Wasteland Sales, player stats and other business things

[Infinitron]

Remember when LoG occupied the Steam bestseller list for weeks on end?

Well, no, but I must admit I wasn't really paying attention to Steam top sellers back in April 2012.

Can anybody confirm?

 

[PocketMine]

Remember when LoG occupied the Steam bestseller list for weeks on end?

Well, no, but I must admit I wasn't really paying attention to Steam top sellers back in April 2012.

Can anybody confirm?

LoG was #1 seller for day when released

Oh yeah, we’ve had many inquiries on how the sales have been doing and, well, we couldn’t be happier with them! We were sitting solidly as the #1 Steam top seller for a while but it seems like we have now been dethroned… So if you still know anyone who might be able to help us in our struggle to regain dominance, let them know ! Anyways, the development costs of the game have now been covered many times over so the future of the company seems pretty secure. So, everyone who has bought our game and supported us, you have our gratitude!

I remember seeing it in top 20 sellers for atleast a month.

Also game sold 600000 by January 2013 but it was already in humble bundle December 2012.

They sold much more copies then expected. Almost human was only 4 man dev team when LoG was released.

 

[tuluse]

Ouch. They really shouldn't have given out that many.

They got about $4 million for those 100k keys. So averaged $40 per key. That's not bad.

All in all, I think it's best that WL2 is *only* a moderate success and not a run away one. Have to keep those InXilers striving to improve after all

Also, it will keep them focused on the core audience instead of trying to appeal to a sudden huge fanbase.

 

[cvv]

Also, it will keep them focused on the core audience instead of trying to appeal to a sudden huge fanbase.

I dunno...seems to me this time around the loudest critics are the "core audience", not the popamole journos. The media responses have been generally positive, it's mostly the grognards whining. Personally I find most of their criticism incoherent but still...

 

[tuluse]

Also, it will keep them focused on the core audience instead of trying to appeal to a sudden huge fanbase.

I dunno...seems to me this time around the loudest critics are the "core audience", not the popamole journos. The media responses have been generally positive, it's mostly the grognards whining. Personally I find most of their criticism incoherent but still...

It's clear InXile was trying to appeal to old school RPG fans. They might have not done so for various reasons, but that was their intent.

The fact that they're getting criticism from that group means they'll have to learn and improve, since all the journalists loving it didn't lead to an amazing success.

 

[cvv]

The fact that they're getting criticism from that group means they'll have to learn and improve

Maybe...tho to be honest, if I was Fargo, I wouldn't have the faintest as to what to improve for the possible W3. Seems like the closer a game is to Fallout the louder is the fanbase whining it's not close enough. Personally? In his place I'd say fuck the nostalgiafaggots and come up with something new and "forward looking" - with Cryengine and rtwp.

 

[Morkar Left]

But most of the criticism - if not wrong statements - is really just a matter of taste or expectations that can't get fullfilled realistically.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

The fact that they're getting criticism from that group means they'll have to learn and improve

Maybe...tho to be honest, if I was Fargo, I wouldn't have the faintest as to what to improve for the possible W3. Seems like the closer a game is to Fallout the louder is the fanbase whining it's not close enough. Personally? In his place I'd say fuck the nostalgiafaggots and come up with something new and "forward looking" - with Cryengine and rtwp.

"Cryengine and rtwp" sounds a bit like trying to compete with AAA titles - if we're speculating then if I were him I would take a long look at games like JA2 and try to add more tactical options to combat. That would be possible while building on the work they've done, without throwing everything out and starting again.

 

[tuluse]

But most of the criticism - if not wrong statements - is really just a matter of taste or expectations that can't get fullfilled realistically.

I think more interesting combat than shoot'n'move is hardly unrealistic.

That's the main criticism I've seen.

 

[cvv]

The fact that they're getting criticism from that group means they'll have to learn and improve

Maybe...tho to be honest, if I was Fargo, I wouldn't have the faintest as to what to improve for the possible W3. Seems like the closer a game is to Fallout the louder is the fanbase whining it's not close enough. Personally? In his place I'd say fuck the nostalgiafaggots and come up with something new and "forward looking" - with Cryengine and rtwp.

"Cryengine and rtwp" sounds a bit like trying to compete with AAA titles - if we're speculating then if I were him I would take a long look at games like JA2 and try to add more tactical options to combat. That would be possible while building on the work they've done, without throwing everything out and starting again.

First of all I was joking with the cryengine and rtwp. My point is I got the feeling that no matter how close a clone of an old classic you make you'll always get yelled at because it's not close enough. It's called "nostalgiafaggotry" and it's an incurable mental disease.

I bet my left nut if Fargo followed your advice with JA2, he'd either end up with something imperceptibly different, in which case he'd hear a lot of incoherent criticism about "combat is simplistic and is not over quickly enough". Or he'd produce a carbon copy, in which case Codexers would say "this is stupid, play the original".

