Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

For all Bard's Tale IV discussion that does not fit elsewhere, suggestions, feedback, etc. No spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Bard Hall Bouncers

waltc
Scholar
Posts: 119
Joined: July 1st, 2015, 11:51 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by waltc » September 23rd, 2015, 12:36 pm

thebruce wrote:
Consoles are for--not knowledgeable people--
Um, you have a very low opinion of the console market, and the fact that you're essentially denegrating an ENORMOUS gaming market is frankly a little absurd.

Yes, consoles have weaknesses, as do PCs.
I'm not that much of a gamer (gettin' old and busy!), but I realized the benefit to owning a console many years ago, and I was all about PC gaming. It's a different gaming experience, definitely not lesser, objectively speaking.
(Before I get into this peaceable instruction...;)--let me say, wow, love the new BTIV web site! It's great to see it!)

I think you've missed my point, really...;) I was simply reiterating that today--xb1 & PS4--are PCs. There really aren't any non-x86, custom-hardware boxes made anymore. AMD makes both the PS4 & xb1, and they are bog-standard x86 PCs--albeit lower-end PCs in terms of gaming hardware. The x86 PC platform has absorbed them all--and I think that's a great thing for gaming in general. Most games from now on will be made for "consoles" & PCs because of it (except for temporary marketing exclusives for both, occasionally.)

The remaining existing problem for current "consoles" is that the hardware is so weak that to get any performance at all out of it the "OSes" that power them (OS really isn't the right word in comparison with something like Windows) must be optimized to the nth degree to even get sub-1080P gaming performance @ ~60 fps (in the case of the xb1)--which is really very much substandard in 2015, imo. The PS4 has a much better GPU than xb1, but it's still weak, comparatively--and the the CPUs for both are very weak in terms of what else is available from AMD x86/64 ( not to mention Intel x86/64.)

What's happened is that economies of scale on the traditional PC side of the hardware house have become so good that now consoles have themselves become x86/64 PCs, and PCs that cost just a little more than the current consoles can be outfitted with hardware that runs rings around the xb1/PS4--again, for very close to the xb1/PS4 asking prices. But it's not just the hardware, either...

The software markets on the PC side of the house are much better...I've got titles going back 30 years + that run great on my Windows 10x64 box...check out Gog.com, for instance. When it comes to games, consolers are frequently asked to pay through the nose comparatively, and for an overall software availability that's an order of magnitude skimpier than the choices available for a Windows PC. So, are PC gamers more discriminating and do they seek games developed to a higher "standard"? Most definitely..:D It's not snobbery, it's just that we know what we like and what that takes in terms of software development. Some developers today, sadly, aren't up to the task--they'll stick to the console market where the profits are easier/higher and the markets are less discriminating in terms of expectations.

Much is made over the "huge" console market--but the fact is that even in a bad year PCs sell at the rate of 30,000,000 per month, month in and month out, consistently--year after year. In only two months, as many PCs will be sold as xb360's were sold in ten years, or more than the PS4 & xB1 have sold since they shipped, combined, etc. If the console market for games is huge, the PC market for games is Giganormous...:D Many PCs aren't used for gaming, of course, whereas all consoles are used for gaming (all they can be used for, really.) But still I would imagine the total installed base of PCs able to run the majority of games available for them is easily 5x-10x higher than the total installed console base. Any developer who sets his sights on the PC market, however, is setting his sights on a far larger market than the console market. However, unlike consoles, which can only be used for gaming, PCs can be used for many things, which means your PC game has got to be good to sell into the millions in short order...;) Simply put, the console market is a captive market for games, the PC market is not.

