Pillars of Eternity II - Beast of Winter Released

The fundamental question is whether developers should be punished for having ambitious plans to improve their games, which is what's happening right now with Deadfire.

If Obsidian shuts down in the next couple years, which is a very real possibility if this is any indication of future sales, then this consumer mentality will be partially to blame.

I don't entirely disagree, and I paid a whole lot for PoE2 physical collectors edition + "season pass", even though I won't be playing the game until next year. So I've got that covered personally, but I don't blame other people for not being willing to pay more for a game they can't realistically play until next year because it won't be complete until then.

Piecemeal delivery of single-player games is just a shitty trend. Adding onto games is great but other than fixing bugs/balance issues and minor quality-of-life improvements, stuff (meaning game content) should generally be added to the end, not the middle or the entire game. Current situation is that if you buy a game at release you're paying extra to play an incomplete beta version of the game. Sure, some guy did decide to declare the game "released" but that's kind of a meaningless distinction when you get right down to it.

Well, if developers keep shooting themselves in the foot by actively telling people that the game they release will absolutely NOT be the full version - or the complete version - then I have little sympathy for them if gamers decide to hold off.

Except, not exactly true. I mean, the actual developers who sit there and develop the game would maybe prefer another less obscenely monetizing approach - but they clearly don't call the shots.

That said, this is the new industry norm. It's not an Obsidian thing.

The suits are just doing what we've enabled them to do. I mean, they're suits - that's pretty much their job description.

I don't blame them for doing their job. To me, it's more of a problem that the Western world is ok with this kind of anti-art and anti-consumer approach - but that's hardly news.

Personally, I just buy what I think is worth my money. Sometimes, I'm in the mood for a certain kind of game "right now" - and so I conveniently forget this modern DLC approach.

But, I think I'm slowly reaching the point where I'll start holding off - even for games that I really, really want to play.

If that means less stuff in the future, then that's a good thing. That would mean our voice is being heard.

From that point, things will automatically change - because there will always be passionate developers out there - and suits will always follow the money.

We just have to show them the way, and I'm ok with waiting a few years for them to wise up - where we might see a little drought. But that's not usually how things work. Things wax and wane in a much more subtle way - and it's more about degrees.

Monetizing paradigms don't shift overnight - so I very much doubt Obsidian will be in trouble if we don't support this consumer exploit.

That said, it's likely to get much worse before people get sufficiently sick of it. As we see in this thread, there will always be blind fans who will support everything done by those even just peripherally involved with making something they love.

Darth Tagnan said:

That said, this is the new industry norm. It's not an Obsidian thing.

Click to expand...

Well, the games most similar to PoE, in terms of gameplay/budget/target audience, are probably D:OS1/D:OS2 (Larian) and W2/T:ToN (inXile). None of those games had any DLCs or expansions. 3 of them did/will have "Enhanced Editions", but that's kind of a different thing entirely. (Though it also contributes to "waiting to play"...)

Stingray said:

Well, the games most similar to PoE, in terms of gameplay/budget/target audience, are probably D:OS1/D:OS2 (Larian) and W2/T:ToN (inXile). None of those games had any DLCs or expansions. 3 of them did/will have "Enhanced Editions", but that's kind of a different thing entirely. (Though it also contributes to "waiting to play"…)

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the industry - and not this specific subgenre.

A norm doesn't mean everyone is doing it in the same way. The norm means it's the norm.

The whole season pass/DLC planning ahead in public from around release thing is quite recent.

Also, remember that Obsidian is a developer much more rooted in the traditional publisher/greed model. They've always been contract workers doing what makes a buck.

Well, from my point of view - but, then again, I'm not a big fan of theirs.

It's only recently they've been doing their own thing.

Stingray said:

Sure, some guy did decide to declare the game "released" but that's kind of a meaningless distinction when you get right down to it.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't meaningless. The game was released because it was fully playable and worth $50, even without additional post-release content. You can't compare it to an early access title which is only worth the full price later down the road.

This is a case of a developer taking an already great game that's worth the full price, and making it an even better game with their newly acquired sales.

And no, I don't prefer the "good old days" when developers charged you $30 to add half a game on top of the base game. As much as I love Tribunal and Mask of the Betrayer, they could of been so much more if they were weren't just an expansion.

Mid-game expansions are not a new concept by the way

- Bloodmoon
- Tales of the Sword Coast
- Night of the Raven
- Heart of Winter
- Forge of Virtue
- Silver Seed
- ect.

The solo OCD defense brigade is Johnny-on-the-spot.

Silver Coin said:

That's the reality though, isn't it? You can say that you don't care about supporting Obsidian, but given how poorly the game sold they need all the support they can get.

Click to expand...

Silver Coin said:

The fundamental question is whether developers should be punished for having ambitious plans to improve their games, which is what's happening right now with Deadfire.

If Obsidian shuts down in the next couple years, which is a very real possibility if this is any indication of future sales, then this consumer mentality will be partially to blame.

Click to expand...

First, PoE2 is funded by FIG so saying that Obsidian didn't get support from players is bs statement.