Tldr - I don't wanna be Brian Fargo.

 

[Morkar Left]

But most of the criticism - if not wrong statements - is really just a matter of taste or expectations that can't get fullfilled realistically.

I think more interesting combat than shoot'n'move is hardly unrealistic.

That's the main criticism I've seen.

I saw a lot of other criticism like some or all besides 2 attributes completely worthless, weapons completely unbalanced, Fallout has better combat, no choices and consequences, not enough skills, too many skills, gfx are shit, it's not Fallout, it's not Wasteland etc.

 

[Infinitron]

But most of the criticism - if not wrong statements - is really just a matter of taste or expectations that can't get fullfilled realistically.

I think more interesting combat than shoot'n'move is hardly unrealistic.

That's the main criticism I've seen.

There are all sorts of criticisms of WL2. The combat is one of them. Then there's the "anti-grog" group on Something Awful with the familiar assortment of Roguey-ish complaints. And on the Iron Tower Studio forum you'll find hiver and a few friends whose main gripe is with the quests and story being incoherent/banal.

 

[tuluse]

I saw a lot of other criticism like some or all besides 2 attributes completely worthless, weapons completely unbalanced, Fallout has better combat, no choices and consequences, not enough skills, too many skills, gfx are shit, it's not Fallout, it's not Wasteland etc.

There are all sorts of criticisms of WL2. The combat is one of them. Then there's the "anti-grog" group on Something Awful with the familiar assortment of Roguey-ish complaints. And on the Iron Tower Studio forum you'll find hiver and a few friends whose main gripe is with the quests and story being incoherent/banal.

Ok, fair points. I think I was automatically filtering out criticism I thought was dumb.

(you know how I feel about graphics whoring wrt WL2)

 

[sser]

Has anyone considered the insane notion that maybe D:OS sold so many copies because it was a really good game? Unique engine, strong combat, very strong beginning area, lots of mod-support, etc.

No, because if being a good game were the criteria for sales then W2 would have sold more, and Bethesda would have gone bankrupt years ago. Not that I don't think D:OS is a good game, but the other reasons: Pretty graphics, bloom, co-op, combat-centric, light in tone, light in RPG mechanics, etc. Also keep it from being the kind of niche game that an "oldskool successor" like Wasteland 2 is. Although I will agree that the very strong beginning area contributed as well, it just isn't really something that I would consider the making of a good game, at least not to a "Hardcore" crowd, but yes, for the big percentage of people who play a game for a couple of hours then shelf it to move on to the next game in their bloated steam collection that's a great thing.

Are we comparing games that have bigger advertising budgets than the entire development budgets of Kickstarted titles?

Does this make sense to you? Why do you guys keep parroting this point. Gameplay is paramount to getting sales for the vast majority of developers out there. How many small time developers honestly get away with having bad gameplay because they have a huge marketing campaign or sweet graphics...? They don't have the resources to focus on much else but the gameplay itself. FTL and the Binding of Isaac both have shit graphics. Hell, Isaac ran on Flash. Both sold tons. Why? Gameplay. A lot of horror games coming out recently are made with the most basic of resources, yet they still sell tons. Why? Because the gameplay (in this case, they scare you). Yes, if you talk about the fucking Maddens and Call of Dutys of course sales != good gameplay. But there's no relevance there. Holding these games to the standards of Creative Assembly, EA, BioWare, etc, is pointless. Shrugging off D:OS's sales because these triple-A developers get a pass is a pretty big leap in logic.

What happened with D:OS is that people went on YouTube, the primary ally of any smaller developer, and saw players casting rainstorms and then electrocuting people in the puddles, or throwing oil on their enemies and setting them alight, teleporting people and melee combat that was actually useful, a unique engine that could be easily modded, you know, shit that looked fun. W2 probably didn't sell as well because if you went on YouTube you saw characters 360-glitching and combat that looked completely lifeless and boring. You looked at the awful Unity engine and the efforts to dress it up. The start of W2 is also pretty goddam terrible which does nobody favors. Yeah alright, W2 has strong writing here and there, a little bit of CnC, but guess what, nobody fucking cares if everything else isn't up to par. People want something that's fun to play, not to read. Competition is pretty damn fierce in the gaming market right now. You have to bring something more than a legacy title of "Wasteland", coattails are not enough to warrant sales.

(quotemining again) While DOS is a step in the right direction and while it certainly hits most of the right notes with an old school crowd, it suffers from [non-gameplay stuff]. It does some things better then W2, like [gameplay], but W2 is overall a much deeper and better game [just because].

You sir, are not only a dishonest prick, but also a complete and utter moron. [Thinks I care what he says after this.]