Anyway...I think that both Microsoft & Sony are missing a golden opportunity to forever substantially change the "console" paradigm. Because both consoles now are x86 PCs internally, there is no reason on earth that the xb1 & the PS4 have to remain stagnant in terms of their hardware for the 6-10-year period console buyers are used to. One of the chief impediments to console game development is that by waiting so artificially long between model releases, general x86 PC hardware (upon which the consoles are now based) proceeds at a much more rapid clip comparatively, meaning that console game development just a couple of years in is already falling way behind the hardware curve so that in order for PC games to be made for current SoA hardware, developers automatically have to choose between leaving the console market out, completely, or else programming for the lowest common denominator--x86 consoles--and tacking on scalable features to whatever degree that they can. Since the consoles are now x86, and no future console ever needs to be incompatible with current consoles, I see little reason that console developers could not put out a new & improved, more powerful console model every 2-3 years, in perpetuity. The rate of hardware change is there for the console market to avail itself of--just like the move to x86 in the first place. There are lots of clever marketing strategies either Microsoft or Sony (or both) could use to facilitate upgrading consoles on that timescale, imo.

Anyway, as the old axiom goes, knowledge is power, and in the 21st century it is also money. Consumers who wish to learn a few basic things--like how to put together an x86 Windows PC from parts they order through Amazon or NewEgg (an exercise rivaling construction of Lego block houses or an hour-long game of Minecraft in both complexity and difficulty) will find that their efforts to learn are suitably rewarded. The more you learn the more it pays.

waltc
Scholar
Posts: 119
Joined: July 1st, 2015, 11:51 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by waltc » September 23rd, 2015, 12:42 pm

Crosmando wrote:That is ridiculous, Bard's Tale series have always been long games with many tens of hours of dungeon crawling. A 10 hour game is an insult whatever genre it is and is not worth even the lowest pledge for a game copy in the BT4 Kickstarter.
Yep, 10 hours is about right for a demo...;)

User avatar
thebruce
Forum Moderator
Posts: 890
Joined: February 17th, 2015, 8:46 am
Contact:

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by thebruce » September 23rd, 2015, 2:27 pm

waltc wrote:I was simply reiterating that today--xb1 & PS4--are PCs.
Technically, they are computers, just like PCs. A console would not generally be considered a "Personal Computer", they're different classes of computer in the home. In common language, if someone says a "PC", they typically are referring to a desktop machine, even though it could literally mean a personally owned and used computer (which could be any size in any location). So, common language, a "PC" isn't a game console or vice versa. But they are both constructed computers, using many of the same parts and brands. But usage context of both machines means they have different specialties and strengths technologically, and practically they are used very differently in the home.
The remaining existing problem for current "consoles" is that the hardware is so weak that to get any performance at all out of it the "OSes" that power them (OS really isn't the right word in comparison with something like Windows) must be optimized to the nth degree to even get sub-1080P gaming performance @ ~60 fps (in the case of the xb1)--which is really very much substandard in 2015, imo.
But again, the context of console use allows this optimization without having to worry about hardware and software variety. A console is universally streamlined to allow developers to eek out a lot more potential than if it were played on a PC of the same spec yet required to play on a much wider range of specs as well. That's widely known as one of the benefits of consoles, even though on average a console is a generation or two behind peak desktop specs.

So yep, a desktop may be able to provide a higher quality gaming experience technologically, but chances are console gamers aren't just playing games to get the highest technological quality from their games. They prefer the context of gaming that makes "console gaming" different from "PC games".
I think that both Microsoft & Sony are missing a golden opportunity to forever substantially change the "console" paradigm.
Microsoft seems to be doing what they can to most unify their desktop and console experiences. They can't change the "where" of people playing games (on the couch vs at the desk), but they are building hardware and software to make the difference as seamless as possible.
Anyway, as the old axiom goes, knowledge is power, and in the 21st century it is also money. Consumers who wish to learn a few basic things--like how to put together an x86 Windows PC from parts they order through Amazon or NewEgg (an exercise rivaling construction of Lego block houses or an hour-long game of Minecraft in both complexity and difficulty) will find that their efforts to learn are suitably rewarded. The more you learn the more it pays.
Of course. But not everyone wants that, or wants to do that. And that's why the (technologically trailing) console market is booming :)
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

User avatar
Lucius
Master
Posts: 2228
Joined: March 9th, 2012, 6:43 pm

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Lucius » September 23rd, 2015, 9:38 pm

@waltc
You make a lot of very solid points and no sane person can truly say consoles are better than PC, since PC's can do anything a console can do, and do it better assuming all other limiting factors are removed (like funds, time, knowledge etc.)

