Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I think it lacked decent advertising - I don't recall any ads in Poland mentioning that it's a faithful representation of D&D system on PC.
Tim Cain doesn't comment on Fallout 3
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Deadlines don't get changed in the middle of development. If anything, Bloodlines' deadline got shifted up because Half-Life 2 still wasn't done.Sovz said:
VDweller
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
You make it sound like negotiating publishing deals is as simple as asking for a good deal. Negotiations, especially in the gaming industry, are all about leverage. If you have none, i.e. you are not in position to negotiate, then you take what's offered and thank for the honor and the privilege. Why do you think Bio hasn't sold Dragon Age to a publisher yet?Sander said:
Troika lost when Sierra fucked the Arcanum release by sitting on the game for 6 months while it was being pirated like crazy. Arcanum was supposed to be Troika's flagship title, its leverage. When Sierra ruined that chance, Troika could only take what was given and agree to all and any conditions. Or die. It didn't save them, of course, but that's how the industry works.
Everything could be changed. KOTOR 2 was supposed to be a February release, but because the game was *almost* ready and the holy - gaming sales-wise - Christmas season was approaching, it was pushed out the door 3-4 months earlier. Why? Same reason. Obsidian doesn't have any leverage to tell Lucas Art to fuck off and stick with the contract.
I knew someone would interpret it like that, but no, that is not my point. I'm not saying that negotiating deals are not impossible and that you can't get fucked over in them. But, simple fact, if you get a short deadline you cut content. It's all about planning in software development and if you don't make your deadlines you simply planned poorly. Either by being overly ambitious, or by simply being a shitty planner. Troika probably fell prey to the first, along with problems of a technical nature mostly surrounding Bloodlines' use of an external engine that was still in full development.VDweller said:
Troika survived for 4 more years after that. That is not the only thing that killed them. Lacking a really succesful flagship title is not what kills a game studio, *if* the game studio plans well and knows when to cut content.VDweller said:
Wasn't it Bioware that was the middle man between Lucasarts and Obsidian?VDweller said:
And, simply put, that's a breach of contract unless they had a shitty contract. Which might have been the case for Troika, although doubtful. Then again, the game industry standard could be shitty contracts.
In any case, the comparison is very poor because Troika's games were *not* pushed out as quickly as possible. Bloodlines' release was postponed until Half-Life 2 was ready, Arcanum was not released for almost a year, ToEE I don't know much about.
What fucked over Troika much more was the relatively poor handling of their products *post-release* by their publishers. Bloodlines got pushed out at the same time as Half-Life 2, which is a ridiculous move. ToEE got almost no press, Arcanum was relatively well-handled post-release by Sierra I think, though I have very little information on that.
VDweller
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
ToEE was in development for 20 months. What quality would you expect from a brand new game (i.e. not an engine/assets reusing sequel like IWD2) that was made in less than 2 years with or without planning?Sander said:
For comparison, Fallout was in development for 3.5 years. Arcanum was in development for 3.2 years. See the pattern?
Survived would be the key word. Arcanum was a game they were proud of and wanted to make. Chose to make. Unlike ToEE or Bloodlines.
You are right. I forgot the second key factor. They lost the rights to their best title (Sierra wasn't interested in a sequel and without Sierra holding the rights they couldn't make another Arcanum game). The combination of both killed them. Compare it to PB, a similarly small studio that used the Gothic series (sadly, they too lost the rights to their own creation) to grow and establish themselves better.
Nope. Bio helped Feargus get the deal.
Sure. Now put yourself in Feargus' big shoes. You have a deal with Lucas Arts, a mega corporation handing out pure gold Stars Wars licenses. LA wants you to release the game sooner than agreed. Do you:
a) tell them "Read the fucking contract, assholes. I have another 3 months", knowing that LA won't forget it and you'll never work with LA properties again, and possibly with other major properties (like the Aliens) because nobody likes a fucking rules lawyer.
b) do what they tell you to, knowing that LA won't forget it and you'll have a chance to do business with them in the future. There are strong rumors that KOTOR 3 is in development and many signs point to Obsidian.
Yes. The pattern is shitty planning.VDweller said:
'But they had less time'
I know. I don't care. Shitty planning. Making a game in 2 years with a full team is not impossible in any way, you just have to learn to be less ambitious.
They still *chose* to make those games. No one forced them to make those games, and I doubt that they somehow weren't proud of those two games.VDweller said:
Yep. But the world doesn't end after the first title. If they create a succesful second title, they're just as good. You don't need a flagship title to survive, see Obsidian.VDweller said:
Heh, nice false dichotomy. Negotiation and talks are key here, and it is certainly possible for them to say 'We don't release this until the deadline. We have another three months, and it simply isn't done now.'VDweller said:
Will this fuck over their relationship with Lucasarts? Possibly. Will this make sure they publish a much better game and get a much better quality reputation (and hence leverage)? You bet.
Will this fuck over their relationship with future companies? I doubt it. No company is going to be pushed away by 'Hey, they adhere to their contract' which is a shitload better than 'Damn, those people kept missing deadlines'.
VDweller
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Sounds like a tantrum to me. I offered you an explanation. You dismissed it because you don't care and you'd rather stick with your "shitty planning" theory.Sander said:
1.5 years. 18 months original deal, plus a 2-month extension. But you are right, it's not impossible. I'm sure you'd have done a fantastic job there.
When your only option is a short DnD game, and your only choice is which module to pick... As for the pride, I suggest reading some post-release interviews, assuming you have any interest in the subject.
I hope we all agree that Obsidian is a very special case. Feargus' strong ties with Bio developed during BG development, when Bio was a nobody, a small team with an RTS game that later became Baldur's Gate, helped him to land two mega-hit, super hot licenses - a Star Wars KOTOR license and DnD NWN license. And now the Aliens license. It simply doesn't get any better than that for a startup.
