[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]…Consequently, the quality and sub-genre of RPGs has taken a turn for the worse. I’m not saying Dark Alliance 2 is a bad game (it’s a great example of the Action/RPG sub-genre and ironically enough, developed by similar PC RPG developers to the guys working on Fallout 3 before Interplay fired them all shortly before Christmas)…
Games like Fallout for the PC will earn acclaim far and wide, but they won’t earn the huge revenue mindless hack and slash orientated RPGs would for the console market. The end result is big companies not developing them. I think Fallout 1&2 sold 400 000 copies each over a 4 year period. Now compare that to Dark Alliance which sold over a million copies in the first year alone, and voila, we can say goodbye to the Fallout universe.[/quote]
I’ll take this one point at a time.
Sure, BG: Dark Alliance sold well, and that’s why there’s a sequel, and 2 “clones” (D&D Heroes, and EQ: Champions of Norrath). But, BG is the only one of all of those to sell well.
And saying that all console games are “hack and slash” is a very over-simplified thing to say. How do you qualify that beyond BG:DA? There are a ton of non-hack and slash RPGs on the market that sell well. Xenosaga, Suikoden, FF, etc. all sell well, though they are not PCRPG style games.
And games like Fallout (i.e. KOTOR) are doing very well on the console nowadays. KOTOR is the second-best selling RPG on the market, I believe. And that is a very PC-like RPG. Or Morrowind. A straight-up port of a PC RPG that has sold very respectably on the Xbox.
Also, comparing console sales to PC sales is like comparing apples and oranges. The business model is completely different, plain and simple.
Besides, I have no idea where you are getting your sales numbers from. BG:DA has sold nowhere near that amount. Even when combining sales across all three platforms…
But, if you’re going to bring up sales numbers for different markets, you have to take into consideration the business model for each. Especially on consoles, you have to take into consideration licensing fees to first parties, dev kits, R&D for each specific console, cost of the media, etc. before you can even start to think of a profit. PC development has very little of any of that, but on the flip side, there is hell to pay with QA. The reason why a lot of developers enjoy developing on console vs. PC is not only because the market is bigger… it’s a more stable environment. They don’t have to worry about keeping up with the latest and greatest hardware, all the while making sure their games are compatible with the last three generations of hardware, in over 100 different configurations.
Regardless, you’re the one who brought up monetary greed as the primary motivation to move to console, and how that was causing the downfall of the PCRPG. I was merely pointing out that there are different reasons to move to console, and that console was quickly becoming more accepting of PC-style RPG games.
It just seems as if more and more people prefer playing games in the same vein as Dark Alliance than Fallout. Why? If gamers aren’t buying whatever everyone else is, then a simpler sub-genre of RPGs becomes the object of a casual gamer’s desire.
But BioWare started out developing RPGs for the PC (as in their first RPGs were developed for the PC – I’ve never played MDK). Of course the type of RPGs they develop for a console will mirror their previous work. The way I see it, console owners had been deprived of the type of RPGs PC gamers have been enjoying for years. However, BioWare adjusted the balance between focusing on the main story in KOTOR and providing additional sidequests that created the illusion of a non-linear game to please both PC and console audiences. It was more of a hybrid of traditional console and PC RPGs than anything else.
Morrowind was good but it also filled a void in the Xbox’s library of games at the time of its release: that being good RPGs. Perhaps KOTOR benefited from this void to an extent too.
My figures come from the Interplay message boards where many people seem to be on the side that supports abandoning the development of PC RPGs in favour of developing console RPGs because developing RPGs for the PC market is no longer profitable, or not as profitable as developing consoles titles. And to think, Interplay cancelled Fallout 3 halfway through its development in order to focus on developing less costly console games such as Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (which according to almost every review in existence is a poor excuse of a futuristic Dark Alliance clone) that are supposedly predestined to sell hundreds of thousands of copies. Fallout: BOS is set for disaster and I bet those 400 000+ copies Fallout 3 would’ve sold within the first month of its release seem appealing to Interplay at the moment. I can’t say I like the direction the company is going in.
