Editorial Vogel: Single-player RPGs are scarce, should sell for more

[Fenril]

I dont understand when people argue that Jeff Vogel’s games should be avoided or have little value because there are better alternatives to be found in the good classics, the not-so-recent games, the oldies and so on...

Even keeping in mind replay value, just how many replays of say Arcanum, fallout 2 and PS:T can one stomach for example?

Isnt this very forum filled with constant complaints that pc rpgs following certain formulas just arent made anymore...and yet people come out and say Spiderweb's games are crap and not worth considering...because there are better alternatives??
Its absurd.

Even considering Spiderweb makes 3-5 iterations of the same rpg system/setting those are games with something fresh to offer IF you do like the game system and the setting.
After all if one is willing to replay Fallout 2 several times, logically one would be more satisfied if there was for example a fallout 3 indie game that recycled everything from Fallout 2 and only presented a new world and story.
But such a fallout 3 is not available.

Better turn to oldies? The perceived quality of the oldies has a lot to do with nostalgia in my opinion. I do think that most Jeff Vogel games have more polish and are overall more solid that most of the glorified oldie pc rpgs. I think that’s clear enough. And again how many replays of for example Ultima 7, Darklands or BAK can one stomach?

I agree with DU when he says creating a bunch of episodes for what essentially is the same setting and rpg system is not very appealing. But that obviously has to do with Spiderweb’s business model and the needs of that business.

I can see how after playing a couple of Geneforge iterations one would lose interest in playing more, the recycling of the few art assets spiderweb has is also annoying.

Obviously Spiderweb is shy of taking risks, or at least taking risks regularly, so in a sense there is a contradiction in Jeff Vogel’s situation as an indie developer, he took strong risks only a few times and then he proceeded to milk the cow dry for as long as he could.

So in spiderweb’s case of stability as an indie rpg developer it seems creating something completely new for each new title is not a sustainable approach.
But in true indie fashion risks were taken in introducing the geneforge setting and system for example.

Again as for possible rivals for the role and place of Spiderweb I don’t see any besides basilisk games, AOD certainly looks interesting and is more ambitious but it seems to be they are still in the stage of the aspiring Indie rpg studio that plays the hyping/waiting game for as long as it can in the hopes of signing a deal with a publisher and maybe releasing a bargain boxed edition or something.

In short I think AOD is in a different playground or at least is trying to be. Point is basilisk has released a reasonably stable and solid product using pretty much the same approach and distribution model of Spiderweb while AOD is still in the vaporzone.

 

[nomask7]

Would I have written that "the fifteen minutes are immediately spoiled" if by 'spoiled' I had been alluding only to the limited manboonian sense of 'spoiler'? No, I would have written "in which case there is a danger of spoilers or plot spoilers".

Well, that reinforces my point, thanks.

You never had a relevant point to begin with. If a game is anything like an organic whole (a concept I doubt you'll ever be able to understand), the only sensible portion for the demo will be the beginning. At best, everything else is ad whoring that cheapens the game.

 

[nomask7]

I dont understand when people argue that Jeff Vogel’s games should be avoided or have little value because there are better alternatives to be found in the good classics, the not-so-recent games, the oldies and so on...

Even keeping in mind replay value, just how many replays of say Arcanum, fallout 2 and PS:T can one stomach for example?

Isnt this very forum filled with constant complaints that pc rpgs following certain formulas just arent made anymore...and yet people come out and say Spiderweb's games are crap and not worth considering...because there are better alternatives??
Its absurd.

It just goes to show that most humans aren't rational beings, but conglomerates of contradictions. The human psyche evolved to make sense of the world by 'recalling' previously 'memorized' experience-patterns (schemas). When you think about that for as long as I have, you'll begin to understand as deeply as I do that the human psyche never evolved to be coherent. It's basically just a collection of independent behaviour models. In such a context, coherence has no 'meaning' (no practical purpose), since you're only going to behave in one way at one time. That's true even though there are often conflicting impulses, the contradictions competing for prominence. One of them wants to determine your behaviour. (The funniest thing about the current zeitgeist is the sheer amount of gigantic contradictions the average boob is taught to believe from elementary school onward, or even earlier via the joo box.)

 

[Elwro]

You never had a relevant point to begin with. If a game is anything like an organic whole (a concept I doubt you'll ever be able to understand), the only sensible portion for the demo will be the beginning. At best, everything else is ad whoring that cheapens the game.

The most common understanding of it (loosely, an object is an organic whole if its value is different than the sum of the values of its parts) has obviously no relevance here. Another way of thinking about the thing is to regard an object as an organic whole when its parts have no meaning apart from the whole, and so if a game was an organic whole in that sense, putting its beginning in the demo would be as unreasonable as making a shareware version out of its randomly chosen bits.