A couple of things I would like to address though.
waltc wrote:The remaining existing problem for current "consoles" is that the hardware is so weak that to get any performance at all out of it the "OSes" that power them (OS really isn't the right word in comparison with something like Windows) must be optimized to the nth degree to even get sub-1080P gaming performance @ ~60 fps (in the case of the xb1)--which is really very much substandard in 2015, imo. The PS4 has a much better GPU than xb1, but it's still weak, comparatively--and the the CPUs for both are very weak in terms of what else is available from AMD x86/64 ( not to mention Intel x86/64.)
These consoles in terms of GPU, are around the level of GTX 660/760. The Nvidia GTX x60 products are the sweet spot for price/performance and are the highest sold of any of their gaming GPUs. Considering consoles are gaming machines, you would think they would aim for a higher baseline, but doing so would either cut into margins or price them out of the market.
Much is made over the "huge" console market--but the fact is that even in a bad year PCs sell at the rate of 30,000,000 per month, month in and month out, consistently--year after year. In only two months, as many PCs will be sold as xb360's were sold in ten years, or more than the PS4 & xB1 have sold since they shipped, combined, etc. If the console market for games is huge, the PC market for games is Giganormous...:D Many PCs aren't used for gaming, of course, whereas all consoles are used for gaming (all they can be used for, really.) But still I would imagine the total installed base of PCs able to run the majority of games available for them is easily 5x-10x higher than the total installed console base. Any developer who sets his sights on the PC market, however, is setting his sights on a far larger market than the console market.
For sake of argument, I'm going to assume your figures are in the ballpark correct, because it's late I don't feel like looking it up. Like you said though, Out of all those PCs sold, not all are used for gaming. The PC market for gaming is not "Giganormous." The very very vast majority of PCs sold every month are not capable of playing modern games, mostly due to not being gaming machines. Take a game such as Bioshock Infinite, which is a few years old now. Most home PCs and laptops cannot play this game at a playable framerate and enjoyable resolution. Newer games fair much worse. And a great example of the console market vs PC is The Witcher 3. It's a big game from a PC developer and sold 4 million copies in it's first month or something. But out of that, only 1.3 million were on PC. So PC developer making a PC game with simultaneous console release with out of the park review scores, and console dominates sales.
Anyway...I think that both Microsoft & Sony are missing a golden opportunity to forever substantially change the "console" paradigm. Because both consoles now are x86 PCs internally, there is no reason on earth that the xb1 & the PS4 have to remain stagnant in terms of their hardware for the 6-10-year period console buyers are used to. One of the chief impediments to console game development is that by waiting so artificially long between model releases, general x86 PC hardware (upon which the consoles are now based) proceeds at a much more rapid clip comparatively, meaning that console game development just a couple of years in is already falling way behind the hardware curve so that in order for PC games to be made for current SoA hardware, developers automatically have to choose between leaving the console market out, completely, or else programming for the lowest common denominator--x86 consoles--and tacking on scalable features to whatever degree that they can. Since the consoles are now x86, and no future console ever needs to be incompatible with current consoles, I see little reason that console developers could not put out a new & improved, more powerful console model every 2-3 years, in perpetuity. The rate of hardware change is there for the console market to avail itself of--just like the move to x86 in the first place. There are lots of clever marketing strategies either Microsoft or Sony (or both) could use to facilitate upgrading consoles on that timescale, imo.
I have yet to figure out why consoles do not have removable GPU's yet, similar to their hard drives. These companies have stated over and over that they benefit from longer console cycles like this last one. I would think the best way to extend that is, improve the CPU's of consoles and have an up-gradable GPU attachment. This will increase the lifespan of the console as well as add a $200 peripheral after 5 years, right in the middle of the cycle. As for a new all in one console every 2-3 years, well people will not buy a new console that often, even if they were only $200. Sure enthusiast PC gamers might upgrade their GPU every few years, dropping $400-$500 each time, but the majority of console owners would never do that. The majority of PC gamers don't even do that.