 

[Morkar Left]

Gameplay is basically a mix of BG and Ultima in a postapoc setting.

If Wasteland 2 would have been a fantasy setting it would be heralded as the long awaited spiritual successor to BGT and would probably have sold millions.

 

[Infinitron]

Guys, the real answer to the question of why D:OS sold more than WL2 is - nobody knows, but most likely "all of the above". I realize everybody's having fun injecting their own opinion and agenda into it but you shouldn't be so sure about yourselves.

(I do wish people would stop saying "Unity Engine == bad graphics", though. That's just sheer ignorance.)

 

[J_C]

Guys, the real answer to the question of why D:OS sold more than WL2 is - nobody knows, but most likely "all of the above". I realize everybody's having fun injecting their own opinion and agenda into it but you shouldn't be so sure about yourselves.

(I do wish people would stop saying "Unity Engine == bad graphics", though. That's just sheer ignorance.)

Is it confirmed that DOS sold more copies? Sure, DOS was on a number 1 spot on Steam for longer, but it came out in a deadzone, when there was no big competition, meanwhile WL2 was released in october, which is full of gamereleases.

 

[sser]

Gameplay is basically a mix of BG and Ultima in a postapoc setting.

If Wasteland 2 would have been a fantasy setting it would be heralded as the long awaited spiritual successor to BGT and would probably have sold millions.

A pointless hypothetical. Big sellers on the markets are not stapled to any setting.

Guys, the real answer to the question of why D:OS sold more than WL2 is - nobody knows, but most likely "all of the above". I realize everybody's having fun injecting their own opinion and agenda into it but you shouldn't be so sure about yourselves.

(I do wish people would stop saying "Unity Engine == bad graphics", though. That's just sheer ignorance.)

Unity engine = bad engine, mostly because it's poorly optimized and its power needs rarely reflect what is shown onscreen. You can make it look good, though. Almost any engine can be dressed up if you approach it from the right way.

 

[Infinitron]

Unity engine = bad engine, mostly because it's poorly optimized and its power needs rarely reflect what is shown onscreen. You can make it look good, though. Almost any engine can be dressed up if you approach it from the right way.

Hey, you're the one who said people went on Youtube and saw the "awful Unity Engine".

(In general, I laugh at the people on the Codex who hate on Unity. If you're an RPG fan, that's called "shitting where you eat". But do feel free to email inXile and Obsidian and everybody else and ask them to license D:OS's engine for their next game if you feel strongly about it.)

 

[tuluse]

It's not like WL2 would have looked any better with a better engine. They were far more constrained by art budget than engine.

 

[Cazzeris]

If I were Fargo, I'd try to make WL3 feel even more "old-school", unforgiving, complex, with full open world and more creative.

The game should be impossible to finish unless the player distributes the skill/atributes wisely, the skills should feel more dynamic (adding Stealth, Stealing, Swimming & Climbing would be interesting) and it would be awesome if the player had to care of what ranger has which skills. They could be more ambitious with the world's reactivity and add the possibility to make actually important things if the player is highly skilled instead of just letting him open tons of containers (what if you could repair the broken radio tower in Highpool/Ag Center instead of going to Damonta?). InXile could hire a couple of writers to make every ranger talk differently based on his attributes.

Also, the game needs more tactical options, perks/traits and rebalancing.

 

[Mareus]

But most of the criticism - if not wrong statements - is really just a matter of taste or expectations that can't get fullfilled realistically.

I think more interesting combat than shoot'n'move is hardly unrealistic.

That's the main criticism I've seen.

You are right that this is the main criticism, but lets look at it objectively for a second. Ignoring shitposters like sser who argue that Fallout actually had better combat, most critics complain about combat not being on par with games like X-Com and Jagged Alliance 2. My problem with that particular criticism is that Fallout's combat is not on par with X-Com and JA2 neither. Yet you don't see too many people complaining about Fallout combat. This is very telling, since it demonstrates just how difficult it is to please people.

As for why DOS sold better than W2, I think it is a combination of few factors:
1. Timing combined with positive reviews who compared the game with Baldur's Gate and Ultima - it was the first old school isometric RPG in a while. Well, we did have Shadowrun before DOS, but that game received a lot of criticism due to it's linear nature and many smaller quirks like no loot, inability to change armor anywhere, etc. So when DOS came out and received critical acclaim, people were jumping after it without thinking twice. On the other hand if you look at W2 reviews, you have a lot of people who claim to be huge fans of Fallout shitting all over W2, which made even me very skeptical and unwilling to support the game. The only reason why I decided to buy it was because of Brian Fargo name, and I don't regret my choice, but a lot of people might not be so willing to cash out 40 euros on a game that has received mixed reviews from the player base it is aiming at.
2. Graphics - it had nice graphics that appeal to wider audience.
3. Less copies sold via Kickstarter - DOS gathered only 1 million through Kickstarter, while W2 gathered around 4 million. That means that there is a substantial number of W2 copies that was given away and these people don't count as buyers.
4. Recent changes to Steam could be affecting sales.