The reason the PC RPG developers at Black Isle Studios were made redundent was because Interplay wanted to focus on developing console games. I don’t suppose developers can afford to ignore the console market now. Blizzard has roots in console gaming but has developed a number of excellent titles for the PC in recents that have sold phenomenonally well (Starcraft has sold something like 7 million copies and the recent Warcraft 3 sold over 3 million copies), and yet Starcraft: Ghost is being developed for a console market that hasn’t even heard of the original game. Money is the primary motivation.
Well, sure. RPGs have never been mainstream. Even on PC. More action-oriented titles will, by and large, sell more units both on PC and console. And remember, BG:DA didn’t originate that type of gameplay. That, my friend, belongs to Diablo, a PC title that sold MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of copies. BG:DA is basically a clone of Diablo with controls reworked to better fit a console controller.
But, even though Diablo and Diablo 2 have sold so well, and that action-RPG hybrids aren’t something new, have we seen RPGs disappear off the face of the planet? I think not.
But, your whole point was that PCRPGs are becoming extinct in favor of more action-oriented games. I brought up KOTOR as an example of areas where PC-style RPGs are expanding into new markets. Oh, and KOTOR is no hybrid. Sure, it’s been slightly modified to work better with a controller, but sidequests being a console-specific thing? That’s actually more of a PCRPG thing that made its way to consoles.
Either way, it did nearly revolutionary things with the way it told its story. It gave a voice to the player (allowing players to select the types of responses they wanted to give, in the tone they wanted to portray), allowed for interchangeable NPCs that were actually involved in the story, etc.
Sure, it filled a void, but just because it fills a void, doesn’t guarantee success. Games that just don’t mesh with the current market’s tastes will sell badly, regardless.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet ;). BG:DA has sold well, no doubt, but nowhere near a million.
I got news for you: developing the majority of games is no longer profitable. It’s not just PC developers that are hurting, it’s the console developers as well. The market is over-saturated with titles, and not enough ways for each to distinguish themselves (and the market has such a narrow demographic that it’s difficult to stray too far from the norm without completely alienating your demographic).
This is less of an indication that PCRPGs are no longer valid, as it is an indication of bad business choices Abandoning successful brands is hardly ever a good idea. Personally, and I don’t know for a fact so this is just speculation, I think there was probably more going on to this situation than simply a refocusing on console. There was probably a lot of politics that got in the way, or trouble within the development teams.
Blizzard is not giving up on PC development, just because it is making a console game. I have news for you: in the business world, if you’re not expanding, you’re dead in the water. Your stocks stagnate, and investors get worried. When they get too worried, they pull out. You lose money. Then, eventually, you go bankrupt. This isn’t a game industry specific fact, but a worldwide fact of a capitalist economy. Why is it wrong for Blizzard to attempt to get a share of the console market? They’re one of the most recognized and successful developers in the world, yet they have no games on console. It only seems natural that they would do so. And the fact that they’re bringing the Starcraft brand to console gives them a good start (it’s much better than coming in with a brand new title with no recognition). Money is the primary motivation? In business, when is money NOT the primary motivation? In some cases, it may be the only motivation, but that is rarely the case. Just because you have a financial motivation doesn’t make you greedy. It means you are running a business. And businesses need to make money to continue to operate, pay its employees, etc.
I really don’t know what to expect now from the games industry, as a whole. Every single one of my favourite series of RPGs is either dead or dying (Shining Force, Fallout etc), forcing me to move onto unfamiliar territory. More PC RPGs are becoming online multiplayer games and there’s a drought of good single player PC RPGs at the moment. I don’t see any light at the end of this long dark tunnel.
Blizzard has roots in console gaming but has developed a number of excellent titles for the PC in recents that have sold phenomenonally well (Starcraft has sold something like 7 million copies and the recent Warcraft 3 sold over 3 million copies), and yet Starcraft: Ghost is being developed for a console market that hasn’t even heard of the original game. Money is the primary motivation.
Starcraft sold around 8 million… And last night had 158,000 people playing at one point, as opposed to about 50,000 people playing WCIII. I think that Blizzard is probably thinking that the style of game that SC: Ghost is will appeal more to console players, since most PC players who are fans of SC would prefer an RTS, right?
Abandoning successful brands is hardly ever a good idea. Personally, and I don’t know for a fact so this is just speculation, I think there was probably more going on to this situation than simply a refocusing on console. There was probably a lot of politics that got in the way, or trouble within the development teams.