User avatar
thebruce
Forum Moderator
Posts: 890
Joined: February 17th, 2015, 8:46 am
Contact:

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by thebruce » September 24th, 2015, 7:05 am

Lucius wrote:no sane person can truly say consoles are better than PC, since PC's can do anything a console can do, and do it better assuming all other limiting factors are removed (like funds, time, knowledge etc.)
Please try to find better ways to express what you're trying to express. You completely dodge the fact that "better" is entirely subjective. You're saying that anyone who prefers a console, merely because they find it better than a PC, is insane. Don't do that.
Yes, PCs have, pretty much across the board, a higher technological potential than consoles, no one disputes that. But in this context, it's about which is "better" for the consumer - not merely in technical capacity.
Considering consoles are gaming machines, you would think they would aim for a higher baseline, but doing so would either cut into margins or price them out of the market.
Precisely, manufacturers want to find a good balance between cheaper pricing (because that's one draw to the console world), but with the most power put into a unified, static architecture developers can rely on (another draw, from the dev end).
For sake of argument, I'm going to assume your figures are in the ballpark correct, because it's late I don't feel like looking it up. Like you said though, Out of all those PCs sold, not all are used for gaming. The PC market for gaming is not "Giganormous." The very very vast majority of PCs sold every month are not capable of playing modern games, mostly due to not being gaming machines. Take a game such as Bioshock Infinite, which is a few years old now. Most home PCs and laptops cannot play this game at a playable framerate and enjoyable resolution. Newer games fair much worse.
I had the same problem years ago. I love Starcraft, so I preordered Starcraft 2 CE [2010]. I just got my laptop then - not top of the line, but decent - and when the game came in it was unplayable at even the lowest settings. It's been sitting on my shelf for years, and I only just got a desktop hand-down from work that allowed me to finally play it, at somewhere around maybe 40% of the potential graphic quality. :P It still looked great there though! (If it was released on console as well, I likely would have been able to play it years ago)
I have yet to figure out why consoles do not have removable GPU's yet, similar to their hard drives. These companies have stated over and over that they benefit from longer console cycles like this last one. I would think the best way to extend that is, improve the CPU's of consoles and have an up-gradable GPU attachment. This will increase the lifespan of the console as well as add a $200 peripheral after 5 years, right in the middle of the cycle. As for a new all in one console every 2-3 years, well people will not buy a new console that often, even if they were only $200. Sure enthusiast PC gamers might upgrade their GPU every few years, dropping $400-$500 each time, but the majority of console owners would never do that. The majority of PC gamers don't even do that.
I think a lot of that may be developers. They'd have to either release updates to account for a now fractured hardware base, or program from the beginning not to be code-optimized for a single mode. It would also depend on how seamless the manufacturer created the GPU to be. Then there's the artsy part where devs may just want to create the game and focus on how they want it to look within the architecture they have and know. New accessory? On one hand, there may be some who want to release an update to take advantage of it (more work, more cost, etc); on the other hand, there may be some who wish they'd programmed it from the top down so the game would have already taken advantage of future improvements, leaving the unupgraded to the lesser experience. And that development dichotomy is probably something that many console devs don't even want to deal with - one of the reasons that may have drawn them to console development; program once, get the same experience everywhere, no worries about a fractured platform and extra programming to handle it. If you do want to allow for that, take your game to PC :P

It's sort of like, if you care more about providing a top of the line quality visual/audio experience, a bleeding edge design, then console shouldn't be your focus. But if you just want to focus on creating a game where you still have great tools and high quality potential but don't want to worry about differing technological experience, then the console may your best bet.