Troika went a different way. They crafted an original game, which is always a black-n-white, life-or-death scenario. Had it been a successful [enough to warrant a sequel] title, things would have been different. The sad thing is it could have been if Sierra didn't fuck things up. After that, it was a free fall.
ToEE couldn't have been a great game, not with 1.5 years development cycle. Surprisingly enough, it did very well and even outsold both overhyped NWN expansions. It was Atari's best selling PC game that year. Unfortunately, Atari decided not to make another module - Against the Giants was frequently mentioned, to avoid competing with its other DnD products, and so Troika had to seek its fortune elsewhere. Again, instead of developing and growing strong on their own IP, they were completely at the mercy and whim of publishers.
If you agree with me, why claiming "false dichotomy"? KOTOR 2 sold very well through the holiday season, making LA happy. It got 86% combined reviews score, which also pleased LA, so it was a 100% correct business move. Sure, it was an unfinished and unpolished game, but who cares? Certainly not Lucas Arts.
And the same is true for you from my point of view. You'd rather stick it all on the publisher, while neglecting the fact that Troika's the one who was actually making the game.VDweller said:
The 'I don't care' remark was not one meant to imply that I'm ignoring arguments, but that those arguments are insignificant in impact compared to my arguments.
Ah yes, 'you would've done much better'. Good job going for the insults instead of the actual argument, there, VD.VDweller said:
Here's a thought: it's not about whether I or anyone else would've done better, I'm not insulting the Troika people nor calling them incompetent and whatnot. I'm simply noting that they fell prey to a mistake: they planned poorly and too ambitiously/unrealistically. So far you haven't been able to refute that.
They were always at the mercy and whim of publishers, and most game companies are. My point never was that they weren't.VDweller said:
Now here's the essence of my argument:
Did the publishers fuck over Troika a few times? Yes. Does this mean that Troika is suddenly absolvent from all blame and did not create buggy, somewhat unfinished games? No. They *are* at least in part to blame for their own buggy games, and hence in part for their own demise.
Do you know what a false dichotomy is? It's the suggestion that there are only two possible options. In this case you suggested that they could either fuck over Lucasarts and ruining your own reputation everywhere for ever and ever, or go along with it and live happily ever after.VDweller said:
As I explained, that's a false dichotomy since the third choice is going about this properly, possibly soiling the reputation with Lucasarts (and not even that if the game turns out to be succesful) but still leaving tons of room for good relationships with most other companies.
This is a neat soundbite, but not a correct one. The general consensus, including in the press, was that it was unpolished and incomplete and that that showed. They probably would've gotten better results and certainly a better reputation for good games that sell well had they polished the game first. The fact that one scenario turned out good does not mean another scenario doesn't turn out much better.VDweller said:
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
VDweller said:
We'll only know what kind of business move it was once they try to publish KOTOR 3.
To call the game "unfinished and unpolished" is something of an understatement, given that a significant portion of the end-game was actually missing. I felt absolutely cheated by the fact that there were palpable cuts to the final game, and they certainly didn't go unnoticed by the reviewers. This kind of thing poisons the word-of-mouth, compromises your reputation, and utlimately, who knows what effect it had on sales?
That score of 86% percent, and their profit margins, might have been much better with a slight delay.
Sander said:
That is the essence of it. You can't fault their ambition, but they seem to have lacked the necessary pragmatism to make compromises. It is a great shame that they couldn't deliver their completed vision and sell units, but perhaps it also helps to highlight why so many companies lurch (too far) towards populism and conservatism when designing games.
Seraphim Pwns U
It Wandered In From the Wastes
AlteredEgo said:
That's an interesting read. I wish I had read that yesterday, as my cousin was asking me how much video game makers make, and how much it costs to make one... so I went through the list of every positiion I could think of, wrote down any wages I knew offhand (and guesstimated the rest), and took some (uninformed) guesses on actual development costs... looks like the latter wound up being pretty close.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
AlteredEgo said:
That leads to some pretty embarrassing moments, like the story between Interplay and Bioware on the original NWN and again Interplay and Shiny on the Matrix game, before both licenses were traded to other publishers. Someone should make a book on that someday.
Interplay? Matrix game? Wha'?
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
Oh yeah baby
Elaborate, pls.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
That is something for someone to write a book, as I've said 
AlteredEgo said:
Ugh.. Reading lawyer-speak gives me a headache.
It seems like Spark should have had more lawyers review the contract. Activision seemed to have complete control over them, which sucks. Using words like "reasonable" is just plain dumb. Who's definition of the word "reasonable" are they going to use? Webster's? I'm pretty sure "reasonable" is any time between 5 seconds and 5 eons, depending on the relativity.
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
Makagulfazel said:
Reasonable is a pretty standard legal term:
Reasonable (Adj) Reasonable is used to represent the near equality of the action or activities taking in to consideration the prevailing circumstances at the time of the event. Reasonableness is time and circumstances conscious. Hence reasonableness will change when situation change. (According to Legal-Explanations.com.)
Reasonable
Definition - adj
1 a : being in accordance with reason, fairness, duty, or prudence
b : of an appropriate degree or kind. (According to Lawyers.com
So reasonable is obviously the term which provides the basis for either party to prove that they or the other party have satisfied their contractual obligations - or not - in the case of a dispute. The alternative would, presumably, be to draw up contracts in absolute terms, but that would lead to situations where no judgement could be exercised with fairness in mind - there would only be the absolute letter of the contract.
I'm told by friends who work in commercial law that most contracts are pretty meaningless, beyond providing the necessary environment for the fight - after that, it becomes a case of who has the best legal representatives.