inXile acquires Torment license. Stuff in the works?

[Brother None]

From GameBanshee

The folks at RPG Codex did some internet sleuthing and came up with some interesting news: apparently inXile's CEO Brian Fargo now owns the Torment IP.

It should be noted that the IP is not tied to the Planescape universe, which is currently discontinued, meaning that even if the company were to work on a successor to the beloved Infinity Engine title, it most likely would be a spiritual follow-up rather than an actual sequel.

Most of our readers will likely remember Colin McComb's write-up on the original title, which in light of this news probably means that he's involved in the project (assuming a project exists, of course) in some measure.

Considering Chris Avellone, who wrote the bulk of the original's dialogue, is probably going to be tied up to Project Eternity after wrapping up his work on Wasteland 2, his potential involvement is at the very least up in the air.

Update: Colin McComb posted on the RPG Codex to specify that the license holder wasn't interested in licensing the Planescape setting:

I'll put up a post later about the relative importance of Planescape to the Torment story, but right here I'll say that WotC has little apparent interest in licensing Planescape. I first approached them in February, and it became clear early on that they didn't seem very interested in talking to me.

That's okay, though. Other, equally cool options exist.

Update 2: Colin has written some more thoughts on the Torment story and the connection a new title would have with Black Isle's classic in an RPG Codex post:

As far as I'm concerned, MCA told a complete and beautiful story. If Chris wants to add sequels, that's his prerogative. If I added direct sequels, that would be fan fiction. I *like* that the question of what happens to his companions after the game has ended remains unanswered. Adding more details cheapens the impact of the original, and the unanswered questions about the companions makes their stories more powerful.

That's why Chris and I have both said that we would not be involved in sequels; we don't need to wrap up every loose end. Spiritual successors, yes - there are Torment stories that are untold. But not sequels, at least not right away (the last clause is just in case Chris discovers a new story he wants to tell with those companions).

So why do I want to use Torment? Because it was a deeply personal, philosophically engaging story that was not tied to the fate of the world - it *is* the end of the world for some characters, and it can sweep across the depths of infinity, but it remained a story about one man and the impact he had on those around him. Using Torment in the title tells you what kind of game it is. It's a specific story about a specific kind of person, a thematic link.

For the people who insist the game be a Planescape game, I have two points:
1. As I said, WotC does not appear to be interested in licensing Planescape.
2. Anyway, countless people told us that a Planescape game would never succeed, because it was "too weird." We just had to tell them to trust us - we had it handled. As you've seen, we did.

I'm not going to ask you to trust me just yet (I enjoy not having feces flung at me), but I will ask that you keep an open mind until you see what I'm thinking.

Thoughts? Torment sequel without Planescape, but made by the creator of Planescape & second designer of Torment.

 

[FearMonkey]

Why do I have a feeling you know more about this project than you're telling us?

 

[Dead Guy]

Not sure if the planes would be very important to make a good Torment sequel (yes, yes, spiritual successor, whatever), really. I don't think so at any rate. Would love for this to turn out well.

 

[Brother None]

Why do I have a feeling you know more about this project than you're telling us?

I know everything from the setting to some story outline to who is working on it to what the plans are in when and how.

But I ain't telling

 

[FearMonkey]

Why do I have a feeling you know more about this project than you're telling us?

I know everything from the setting to some story outline to who is working on it to what the plans are in when and how.

But I ain't telling

Even if I bribe you?
I have half a Cold Cut Combo on Honey Oat from Subway in my fridge. I think that's a pretty enticing offer.

 

[mobucks]

Heh Cold Cut Combos on Honey Wheat are the best! I get mine with black olives, tomatoes, and mayonaise.

 

[Guiltyofbeingtrite]

I don't think fans are hungering for a return to Planescape, they just want a game where player agency via character interaction is the focal point of the game.

He's spot on that all a successor would need to do is focus on the "Torment" and not on the "Planescape". While the setting was so foreign and exciting for me, and I assume others, it could have taken place anywhere and kept the emphasis on interactions and agency.

 

[Kirtai]

Why do I have a feeling you know more about this project than you're telling us?

I know everything from the setting to some story outline to who is working on it to what the plans are in when and how.

But I ain't telling

Hmm, that in itself is somewhat revealing as to the current state of things...

 

[Jebus]

OH GOD NO WHY DIDN'T OBSIDIAN GET IT

Planescape: Torment *was* MCA. Having it done by someone else (even Fargo, I mean the guy is likeable and all but he's not the guy to create "serious" games like Torment) is not going to be a good thing. Not that he's a bad game designer: Bethesda also isn't a bad game designer, but still Fallout 3 "felt" a hell of a lot less "Fallout" than Fallout: New Vegas did.