Or also like designing a complex website. If you know most in a certain language and have the most experience with a specific browser, you may choose to create a streamlined website that is "optimized" (or exclusive to) a specific browser. No need to include browser compatibility code; just program it explicitly for the best that's available for the browser it's focused on. That's more like what it used to be; now there are tools that make browser compatibility less of an issue - BUT, it comes at the cost of overhead. All that code/feature-checking is done under the hood - easier for the coder, but still a weightier experience for the code itself. You could also in theory provide the exact same experience across multiple browsers, but you'd better believe it'll take more time and effort to test and write and rewrite and research and make workarounds to get your code to do the same on all browsers.
That's the development dilemma that faces devs choosing PC vs console. (and one which MS has always been trying to minify with their tools, and technologies like .NET - regardless of whether you think it's a good solution or not :P I haven't adopted .NET myself yet, but we do have software using it at my workplace; but anyway...)

In short, careful when you describe something as "better" without qualifying it. You can quickly and easily get into a fruitless debate of opinions. thx :ugeek:
*eats a banana*
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5002
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Crosmando » September 25th, 2015, 6:06 am

You know, now that I think about it Fargo did show some degree of courage in deciding that BT4 would be their next game. I imagine the temptation was there to "cash-in" with a sequel to Wasteland 2, a "safe" sequel which would guarantee good sales, as opposed to a sequel to a bunch of more obscure 80's dungeon crawlers.

Look at Larian Studios, Harebrained Schemes and Obsidian Entertainment: Divinity Original Sin 2, Shadowrun Berlin & Hong Kong, and Pillars of Eternity 2 is now all but confirmed. All very safe and not risky at all.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

IHaveHugeNick
Master
Posts: 1173
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 7:31 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by IHaveHugeNick » September 25th, 2015, 8:06 am

Well, they have double-production line. Starting Torment production while Wasteland was still a development was a stroke of genius, it gives InExile a lot more room to experiment.

But yeah, Fargo having the courage to take risks with weird shit was exactly what gave us so many great games in the Interplay days. Of course, that's also why Interplay eventually went down, but I'd rather follow fearless leader than accountant leader.
Two rite whiff care is quite a feet of witch won should be proud.

kilobug
Adventurer
Posts: 880
Joined: September 21st, 2014, 1:07 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by kilobug » September 25th, 2015, 10:41 am

It's not exactly "double-production line", it's mostly that it's not the kind of jobs involved at different phases of the project. Initially it's much more concept art, game design, outline of the scenario and areas, then it's 3d artists, programmers and writers, and finally it's Q&A and testing.

So while Torment moved to heavy production, the "initial phase" guys are mostly idle. So it makes perfect sense to make two games in parallel, it's what is called a "pipeline" in CPU design. Ok, modern CPUs have like 10+ stages of pipeline, so inXile would be making 10 games in parallel ! would be awesome :) But hum wouldn't have the time to play them all :/

IHaveHugeNick
Master
Posts: 1173
Joined: September 23rd, 2014, 7:31 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by IHaveHugeNick » September 25th, 2015, 11:48 am

I know how it works, but then again, Obsidian, Harebrained and Larian are not really doing that, are they. Obsidian obviously are a big studio and have usually 2-3 projects running at any given time, but Larian/HB are just mass producing SR/Divinity at this point.

Torment Kickstarter was a huge gamble, but it paid off and looking forward should give InExile a lot more flexibility with new projects. And the way Kickstarter is nowadays, I don't think any company could get away with asking money for another game before previous project is out.
Two rite whiff care is quite a feet of witch won should be proud.

User avatar
Drool
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8756
Joined: March 17th, 2012, 9:58 pm
Location: Under Tenebrosia, doing shots with Sceadu.

