Tyranny - Is the Future Strategy?

PCGamesN reports on the future of the Tyranny IP and think it could end up being a strategy game.

...
Reasonable though that might be, it means Obsidian aren’t steering the future of the world they made. If the developers never hash out another deal with Paradox, they’ll never work on Tyranny again. The publishers, meanwhile, don’t yet have any concrete plans to make a Tyranny 2, either internally or with another studio.

“We could do more in that world [but] we haven’t really decided what to do with that IP,” Wester says. “We’ll see where we end up.”

Tyranny might end up in another genre entirely. The game was set in the ugly aftermath of a war, and its opening Conquest Mode had you define the consequences of that conflict on an overworld map using miniatures. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine one of Paradox’s internal teams - the ones behind Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis - running with that premise as a fully-fledged game.

[...]

Click to expand...

More information.

No just no some things should never be imagined.

Sadly Obsidian and Paradox will probably never work together. Seems theirs to much bad blood over various issues during Tyranny's development,and after its release.

Two major problems were lack of advertising, and poor sales.

Link - https://www.pcgamesn.com/tyranny/tyranny-sales-paradox-obsidian

“The game’s really solid, it still has a lot of interest,” Wester expands. “A lot of people are still on the fence to buy it. I think we will see a long tail on that game with people coming in and playing later on as well. But it didn’t really meet the expectations we set for it initially, no.”

For their part, Obsidian add: “We're very happy that we've made an incredibly deep and unique RPG that players adore, and that while a better reception in the market during a packed holiday season would have been great, we think it's the kind of game that has legs and can do great over time.”

Next question, then: why didn't Tyranny meet expectations? Wester points to a tough launch window in November - a month in which other great games, including Ubisoft’s Watch Dogs 2, struggled to punch through the pre-Christmas noise. Jorjani thinks Tyranny’s timing issue goes much broader, arguing that the appetite for ‘90s style RPGs has already been somewhat sated through crowdfunding.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the alleged misuse of Tyranny funds to finish PoE?

Still, while they may never work the usual way again, I though the same Paradox Studio that did the PoE console port is doing the Deadfire one, too.

In the end, while Paradox would certainly not make a Tyranny 2 themselves (while they seem to have the IP itself, most of the tech is probably Obsidians), and they could go with a strategy game instead, to inject some flavour to their usual offerings, why bother with this IP, really? It's not like there's much recognition, unless they could rope in Avellone somehow.

poe is trash imo.
tyranny is x2 and couldve been great with that bit of polish and attention
it didnt meet the expectations 1 poor marketing, it wasnt sold for what it was and that backfired.
2 the gameplay couldve used turn based
3 not enough control over your own fate - scripting

It's a bit ironic that they would consider turning it into a strategy game. After all one major flaw was the very small scale of the game -at least if you consider what is actually taking place on screen, small maps, party of 4, skirmishes... The actual game never lived up to the epic scale of its narrative prologue which was really unfortunate.

Polyester said:

Not to mention the alleged misuse of Tyranny funds to finish PoE?

Still, while they may never work the usual way again, I though the same Paradox Studio that did the PoE console port is doing the Deadfire one, too.

Click to expand...

They are.

I fail to see why Obsidian isn't getting along with Paradox just because they went with another company to help publish POE2. Business decisions have nothing to do with feelings, it's all about money.

Also, misuse of found? If that had happened, Paradox would have sued Obsidian over it by now.

azarhal said:

I fail to see why Obsidian isn't getting along with Paradox just because they went with another company to help publish POE2. Business decisions have nothing to do with feelings, it's all about money.

Click to expand...

Yep as I said above Tyranny did not sell well, and Obsidian doesn't handle publishers well. Anyway porting and distribution is different then publishing a game.

azarhal said:

Also, misuse of found? If that had happened, Paradox would have sued Obsidian over it by now.

Click to expand...

Chris Avellone claims Feargus Urquhart mishandled funds and lied to Pardox. So who knows just one mans opinion really. Just read his breakdown on the Codex.

