Comparing RPGs to strategy games is way off - it's not the same audience. There has yet to be a major success for a turnbased RPG and I just don't think there ever will be. In fact, even Fallout was hardly profitable back in the days. If Bethesda is going to make any money at all from this, and that is their goal I assume, Fallout 3 probably has to sell ten times what Fallout 2 did (Fallout 2 sold about 80.000 copies in the US the first year, Fallout 3 will probably sell 800.000+). It took years before the Fallouts reached a decent sales number, and most of those were bought out of the bargain bin, at a very cheap price.
Ok assuming your numbers are correct, then why the hell did Bethsoft bother spending all that money on a non-profitable franchise albeit revered as a cult game over the years. Fallout might not have been a huge seller, a mere niche game for a handful of hardcore tb crpg fans but it's THAT Fallout that became a cult game.
I truly don't understand Bethsoft, why spend so much money to buy a franchise that hasn't sold so much ? Don't forget that on top of the price of the franchise you have to add development costs. Are they hoping they can turn that franchise into a best seller to a larger range of gamers by changing its basic formula? But if they're aiming for new players why bother buying the Fallout franchise these players merely know "Fallout" anyway. I know these gamers, they're all the friends I talked about Fallout 1 and 2 and lent my CDs so they can try it out only to have the CDs back two days later telling me "the graphics suck, the begining of the game was so boring, killing rats/ants omfg I couldn't be bothered to continue past that, take back your crappy game".
To that crowd, making their own post-apoc game would have worked wonders. Rename "vaults" with "bunkers", PiPboy with "digifriend" and there you have your own tricks, you can keep the generic "mutants" and "zombies" without fear of legal disputes.
Now since buying the Fallout franchise and bothering to make a new one doesn't commercially et mathematically make sense, Bethsoft are telling us "we did it because we love Fallout", what Fallout do you love? The orginal Fallout? So the fact it was isometric, tb, and all that didn't bother you didn't it? You still loved it? If you loved THAT Fallout so much then why be so eager to totally change its gameplay?
I don't get it, to me it sounds more logical to make your own post apoc sci-fi game, less hassle, more freedom, and no worries about angering a handful of nostalgic Fallout fans. "By the developer of Oblivion" would have been enough to sell a lot anyway, Bethsoft doesn't need the "Fallout" name to make a commercially successful and hyped about game.
Or you make a Fallout sequel, and stay true to the series, Fallout isn't just the setting and the atmosphere, and from all I've seen in the previews the only thing Bethsoft is trying to keep from the original Fallout is that atmosphere "retro sci fi post apoc gore but humorous feel" while scraping the rest, and yet even in that regard, judging from the very blunt and generic look of the mutants as opposed to the grotesque cartoonish mutants of Fallout 2 they don't seem on the right path of truly capturing the Fallout feel.
Oh they're also telling us we're staying true to Fallout becasue we're putting a lot of "choice and consequence" and "deep and meaningful dialogues", ok Fallout had that, but that's not something specific to Fallout. ANY and ALL RPGs MUST have choice and consequence and deep/meaningful dialogues otherwise you're not playing a "role" anymore, you're a spectator of prewritten story a la Half Life/FEAR/FarCry etc... sorry if you failed to understand that when you made Oblivion. So just because you're improving that aspect doesn't mean you're suddenly doing a Fallout sequel.
They're also filling us with the PR crap that "we're keeping SPECIAL" what's special ? Special isn't just about having 7 stats called "Strength, Perception, etc" it's about how these stats interact and affect your play through. These stats and their effect played a huge part in making Fallout replayable. You could either choose in spending 10 points in agility and thus having lots of action points during combat or you could choose to spend those precious points in luck charisma and intelligence instead and be more effective in the non combat areas of the game to the extreme of avoiding most fights altogether.
So okay you kept the name and the numbers of stats as in "SPECIAL"... so what? That's not it, that's not why SPECIAL was so important, it's not because the first letter of each stat made a word that it was important. I have yet to see HOW they'll implement it in their Fallout. I fail to see how much they can fully make it affect the gameplay of an FPS game. How can perception affect your chance to hit with ranged weapons anymore when it's player's skill to place his mouse over the enemy that matters. How can agility be such an important part of action when VATS is -as described in the previews- an optional extra tool at best to help you make the difference in tough battles.
How can intelligence still be meaningful when it doesn't change the number of answers available in conversations (as written in one of those previews)?
The closest thing to "skill affecting twich gameplay" I know/played is Deus Ex, so Fallout 3 is going to be a Deus Ex clone? Ok fine, it was a great game, but Deux Ex definitely was NOT Fallout so again why bother make a Fallout sequel when what you're aiming for is a Deus Ex with less linearity and more RPG aspects. Again, the way Bethsoft seems to be making Fallout 3 doesn't explain WHY they bothered to do a Fallout sequel instead of creating their own post-apoc IP.