With all of that being said, I don't think W2 is selling bad. Perhaps we all were hoping for better sales, but the game has been solid in the top 20-30 for a month now and I am sure this is a game that will slowly grow on gamers as the time passes.

 

[Morkar Left]

Gameplay is basically a mix of BG and Ultima in a postapoc setting.

If Wasteland 2 would have been a fantasy setting it would be heralded as the long awaited spiritual successor to BGT and would probably have sold millions.

A pointless hypothetical. Big sellers on the markets are not stapled to any setting.

Compare number of sold copies from F1/F2 with BG1/2. Compare success of Ultima 5 or Bard's Tale with Wasteland 1.

How many fantasy rpgs are out there compared to other settings? How many fantasy mmorpgs exist compared to other settings? Why is that?

The waste majority of RPG-ers just love fantasy settings because it's the setting most of them played first and they are the most familiar with.

And that's just talking about rpgs. Other genres have their own settings which are the most popular. Strategy games e.g. medieval and scifi over Rennaissance and WW1.

With all of that being said, I don't think W2 is selling bad. Perhaps we all were hoping for better sales, but the game has been solid in the top 20-30 for a month now and I am sure this is a game that will slowly grow on gamers as the time passes.

I think they will make good money longtime thanks to digital distribution.

 

[sser]

Unity engine = bad engine, mostly because it's poorly optimized and its power needs rarely reflect what is shown onscreen. You can make it look good, though. Almost any engine can be dressed up if you approach it from the right way.

Hey, you're the one who said people went on Youtube and saw the "awful Unity Engine".

(In general, I laugh at the people on the Codex who hate on Unity. If you're an RPG fan, that's called "shitting where you eat". But do feel free to email inXile and Obsidian and everybody else and ask them to license D:OS's engine for their next game if you feel strongly about it.)

Definitely not shitting where I eat. I got about five RPGs I've played in the past month and only one of them uses the Unity engine. I'm not going to hate on a game because it uses the Unity engine. I think the issue with Wasteland 2 is that it looks like the Unity engine, unlike say, Shadowruns, which has a nice aesthetic overlay, or Expeditions: Conquistador which was developed with probably like 1% of Wasteland 2's total budget and it runs, looks, and plays better. I don't understand why Wasteland 2 looks and runs the way it does, but it absolutely does not make a good first impression.

But most of the criticism - if not wrong statements - is really just a matter of taste or expectations that can't get fullfilled realistically.

I think more interesting combat than shoot'n'move is hardly unrealistic.

That's the main criticism I've seen.

You are right that this is the main criticism, but lets look at it objectively for a second. Ignoring shitposters like sser who argue that Fallout actually had better combat.

Correction, I think almost every game I've ever played has better combat than Wasteland 2.

I've also offered many, many recommendations on how to improve it.

If I thought WL2 was so shitty it was beyond repair I wouldn't be posting here.

Gameplay is basically a mix of BG and Ultima in a postapoc setting.

If Wasteland 2 would have been a fantasy setting it would be heralded as the long awaited spiritual successor to BGT and would probably have sold millions.

A pointless hypothetical. Big sellers on the markets are not stapled to any setting.

Compare number of sold copies from F1/F2 with BG1/2. Compare success of Ultima 5 or Bard's Tale with Wasteland 1.

How many fantasy rpgs are out there compared to other settings? How many fantasy mmorpgs exist compared to other settings? Why is that?

The waste majority of RPG-ers just love fantasy settings because it's the setting most of them played first and they are the most familiar with.

And that's just talking about rpgs. Other genres have their own settings which are the most popular. Strategy games e.g. medieval and scifi over Rennaissance and WW1.

No doubt fantasy has always been a cornerstone of the genre. 100% agree with you. (Though I think there's way more elements in play concerning those games' sales than just a setting choice.) But the top-selling RPGs of the past whatever years have been games like Borderlands, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, and Dark Souls. That's a pretty diverse marketplace. If Fallout can sell just as many copies as Bethesda's fantasy games, there's no reason Wasteland can't capitalize on the same aspect. But this entire discussion is fucking pointless because if the game was selling the last thing anybody would fucking say was "Oh, it's because the genre was good" or because it had nice "graphics" or hit the "market just right" or fucking whatever. They'd say it was a good game because it was a good game. Laundry list after laundry list of trying to pick and figure out why a game sells the way it does and it's really not that complicated.

 

[Nuclear Explosion]

Yet you don't see too many people complaining about Fallout combat.

Plenty of people criticize Fallout for its weak combat.