Couchpotato said:

Chris Avellone claims Feargus Urquhart mishandled funds and lied to Pardox. So who knows just one mans opinion really. Just read his breakdown on the Codex.

Click to expand...

I guessed it was some drivel from MCA, the guy is on a crusade to destroy Obsidian. But like I said, if that had truly happened, Paradox would have sued them, they love lawsuits.

A blend of Tyranny with the Fantasy General game engine could be fun, but I'm not sure how well it would work for today's generation of "gamers".

azarhal said:

They are.

I fail to see why Obsidian isn't getting along with Paradox just because they went with another company to help publish POE2. Business decisions have nothing to do with feelings, it's all about money.

Also, misuse of found? If that had happened, Paradox would have sued Obsidian over it by now.

Click to expand...

I thought it was an internal Paradox Studio. Raises the question why are they porting it since they are not publishing. Doesn't look like a great business decision.

azarhal said:

I guessed it was some drivel from MCA, the guy is on a crusade to destroy Obsidian. But like I said, if that had truly happened, Paradox would have sued them, they love lawsuits.

Click to expand...

Over the alleged misuse of funds, I'm certain Obsidian didn't advertise it to their publisher. Probably is a news to them? Avellone also claimed Paradox were not happy with his revelations and were in contact with him on future action, so legal action might happen still

However, there certainly was that interview with some people at Paradox round the time (or just before) the Tyranny DLC were announced, saying they were neither happy with the game, nor how it performed. For me, coupled with Deadfire going with a different publisher speaks volumes on how their current relations are.

Polyester said:

I thought it was an internal Paradox Studio. Raises the question why are they porting it since they are not publishing. Doesn't look like a great business decision.

Over the alleged misuse of funds, I'm certain Obsidian didn't advertise it to their publisher. Probably is a news to them? Avellone also claimed Paradox were not happy with his revelations and were in contact with him on future action, so legal action might happen still

Click to expand...

It's Paradox Interactive Arctic Studio that does the console port for Deadfire.

Obsidian and Paradox are still working together. It's not weird, it just mean the stuff some people are saying about them not getting along is way overblown or untrue.

As for the alleged misuse of funds, Avellone left Obsidian in June 2015, either Paradox did nothing in 3 years or Avellone waited ~3 years before giving them a call about it…

Polyester said:

However, there certainly was that interview with some people at Paradox round the time (or just before) the Tyranny DLC were announced, saying they were neither happy with the game, nor how it performed. For me, coupled with Deadfire going with a different publisher speaks volumes on how their current relations are.

Click to expand...

Paradox failed to market Tyranny, nobody should be surprised it sold like crap just based on that (it wasn't a financial lost by the way). It's also 100% Paradox's fault.

As for Deadfire, after the first game success, why wouldn't Paradox ask for a bigger cut or even owning the IP? There is many business reasons as to why Obsidian changed for Versus Evil. It doesn't have to be "bad relations".

From what I've been told in the good vs evil story of developer / publisher relationship management, publishers normally pay for milestones. These are based on estimations about the effort needed. And publishers only pay if they approve the milestone. Normally they don't care that much if the dev needs more or less designers to achieve that goal. It's the result that counts.

Normally that's the point when everybody laments how publishers force poor developers into insolvency by simply refusing to pay for milestones and how often devs have to invest their own money to keep the project running. In this case Obsidian suddenly is the bad guy because they found a way to transfer ressources. But in the end, Paradox approved all milestones and published that game. That means, from Paradox' perspective Obsidian achieved all goals necessary. That's simple economy. Devs don't want to die a beautiful death.

There a are always people who want to be perfect. But sometimes they are also the only one's who think that's important. They are not always right just because "perfection" sounds better than "good enough".

borcanu said:

2 the gameplay couldve used turn based

Click to expand...

The product should have been UgoIgo as there is no market for RTwP. A RTwP market requires enough players with the skillsets to play RTwP. Not the case at the moment.

Daedalic Entertainment should sue the wretched band of roaches in Obsidian for stealing much of the Blackguards lore, world design, art direction and atmosphere and putting it into their lame Tyranny!!