Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 12 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 11 12
Joined: Dec 2017
F
addict
Offline
addict
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.


#JusticeForKarlach

Petition to save Karlach: https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-karlach
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
addict
Offline
addict
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...


#JusticeForKarlach

Petition to save Karlach: https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-karlach
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
Offline
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
Offline
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
old hand
Offline
old hand
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.
Joined: Feb 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Feb 2021
If Baldur's Gate 3 continues to be successful, there may be opportunities for Larian Studios to develop expansions or even sequels in the future. The game's longevity and post-launch support could keep players engaged for years to come. Additionally, the success of Baldur's Gate 3 might also lead to the development of additional downloadable content (DLC) that expands the game's world, introduces new characters, and delves deeper into the rich lore of the Forgotten Realms. Players can look forward to uncovering hidden secrets, facing new challenges, and experiencing thrilling adventures through these potential expansions.

Moreover, Larian Studios' commitment to community feedback and continuous improvement could result in regular updates and patches, ensuring that the game remains fresh and relevant in response to player preferences, even in the context of B2B data enrichment. This iterative approach could foster a dedicated player base and contribute to the game's enduring popularity over time.

Last edited by MajorZero; 25/07/23 07:55 AM.
Joined: Jul 2009
I
old hand
Offline
old hand
I
Joined: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by MajorZero
If Baldur's Gate 3 continues to be successful, there may be opportunities for Larian Studios to develop expansions or even sequels in the future. The game's longevity and post-launch support could keep players engaged for years to come.
That entirely depends on Hasbro/WotC and their plans for D&D.
They already scaled their video game plans back a lot. And while it may be an unwise move to not continue to milk BG there is also the edition switch coming up which might affect which video games get greenlighted and when. Especially as BG had a long development time and WotC might want to have something come out faster to support oneD&D.
Or OneD&D fails and WotC cancels/changes all plans.

Last edited by Ixal; 24/07/23 09:48 AM.
Joined: Apr 2013
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by MajorZero
If Baldur's Gate 3 continues to be successful, there may be opportunities for Larian Studios to develop expansions or even sequels in the future. The game's longevity and post-launch support could keep players engaged for years to come.
While this is true, Swen literally said in an interview today that they have no plans for more BG3 content and even if they move to the next game I don't think there will be a BG4...everything we know about the story of BG3 points to this being the final chapter...the ending of the story of the city and the dead three that started in BG1. Now I believe they will stay in D&D but the next game will not be BG4...the story does not seem built to leave any loose threads for a BG4 game. So if they were to do anything more with the city it would have to be a totally new and unrelated story so it would not be called BG4...it would be called something else with Baldur's Gate in the title.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Sven_
Yeah, they eventually broke even. (…)

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
I have seen this narrative going around, but I still think there are a lot of assumptions here.

First thing first. PoE2 broke even some time after release (a year?), and according to JS the game became quite profitable (Source) The reason Josh Sawyer always gave on not going straight to PoE3 was always burnout - they have been working non-stop on PoEs for 10 years, they want to do something else. Lack of initial enthusiasm for PoE2 only reinforced the decision as the was no financial incentive to immediately put out another title. As the article you mentioned they also weren’t sure why Deadfire didn’t catch the fire like the original did. They were well aware of things that Deadfire didn’t do so well, but those were hard to point to as sole reason. Add to that, that at least for Josh PoEs weren’t exactly a passion project, and it’s no wonder Obsidian used new found freedom to pursue other projects. PoE2 initial poor sales were certainly a factor, but I don’t believe it resulted in sharp change in IP development, as some claim.

I do wonder if they still have those doubts, or if continuing sale and reception of Deadfire alleviated their concerns as far as PoE3 viability is concerned.

People assume that ending of PoE2 is a story hook for PoE3 and Avowed is a result of PoE2 poor initial sales, but I don’t believe that. Avowed has been something Feargus U. wanted to do for a long time, and Microsoft acquisition might have provided an opportunity to do that. My suspicion that PoE2 was a set up for Avowed rather than PoE3 seems more and more likely with each destabilise revealed. I think Avowed will tell us more about how Obsidian perceives rhe IP - if they will still nurture what made Eora unique, or if they will try to move it in another direction.

Joined: Jul 2019
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2019
Originally Posted by Darth_Trethon
Originally Posted by MajorZero
If Baldur's Gate 3 continues to be successful, there may be opportunities for Larian Studios to develop expansions or even sequels in the future. The game's longevity and post-launch support could keep players engaged for years to come.
While this is true, Swen literally said in an interview today that they have no plans for more BG3 content and even if they move to the next game I don't think there will be a BG4...everything we know about the story of BG3 points to this being the final chapter...the ending of the story of the city and the dead three that started in BG1. Now I believe they will stay in D&D but the next game will not be BG4...the story does not seem built to leave any loose threads for a BG4 game. So if they were to do anything more with the city it would have to be a totally new and unrelated story so it would not be called BG4...it would be called something else with Baldur's Gate in the title.