Second, why should gamers support developers by purchasing "unfinished" or "inferior" goods? Personally, I will make a purchase even before all DLCs/patches are released if the game interests me enough in first place. I hate the DLC approach (especially when DLC itself is broken into parts like White March) and much prefer expansion approach, but hey, I accepted that expansions are gone.

I get that you are blind Obsidian/Deadfire fan boy, but not everyone else is

purpleblob said:

First, PoE2 is funded by FIG so saying that Obsidian didn't get support from players is bs statement.

Click to expand...

Backer money doesn't cover all of the expenses. They still need to sell copies to non-backers in order to turn a profit.

Second, why should gamers support developers by purchasing "unfinished" or "inferior" goods?

Click to expand...

Because people need to purchase the game for the developers to justify the cost of supporting it after release. It's a simple concept.

Silver Coin said:

Backer money doesn't cover all of the expenses. They still need to sell copies to non-backers in order to turn a profit.

Because people need to purchase the game for the developers to justify the cost of supporting it after release. It's a simple concept.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of other developers that doesn't even use crowdfunding AND providing post release support.

You don't seem to get it, but I support whoever produce games worthy in my opinion. Simple as that. Obsidian isn't one of them at this point.

Look, it's not rocket science. When a developer continues to improve a game that's already worth the full price, they should be rewarded instead of punished. This is known as ethical consumerism.

If you don't want to support Obsidian, that's fine, but many people waiting for the complete edition would be very sad if they went bankrupt. They would have themselves to blame for not supporting them at the time it really matters - at release.

Silver Coin said:

Look, it's not rocket science. When a developer continues to improve a game that's already worth the full price, they should be rewarded instead of punished.

This is known as ethical consumerism.

Click to expand...

And who decides whether the game is "worth" it? Individual gamers. Not *you*. So get that into your head. It's simple, not a rocket science.

I bought the game and season pass, but I'm not playing it until they finish adding the DLC.

I think this still damages their sales though. People like me would normally be contributing to an enthusiastic buzz around the game (like Silver Coin), which presumably increases sales, whereas you can tell from this thread that a lot of fans are still waiting to play it. The reduced buzz from fans still waiting to play game can't be helping sales with those who are undecided/fence sitters etc.

I'm not sure what the answer is (there's some good points both ways in this thread), but I do think it's a shame that their release strategy seems to be harming sales. Personally I'd rather a return to DLC that adds content after the main campaign, but yeah those days seem to be gone.

Silver Coin said:

Mid-game expansions are not a new concept by the way

- Bloodmoon
- Tales of the Sword Coast
- Night of the Raven
- Heart of Winter
- Forge of Virtue
- Silver Seed
- ect.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is claiming that mid-game expansions are a new concept. However, there's a significant difference between how they're being handled now and the examples you give.

Those expansions typically came out the following year and weren't announced until well after the main game had been released.

Now we've got companies advertising multiple DLC and a season pass before the main game has even hit the market.

So developers shouldn't announce their plans until long after release? I disagree.

They can do whatever they want. But starting out by telling players that they can either start now and miss out on half the game, or wait a little and get the full experience - is perhaps not the optimal strategy.

Well, unless you're blind to reality, of course.

Back in the day, expansions were usually released at least a year post-launch - and players weren't aware of them. That made it a lot more appealing to play the released version.

Also, expansions weren't necessarily planned before launch - and in fact I'd say that was relatively rare.

So, the launched game tended to be the intended vision of the full experience - with the expansion intended as entirely separate areas and weren't integrated into the main experience to the degree we're seeing now.

Of course, if you like to experience half a game - and then get piecemeal additions that you may or may not bother with, because you've exhausted yourself - then that's another story.

I agree that it's not the most optimal marketing strategy, but that doesn't change the fact that developers shouldn't be punished for improving their games after release.

It's simple. They released a great game - They continue to make the game better - Fans refuse to buy the game until they're done improving it - Developers sink money.

It's bullshit, and you all know it.

Silver Coin said:

So developers shouldn't announce their plans until long after release? I disagree.

Click to expand...

Having content planned and ready for release a couple of weeks after release doesn't give that new content sufficient spotlight, because people are still yet to discover the base game. You have to get people anticipating your product. Absense makes the heart grow fonder and fondness is built from a good initial experience.

People are holding off so there is no chatter about your game so no fondness for DLC announced in the blur of the release announcement. It makes all of this a non-event. Developers need to learn to tease these DLC announcements out and make us anticipate it some.

Silver Coin said:

I agree that it's not the most optimal marketing strategy, but that doesn't change the fact that developers shouldn't be punished for improving their games after release.

It's simple. They released a great game - They continue to make the game better - Fans refuse to buy the game until they're done improving it - Developers sink money.

It's bullshit, and you all know it.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this concept of "punishment" and "reward" within this context.

If you don't have an appealing marketing strategy, then I don't understand why anyone should pretend it's appealing.

To me, that would be deceitful and counter to the consumer.

Being the consumer, that makes little sense to me.

But there's no reason to confuse issues because you're such a massive fan of the game.

There's the game and there's the marketing strategy. They're not necessarily Conjoined twins.

One can be great and the other can be awful. I'd say it's up to the individual consumer to decide the best response.

For my part, I don't think it's bullshit to use my brain a little. But I can see how some might disagree - as emotionally charged blindness can be of great comfort.