And so we're left with the last common notion of an organic whole, in which its parts are related to it and one another as means to an end. Of course, you can say that the beginning of the game is the means to get to any other portion of the game, and so should always be included in the demo. But that's very shallow thinking and I doubt such an esteemed intellectual as yourself had anything so pedestrian in mind. In conclusion, it seems that you've either used the term just to impress the public, as on closer analysis it has no relevance to the discussion, or have concocted some unique and undoubtedly improved version of the concept which you'll undoubtedly share with us, the common folk.


<font size="1">This post was sponsored by the ghost of G.E. Moore.<font>

 

[nomask7]

You never had a relevant point to begin with. If a game is anything like an organic whole (a concept I doubt you'll ever be able to understand), the only sensible portion for the demo will be the beginning. At best, everything else is ad whoring that cheapens the game.

The most common understanding of it (loosely, an object is an organic whole if its value is different than the sum of the values of its parts) has obviously no relevance here. Another way of thinking about the thing is to regard an object as an organic whole when its parts have no meaning apart from the whole, and so if a game was an organic whole in that sense, putting its beginning in the demo would be as unreasonable as making a shareware version out of its randomly chosen bits.

And so we're left with the last common notion of an organic whole, in which its parts are related to it and one another as means to an end. Of course, you can say that the beginning of the game is the means to get to any other portion of the game, and so should always be included in the demo. But that's very shallow thinking and I doubt such an esteemed intellectual as yourself had anything so pedestrian in mind. In conclusion, it seems you've used the term just to impress the public, as on closer analysis it has no relevance to the discussion.


<font size="1">This post was sponsored by the ghost of G.E. Moore.<font>

Keep trying. (Hint: try using your own brain this time.)

 

[Wyrmlord]

Fenril, I sympathise with what you say, and that is why I made the "Geneforge V is superbly enjoyable" thread.

I thought, "Hey, people talk so often about RPGs are declining, and yet an honest turn-based RPG with a fresh setting, lots of situations for interaction, and good character creation system gets ignored?"

And I was disappointed to see how quickly people dismissed it. For arbitrary reasons. Like it being a combat-based game.

But what genuinely got me off the game was that I realized that there was little scope of options and approach in the combat of a game where you are fighting with one character and a summoned creature or two. The game was entertaining as a sum of its parts, but the combat in itself did not offer enough.

 

[Elwro]

You never had a relevant point to begin with. If a game is anything like an organic whole (a concept I doubt you'll ever be able to understand), the only sensible portion for the demo will be the beginning. At best, everything else is ad whoring that cheapens the game.

The most common understanding of it (loosely, an object is an organic whole if its value is different than the sum of the values of its parts) has obviously no relevance here. Another way of thinking about the thing is to regard an object as an organic whole when its parts have no meaning apart from the whole, and so if a game was an organic whole in that sense, putting its beginning in the demo would be as unreasonable as making a shareware version out of its randomly chosen bits.

And so we're left with the last common notion of an organic whole, in which its parts are related to it and one another as means to an end. Of course, you can say that the beginning of the game is the means to get to any other portion of the game, and so should always be included in the demo. But that's very shallow thinking and I doubt such an esteemed intellectual as yourself had anything so pedestrian in mind. In conclusion, it seems you've used the term just to impress the public, as on closer analysis it has no relevance to the discussion.


<font size="1">This post was sponsored by the ghost of G.E. Moore.<font>

Keep trying. (Hint: try using your own brain this time.)

Thanks for admitting you can't explain why you used that term.

I guess this discussion is an example of why your posts often look like pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jambo: you just use notions not everyone has heard about and which have generally earned some repute for having good use in intellectual considerations, but you just don't care to think why you're using them. They just look nice.

 

[nomask7]

Fenril, I sympathise with what you say, and that is why I made the "Geneforge V is superbly enjoyable" thread.

I thought, "Hey, people talk so often about RPGs are declining, and yet an honest turn-based RPG with a fresh setting, lots of situations for interaction, and good character creation system gets ignored?"

And I was disappointed to see how quickly people dismissed it. For arbitrary reasons. Like it being a combat-based game.

But what genuinely got me off the game was that I realized that there was little scope of options and approach in the combat of a game where you are fighting with one character and a summoned creature or two. The game was entertaining as a sum of its parts, but the combat in itself did not offer enough.

The biggest mistake anyone can make is to think it's a combat-oriented game.

(I'll leave this thread now, and come back when someone starts a thread that proves you can't ENTIRELY avoid combat in GF5.)

 

[Winter Ale]

Re: Vogel: Single-player RPGs are scarce, should sell for mo

Vogel's <a href="http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2009/04/indie-games-should-cost-more-pt-1.html">continuing to blog about setting price-points</a> for


Back then, new games sold for $50. So Exile was $25, which was a very common price for shareware games back then. A few years later, I started sending the registered version on a CD (instead of E-mailing a registration code). I charged $30 for a CD. Sales changed very little.
[...]