Given that we can now preorder Planescape: Adventure's in Multiverse and we see figures like Morte on the cover of one (the bestiary is named after him and he is the in character author) and we see gorgeous maps both of Sigil and the Outlands, and there is going to be a Nameless One mini for D&D I think that Planescape Torment is very, very likely, BUT it might use the new D&D 2024 revised core book rules instead of the original 5e 2014 rules (which means the PHB Goliaths with new giant subraces and Tieflings with Infernal, Cthonic, and Abyssal subraces in it will be what they draw from). There does seem to be a bit more of a Multiversal theme to the 2024 PHB so far as it's being developed through playtesting).

There would of course be callouts and such to BG3.

Joined: Sep 2017
V
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
V
Joined: Sep 2017
Also should be pointed out, publishers don't publish games to 'break even' or 'make a little profit'. They want to make the moolah. And, they certainly don't want to wait 5-10 years when the game is in the bargain bin to see a return. L0L

As for BG3, it'll sell. Too many factors in its favor. BG's legendary status, Larian';s own reputation, 5e dnd's popularity, the supra hype and media fawning, etc., etc.

Selling the game won't be the issue. Making a sizeable enough profit to make the investiment worthwhile is the key.

Have little doubt it'll make some profit but the key is how much and how much needed to make the time, # of employees, and everything else worth it to Larian and WOTC.

Joined: Apr 2013
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by Volourn
Also should be pointed out, publishers don't publish games to 'break even' or 'make a little profit'. They want to make the moolah. And, they certainly don't want to wait 5-10 years when the game is in the bargain bin to see a return. L0L

As for BG3, it'll sell. Too many factors in its favor. BG's legendary status, Larian';s own reputation, 5e dnd's popularity, the supra hype and media fawning, etc., etc.

Selling the game won't be the issue. Making a sizeable enough profit to make the investiment worthwhile is the key.

Have little doubt it'll make some profit but the key is how much and how much needed to make the time, # of employees, and everything else worth it to Larian and WOTC.
As far as I understand Larian are completely independent, and they fully funded the development of BG3 on their own so WotC have no financial stakes in this game. They might get some royalties from sales because they own the IP but they don't control Larian's future. Also important to notice is Swen literally said just a few days ago that WotC are VERY happy with how BG3 turned out. On top of that WotC also don't really have any alternatives really...BG3 is easily and by far the most popular D&D game ever made and will easily and by far sell the most copies. They don't have room to complain that oh this only made 5x the dev budget when we wanted 25x or whatever because they don't have anyone who can do that and nobody has even come close to doing as much with the D&D IP in videogames as Larian has with BG3. So I wouldn't worry about WotC acting like a big bad publisher, they don't have that kind of leverage here and they don't have better options.

Joined: Sep 2017
V
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
V
Joined: Sep 2017
The arrogance to think that larian is the only good option fir witc. Wotc has many options - some of them potentially better. In 10 years, we could have another company making a dnd game that sells more. *shrug*

And, thete us no evidence that bg 'by far' is yhe 'most popular' dnd game. Sell the most is likely, but we'll see. Do not underestimate the earlier BGs that without this game would not exist or NWN which also, FYI, outsold either BG.

And, no dev is 'completely independent' when making a dnd game.

Joined: Apr 2013
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by Volourn
The arrogance to think that larian is the only good option fir witc. Wotc has many options - some of them potentially better. In 10 years, we could have another company making a dnd game that sells more. *shrug*

And, thete us no evidence that bg 'by far' is yhe 'most popular' dnd game. Sell the most is likely, but we'll see. Do not underestimate the earlier BGs that without this game would not exist or NWN which also, FYI, outsold either BG.

And, no dev is 'completely independent' when making a dnd game.
If Wizard of the Coast had better options with bigger AAA developers they would have already signed an agreement. But the reality is that bigger developers typically don't want to work with others' IPs and nobody else would undertake the risk of of making a game with so much optional content and so many optional paths that most people will not see most of that content when trying to maximize profits which would make for a vastly worse D&D experience as D&D is all about choice. WotC has some say over the IP so they can look at what Larian is implementing and how and demand something be changed since it's their IP but they have no control over Larian's future at all. The worst they could do is deny them future use of the D&D IP but they have no reason to do that...they didn't pay to develop the game...they have no financial stakes. Any royalties they get are free money for WotC...this isn't an investment they have to sweat over. They could allow 1000 dev teams to make D&D games if they aren't funding those games. Nobody has to answer to investors about the making of this game and some dudes in suits with zero interest in video games saying the earnings weren't multiplied enough and cutting funding or anything like that.

Last edited by Darth_Trethon; 24/07/23 09:26 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I'm not sure how complex their Engine and the DnD framework is, but if BG 3 is very successful, they may want to consider licensing it to other studios. Lots of profit to be had that way with less effort (possibly) than publishing their own game.


Back from timeout.
Joined: Jun 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jun 2020
I think some maybe underestimating forgetting sales via playstation & Xbox...if it ever gets to xbox....

Page 6 of 12 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 11 12

Moderated by  Dom_Larian, Freddo, vometia 

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