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Drool » September 25th, 2015, 1:15 pm

Jordan Joestar wrote:normal boss fight with common mechanics.
A completely invisible boss is common? Bed of Chaos is normal? Rom the Vacuous Spider is just another afternoon at the park?
The fate of videogames is similar to the fate of music. None cares about what the mass listen and many people have fun with One Direction and maybe ignore who is Maurice Ravel, Chopin, Mussorgsky... yes, who cares, but then we shouldn't complain if everything goes wrong.
One Direction being popular in no way disturbs my ability to listen to 200 year old chamber music should I wish to. My Hildegard von Bingen CDs didn't suddenly melt when Rebecca Black released Friday. This is all just pearl clutching about "kids these days". Elvis and the Beatles didn't destroy western civilization, and neither will One Direction or Call of Duty.
I don't throw mud
Actually, you've spent quite a bit of time talking about how console gamers aren't smart enough and don't have the attention span for a game like this.
What? You didn't understand. With "Redactors of Multiplayer.it are worst than nazis" is just a figure of speech to remark how much they are infamous. :|
It's an insane figure of speech. They're deleting posts on a website, not engaging in systematic mass slaughter of minorities.
Alwa nasci korliri das.

I neither work, nor speak, for inXile.

Not too late; make it eight!

Ether
Scholar
Posts: 142
Joined: July 6th, 2015, 9:32 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Ether » September 25th, 2015, 6:30 pm

My experience on the web isn't good. I followed a site of videogames that slowly become more Sony-oriented. Many news about PC never exist in this site
Ah, there's your problem: Following the postings of a mainstream message board.

As a general rule, any sort of message board aimed at a general population is often going to be flooded with idiots.

Yokohamalama
Novice
Posts: 46
Joined: September 20th, 2015, 2:50 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Yokohamalama » September 26th, 2015, 3:05 am

waltc wrote:
Crosmando wrote:That is ridiculous, Bard's Tale series have always been long games with many tens of hours of dungeon crawling. A 10 hour game is an insult whatever genre it is and is not worth even the lowest pledge for a game copy in the BT4 Kickstarter.
Yep, 10 hours is about right for a demo...;)
OkOk, then make it 15-20 hours. But ask yourself:

How often did you play games with an 80 hours length to play through?

Did you never have the urge to try another party combination, but gave up playing because it's getting too long in the tooth to go through all the tasks all over again? (and I'm not talking of a few hours here, but of days and weeks).

Ether
Scholar
Posts: 142
Joined: July 6th, 2015, 9:32 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Ether » October 2nd, 2015, 5:37 am

From what I've experienced, most RPG's along that length (15-20 hours) do so to let you play and witness stuff like multiple endings, side missions, moral choices, character interactions etc. Stuff you can't experience in 1 playthrough.

Just me, but I'm not going to want to play the game again just so I can try a Warrior-Monk party after using a Paladin-Hunter party previously, regardless of how long the game is.

dblade
Initiate
Posts: 18
Joined: October 4th, 2015, 5:35 pm

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by dblade » October 5th, 2015, 5:38 pm

I'm a huge fan of the classic BT games, yet I missed the kickstarter. Anyway, I just pledged Tormented Bard yesterday.

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5002
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Crosmando » June 4th, 2017, 7:07 am

IHaveHugeNick wrote:
September 13th, 2015, 8:29 am
They're not EA, they make on average one game every 2 years. They can't afford to half ass anything. One Kickstarter flop and you're out of the crowdfunding game for good. As for whether they will tunnel additional funds above what was promised, who knows? A lot depends on how the Torment turns out.
Sorry for the necro, but here we are. TToN has flopped (let's be honest) and this leaves BT4 in a very precarious position.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

User avatar
Lord of Riva
Adventurer
Posts: 824
Joined: October 14th, 2014, 10:18 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Lord of Riva » June 5th, 2017, 9:21 pm

Crosmando wrote:
June 4th, 2017, 7:07 am
IHaveHugeNick wrote:
September 13th, 2015, 8:29 am
They're not EA, they make on average one game every 2 years. They can't afford to half ass anything. One Kickstarter flop and you're out of the crowdfunding game for good. As for whether they will tunnel additional funds above what was promised, who knows? A lot depends on how the Torment turns out.
Sorry for the necro, but here we are. TToN has flopped (let's be honest) and this leaves BT4 in a very precarious position.
i dont know, i for one are rather hopeful with that. BT IV is both made by at least partly different team and they kind of have to pull their wagon out of the mud with this one.

