, the issue is going to be roughly equal across all games, so its effect should be pretty neutral. But secondly and more importantly, a person willing to shell out more money to buy additional copies of a game only means even more evidence of that game's popularity. So I'm sorry, it's clear you see this as a really big issue and that's fine. I just don't see it as an issue at all.

The issue is that all the numbers are stacked together. 10 years worth of sales, across a multitude of platforms, vs 1 year "on the shelves" in early access. There's no arguing that most of these games were wildly popular, the argument is amount of time available, vs things like the warning from Larian that this game isn't any where near a polished state, and should be avoided if that's what one is looking for. So it's simply too soon to be making a sweeping comparison, since, for all we know 1 of several outcomes is possible:

1. The game launches, is wildly successful, and surpasses all of our wildest dreams in copies sold.

2. It turns out to be a "pretty good game", and does alright.

3. It pulls a CP 2077.

There are a myriad of possibilities in between these, but at this stage it's really hard to predict. But comparing to Skyrim, which has had what, 5 releases so far? It's got 10 years worth of sales behind it, and it is popular, but it's had a decade, and releases across multiple platforms to pad it's sales numbers. Meanwhile, this game is available on PC and Stadia. No XBox numbers, no PS numbers, no Switch numbers, which I'm not sure that Skyrim has, I don't own a Switch, so don't follow what's there and what isn't, because I'm not planning on getting one. However, the sales numbers are total sales. This means that it's taking all platforms into account, whereas this game is limited. As I said, this is a problem with your analysis, not anything to do with the actual games. If this game sells 5 million copies, on PC and Stadia, I'd say it would be doing really well.

Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Again, to repeat for like the millionth time, neither PoE2 nor Tyranny "flopped" for Obsidian. Both games have delivered a net profit for them. Furthermore, both games received significant critical acclaim. There's a huge difference between a game not delivering spectacular sales versus being a "flop."
[/quote]

Yeah, they eventually broke even. Speaking about which, even PS:T back then in the end made a profit, (or Lucas Art's Grim Fandango too, another "oddball" game from roughly the same era widely considered as major flop), just not by much, which is why both a sequel to PS:T was never really considered until Numenera, that spiritial sequel some odd 20 years later -- and Lucas Arts just did one final more adventure game in the fairly low budgeted, and safe fourth Monkey Island game (and that was that).

However, PoE2 and Tyranny were considered a sales disappointment upon release. Which is one of the reasons why they didn't immediately go on to develop a PoE3, even though in the build-up there were already talks about that (they were pretty convinced that they'd sell more copies than the first game, just as DOS2 did over DOS1, which they also took inspiration from for doing the very expensive full voice-overs, which eventually backfired considering the lower sales compared to PoE1). Can't find the interview in particular, but there was one talking about major engine revamps being done which would also benefit a possible PoE3. Instead, this eventually happened (I'd be on board for a PoE3 for sure, personally):

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...fore-committing-to-pillars-of-eternity-3

And of course, Obsidian's commitment to a Skyrim-like in "Avowed" set in the Pillars universe instead. Wonder where they got those ideas from to prioritize the one over the other. laugh Here's hoping it may be what "New Vegas" was to Bethesda's vision of "Fallout" -- a more intelligent, more complex and plain more fully-fledged RPG game than the BEthesda "original". However, Obsidian has also lost quite a few staff from back then. I've yet to play "The Outer Worlds", in parts because what I've seen and discussed about it paints the picture of a streamlined, simplified, less reactive and worse "New Vegas". One day I may try though -- Pathfinder WOTR is the first game for me this year. "New Vegas" as argued, is to me one of the very few examples of an AAA RPG done "right". Rather than simplifying mechanics over and over and/or focus on Hollywood-like storytelling and endless cutscenes in that desperate attempt to reach an ever larger audience, it's basically just like the oldschool Fallouts, but in 3D (action). Of course, Bethesda didn't continue from there, but actually simplified things even further from their boring F3 to also lull in the FPS crowd plain not that much interested in more fleshed out RPG mechanics (or hell forbid, dialogue).

That said, whilst I personally have my preferences, as can probably be seen -- a healthy market supports all kinds of products for everybody (which RPGs outside of very tiny indies on shoestring budgets in between roughly 2004/5 and 2014ish just plain didn't). Hence I see games such as BG3 as possible bridge builders between the "then" and "now". It's clearly developed on a much larger budget than any Kickstarter / Fig / indie peers. And it also has very modern features in multiplayer. However, it's also still a somewhat faithful D&D adaptation, including all the intricate D20 mechanics and character classes. As such, it sure won't break any Skyrim-like sales records any, as Skyrim is much much simpler to pick up and play (and much more visually exciting). However, will be interesting to see how this eventually plans out.

There's still not been much of a middle ground lately (or at least a middle-ground yet not fully lexplored) -- it's either fully-on action-adventurish / FPS / interactive movie fare such as Mass Effect / The WItcher / Fallout or system heavy smaller games such as Solasta, Pathfinder, Poe et all. Twenty years ago when Bioware was still in that transition stage between "tabletop enthusiasts" and "Blockbuster studio" for instance you had games like Kotor which also were still very firmly rooted in the more "oldschool" approach (there were few classes to pick from, but the underlying system was D&D D20 100%) -- just boasting typically AAA (cinematic) presentation which actually "hid" some of that also during combat with then pretty fluid and intricate combat animations pretty fitting for the Star Wars franchise.

Last edited by Sven_; 14/10/21 07:58 PM.
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5