Also, he seems to have licensed only the "Torment" part of Plancescape: Torment. This leads to two pretty big problems:

A) the "Torment" storyline is *finished*. You can't add anything to what Planescape: Torment was. It'd be like putting a party hat on Michelangelo's David: sure, it expands, but it's not going to add anything of meaning to the franchise. I mean, what are they going to do? Chronicle the Nameless One's adventures in the Blood Wars? Morte's misadventures with the Pillar of Skulls? Ignus' adventures as a blast furnace? The wonderfull travels of the Siege Tower?
B) the Planescape setting was pretty damn integral to Plancescape: Torment. The same story simply couldn't be told if it was set in a different setting. The battles and shifting of the planes was at least 50% of the charm of PS:T.

I grieve for this. Nothing good will come of it.

 

[Sander]

Methinks you're missing the point here, Jebus. This is not a sequel to Planescape: Torment, it won't use the same characters, it won't use anything similar. Obviously, because they don't have the license to do any of those things.

From the pitch, it seems they simply want to make a game that builds on the same theme Torment had: a personal tale of one character and his relationships. And they're using the Torment name as a 'hook'.

You can ask the question how much sense it makes to even use that name if you don't have the Planescape license and won't be able to use anything from the original game. But that's a different issue.

 

[Jebus]

That's just stupid. If it's just the 'kind of story' that's licensed by Torment, then shouldn't the Bourne movies have licensed Torment too?

 

[Sander]

That's just stupid. If it's just the 'kind of story' that's licensed by Torment, then shouldn't the Bourne movies have licensed Torment too?

Well, sure. I don't quite get why they're using Torment here, but my guess would be to drum up interest. Which is pretty important as a business.

 

[Jebus]

The parallel with Bethesda buying the Fallout franchise still isn't too far off, then.

Meh, at leats I don't grieve for this anymore, then?

 

[Sander]

The parallel with Bethesda buying the Fallout franchise still isn't too far off, then.

No, it's really far off. Bethesda bought up Fallout to change the setting, change the gameplay, and make the entire franchise theirs without differentiating them from the previous games.

That's obviously not what inXile is doing, who are not making a sequel, not trying to change the Planescape: Torment franchise, but are interested in making a similar game.

 

[Walpknut]

I'll wait until Wasteland 2 comes out to either be excited or pesimistic about this.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

From the pitch, it seems they simply want to make a game that builds on the same theme Torment had: a personal tale of one character and his relationships. And they're using the Torment name as a 'hook'.

I kinda agree with Jebus, I see little sense in this. I mean, it's not like Torment uses any kind of unique specific elements, and not like you need a Torment license to actually make a game of the same style. And one would think most Torment fans are smart enough not to fall for this if it's purely a marketing ploy.

Besides, Torment minus the Planescape lore would be one bland tale indeed. I mean, I can see how they could come up with a similar setting, but I can't really think of anything that could approximate the pure abstract of reality and morality that is the Planes.

 

[Sander]

I kinda agree with Jebus, I see little sense in this. I mean, it's not like Torment uses any kind of unique specific elements, and not like you need a Torment license to actually make a game of the same style. And one would think most Torment fans are smart enough not to fall for this if it's purely a marketing ploy.

Well, you need the name to drum up interest and get people aware that the game even exists. And let's be fair: we're talking about, so it is working. I don't think there's something special about Torment fans that they'd be immune to marketing.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Well, not immune to marketing per se... But from what I've seen, it's usually not the kind of people who'd buy a game just because there's a certain name is slapped on top of it. I mean, we're not talking the CoD or Halo crowd here. If it becomes clear that the game actually has little to do with PS:T, I doubt the marketing would do it any good, because the target audience actually has half a brain.

And another weird thing. If it's a pure marketing move, then why not go for something more popular? I mean, PS:T is both niche and old, and as great as it is I doubt many people other than the old-school BIS fans remember it anymore.

So unless they bought the IP veeery cheaply, this is kind of a waste, IMO.

 

[Sander]

Well, not immune to marketing per se... But from what I've seen, it's usually not the kind of people who'd buy a game just because there's a certain name is slapped on top of it. I mean, we're not talking the CoD or Halo crowd here. If it becomes clear that the game actually has little to do with PS:T, I doubt the marketing would do it any good, because the target audience actually has half a brain.

I think you're doing the CoD/Halo crowd a disservice and overestimating the PS:T crowd, which is much, much larger than just the people here. It was a pretty successful AAA game at the time, after all.

Marketing works, on a lot of people. Will people lose interest when they realize it isn't Planescape? Sure. But those people would maybe not even have known that the game existed, and that awareness helps a ton. Not everyone will lose interest, and some of those who do will tell their friends and talk about it. All of that helps. And you won't have any of that if you don't have a hook like that.

And another weird thing. If it's a pure marketing move, then why not go for something more popular? I mean, PS:T is both niche and old, and as great as it is I doubt many people other than the old-school BIS fans remember it anymore.

Well, the same was true for Wasteland, and look how that turned out? The key to surviving for small game companies is to find niches and appeal to those people, not to look for the lowest common denominator.

 

[valcik]

I just hope that Mr McComb have been improving himself over years, because those cities he designed for Fallout 2 just sucks Harold's ass.