Next week: Why the reasons selling games for cheap are all wrong.

It's darn simple why the reasons are all wrong.

I remember paying $55 (!) in the friggin' 1980s to buy friggin' Ultima 3, and never did I feel bad about it. Heck, the price told me it was a more complex product. And my experience with the game told me that yeah - it was.

We're discussing a simple business school lesson - don't change the price on your product unless you plan on changing it fer forever. Customers tend to remember.

Put enough good stuff in the bargain bin, and in cannibalizes flagship product sales.

Did I just write DU's or Jeff's next post?

 

[PorkaMorka]

Hmmmm

There is really no need for indie games to be cheap.

Dominions 3 was 60$ and 3 years later is still 55$. In some ways the graphics are technologically on par with, or worse than the spiderweb games, although they are far better in terms of maintaining a consistent look, being charming rather than ugly despite their simplicity, and just in terms of overall art quality and professionalism.

It's also a difficult game to actually play, being at it's best only when you're playing a PBEM against multiple human opponents over several months, the AI doesn't provide great opponents.

Yet, it really is worth the money, if you can play it. It's amount of content and depth of options are simply unparalleled by any game ever. And they added a huge amount in patches over the several years since it's been out. It has worse graphics than mainstream games, but legitimately rivals or exceeds them in other areas.

Vogel games however, really seem a bit overpriced at 28$. They're alright, but they're really not excellent in any way. The combat system is alright, but extremely shallow. The plots and writing are servicable, but won't win any awards. The graphics are not just primitive, but amateurish and suffering from poor quality. Unlike Dominions 3, the Vogel games really don't rival professionally produced games* in any way, besides length. Instead, they're slightly worse overall, and really their main virtue is being the only games still being produced in a genre many people love.

If Vogel games were good, but still had low tech graphics, they could easily be worth more money. But given that almost no one can deny their mediocrity, I still tend to regard them as a bit too expensive, 25$ would be the highest I'd consider fair.

The other advantage of dominions is that as a multiplayer focused game with many many patches, it's probably more of a pain to pirate, eventually pirates tend to stop releasing updated no-cds, although I haven't checked since I actually bought it.

* from the same genre

 

[mondblut]

Re: Vogel: Single-player RPGs are scarce, should sell for mo

The only problem I have with that is it ignores the fact you can now buy the professional games for $20.00. Just check out your local bargain bin. Even Amazon has games like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=knights+of+the+old+republic&x=0&y=0">KOTOR2 for $20 USD</a>. Indie's are now no longer competing with professional titles sold at professional prices, they're competing with those games at bargain bin prices (and they'll actually work on your PC without having to upgrade again) and a growing second-hand market.

I think it is safe to assume 50% of average Spiderweb customers already have long purchased every noticeable RPG of the decade, and another 45% wouldn't even touch them since they all suck and aren't RPG enough

People don't turn to indies out of the oversaturation of the market.

 

[Wyrmlord]

But mondblut, a question that still effectively confused me.

Whom does Vogel make his games for?

He keeps his combat simple, and he considers it merely as a "means to an end" in his game. It's not too challenging, although it can be in some occasions, but there are not many options in combat.

He also isn't exactly making an Obsidian story game either, because you don't exactly have many of those interactive skill checks either, nor are there some challenging interesting quest either.

The early part of his games have limited scope of exploration, and you are mostly set on being able to or having to do one thing.

So is the appeal of his games just that he does a little of everything?

 

[mondblut]

Us, I guess.

His games may be a little less interactive than Ultima and a little less tactical than Goldbox series, but sit squarely between these. For those who miss the XX century RPG gameplay, this alone is enough.

 

[Andhaira]

Ultima 3 sold for 55 smackers? Wow. No wonder Gariott could spend $25 million for a trip to outer space.

 

[Agent5]

Reducing the price of such niche titles in order to attract further customers and, thus, more sales seems somewhat silly in such a specific market. The number of people who have played Avernum but have yet to try Fallout, Ultima, or Cythera could probably fit in a closet. Certainly there are people who want this sort of game who aren't willing to pay that much, but are there enough of them to warrant a price drop?

Vogel's arguments seem to have more to do with questioning the viability of a five dollar market as a full time business for anyone. Any game that can support at least one individual and his family with a sale price of five dollars probably isn't selling at the rate of an independent game, even if it is made by an independent developer.

 

[GarfunkeL]

AOD certainly looks interesting and is more ambitious but it seems to be they are still in the stage of the aspiring Indie rpg studio that plays the hyping/waiting game for as long as it can in the hopes of signing a deal with a publisher and maybe releasing a bargain boxed edition or something.

They were already approached by several publishers but VD declined their offers to keep all control in his own hands. That's what he wrote in ITS forums, iirc.