It may end up somewhat simpler graphic wise but if the gameplay is right i dont care about that.

User avatar
ZiN
Explorer
Posts: 321
Joined: January 27th, 2015, 7:57 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by ZiN » June 6th, 2017, 5:04 am

Well, since then, they've also came up with Mage's Tale, which is supposed to "increase the scope" of BT4. I take that with a grain of salt though, as a matter of fact i think it will flop as well.
Lord of Riva wrote:
June 5th, 2017, 9:21 pm
i dont know, i for one are rather hopeful with that. BT IV is both made by at least partly different team and they kind of have to pull their wagon out of the mud with this one.
Yeah, let's hope that they've learned from their mistakes, and this time actually listen to feedback and finally make a game that is worthy of the name of its predecessors.

User avatar
thebruce
Forum Moderator
Posts: 890
Joined: February 17th, 2015, 8:46 am
Contact:

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by thebruce » June 6th, 2017, 8:19 am

I'm guessing that in light of TToN, the fact they're releasing Mage Tale as well as BT4 using the same basic development assets/process means they're trying to produce as much sellable for the company as possible. BT4 was funded, but why not create another game making use of those same assets; cut the dev time/work needed to a fraction, and have a new product that can be sold for additional profit, as a sort of padding, security blanket, with the uncertain-- untested success of the Bard's Tale brand. Two full games to sell, for the dev cost of 1.3 games. It makes sense, and I have no issue with it (as long as TMT doesn't co-opt development resources intended for BT4).

If TMT will only be VR, then who knows if I'll ever get around to playing it. As long as BT4 stands on its own (or is optionally 'enhanced' by TMT) and the funding we all put in for BT4 is used for BT4, then I'm content :)


Though I'm kind of bummed the BT4 doesn't have its own website. thebardstale.com is now N/A, and the BT site @ inxile is just a splash image (on a simplistically formatted html page).
Where can we point people to a homepage for the game? It really doesn't exist. Interestingly (not that I'm complaining) BT2004 doesn't even have its own official minimal 'flyer' type homepage. I think the game(s) would get more visibility if they actually had a home, not just social profiles.

BT4 has the kickstarter page, which has the most info for public viewing. BT2004 - Wikipedia. Or various game sites with reviews or purchase options.

Homepage! Is a good idea, no? Maybe?
Visit BardsTaleOnline.com - your community Bard's Tale classic RPG resource!
Twitter: @BardsTaleOnline / Facebook: Bards.Tale.Online
@thebruce0

User avatar
Gizmo
Grandmaster
Posts: 2883
Joined: March 6th, 2012, 6:25 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Gizmo » June 6th, 2017, 3:13 pm

thebruce wrote:
June 6th, 2017, 8:19 am
BT4 was funded, but why not create another game making use of those same assets; cut the dev time/work needed to a fraction, and have a new product that can be sold for additional profit, as a sort of padding, security blanket, with the uncertain-- untested success of the Bard's Tale brand. Two full games to sell, for the dev cost of 1.3 games.
The cost of getting the money, as it were.

Does anyone know if the original [proposed?] Mage's Tale was to be a Bard's Tale clone, or a wholly different type of game experience?

User avatar
Crosmando
Supreme Jerk
Posts: 5002
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 8:48 am

Re: Does BT4 have InXile's full commitment? Is there a risk of BT4 becoming InXile's "budget" project

Post by Crosmando » June 6th, 2017, 11:58 pm

The idea of Mage's Tale as a Ultima Underworld/Arx Fatalis -like game would be awesome.
Matthias did nothing wrong!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests