Support NeoGAF

[Palette Swap]

Wow, that's some high level stupid bullshit.

The quality of a game determines its relevancy, not its genre.

Hell, with the right approach, you could probably make a very popular 21st century text adventure.

 

[echoshifting]

This is Blizzard we are talking about. Starcraft has a massive following, so SC2 was bound to sell huge. X-Com just does not have that kind of fanbase to work on. Most people have no idea what X-Com is, so Take-Two is banking on firing out an FPS to grab people attention. Amidst all the other shooters, it will fail.

So wait...if it will fail how is their decision to pursue such a strategy justified? Why not stand out in the genre in which it is revered...on a smaller budget and with a more realistic expectation for its success relative to the scale of its fanbase?

edit: perhaps you are merely trying to explain, not to justify...?

 

[fizzelopeguss]

A turn based xcom will make money, this abomination they're shitting out will lose them a fortune.

 

[Nirolak]

This is Blizzard we are talking about. Starcraft has a massive following, so SC2 was bound to sell huge. X-Com just does not have that kind of fanbase to work on. Most people have no idea what X-Com is, so Take-Two is banking on firing out an FPS to grab people attention. Amidst all the other shooters, it will fail.

His statement doesn't just apply to X-COM though. He says strategy games as a whole are not contemporary.

I don't think there'd be that much controversy if he said "An X-COM first person shooter is a lot more marketable than an X-COM TBS game."

Instead, he's saying the entire genre is old and we should just leave it in the past, when there are actually games in it that are selling notably better than what his label is making.

 

[Raide]

So wait...if it will fail how is their decision to pursue such a strategy justified? Why not stand out in the genre in which it is revered...on a smaller budget and with a more realistic expectation for its success relative to the scale of its fanbase?

edit: perhaps you are merely trying to explain, not to justify...?

Yeah, explaining, not very well

His statement doesn't just apply to X-COM though. He says strategy games as a whole are not contemporary.

I don't think there'd be that much controversy if he said "An X-COM first person shooter is a lot more marketable than an X-COM TBS game."

Instead, he's saying the entire genre is old and we should just leave it in the past.

Ahh, I took it a little wrong then.

 

[mclem]

Civ VI will be a FPS?

Lincoln vs. Boudicca. FIGHT!

 

[mxgt]

This is so stupid.

Fucking shooters, I'm sick of them.

 

[Lopson]

Sounds about right. Really a shame to see games appear and then the online is dead within a month or two but thats what developers get if they produce sub-par games.

I understand your disappointment, but it's still too early too call it a sub-par game, no? Who knows, it might even turn out to be a great FPS (though I think we can forget about this being a good X-Com game).

 

[Raide]

I understand your disappointment, but it's still to early to call it a sub-par game, no? Who knows, it might even turn out to be a great FPS (though I think we can forget about this being a good X-Com game).

Agreed. I will check it out, knowing full well it won't be a classic X-Com game but do they really think another FPS can compete in this market?

 

[echoshifting]

There have been several recent strategy games that have done quite well aside from Starcraft II...Civ V and Dawn of War II just off the top of my head. Both of those games were chart toppers just as Starcraft II was, so the Blizzard deflection doesn't help him. The whole argument is so blatantly wrongheaded that were I a Take-Two investor I would be making some calls today. Here is a suit out of touch, and one with shit taste to boot.

 

[Nirolak]

Agreed. I will check it out, knowing full well it won't be a classic X-Com game but do they really think another FPS can compete in this market?

They started the game in 2007, so they were probably hoping to get it out in a far less competitive market.

 

[speedpop]

I get the feeling that the big videogames corporations, in this generation, only seem to care about the money, and are incapable of throwing a bone to their customers. C'mon, guys, business doesn't run solely on money...

It's always been like this though. A company strikes gold with a game formula (often this is coupled with generation leaps) and several other companies release a title in the same vein. Platformers were all the rage in the 32bit/64bit console generation; Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, you could even lump Tomb Raider into that.

PCs have always been the stalwart of the FPS and strategy genres due in part to the control methods. It wasn't until console gaming became a bit more technologically advanced where people sat up and started dripping their funds into the FPS section simply because the genre has evolved very closely with the eye candy appeal. If your shooter looks like shit compared to the average playing field, you can bet that it'll be relegated to low-tier status. The only difference this time around is the marketing push for these shooters on consoles - publishers spend as much as the game's initial budget, if not more, for marketing purposes on that single game. I'd really love to see THQ's dossier on how much they spent on marketing for Homefront and whether it was a contributing factor to the closure of Kaos Studios.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

“I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same.

Probably the worst example ever made. Ever.

 

[Forkball]

I can't get the image of Ray Charles with Venetian blind glasses out of my head now.

 

[echoshifting]

I can't get the image of Ray Charles with Venetian blind glasses out of my head now.

The meme kind of writes itself, doesn't it?

 

[erragal]

This is Blizzard we are talking about. Starcraft has a massive following, so SC2 was bound to sell huge. X-Com just does not have that kind of fanbase to work on. Most people have no idea what X-Com is, so Take-Two is banking on firing out an FPS to grab people attention. Amidst all the other shooters, it will fail.

The problem is expecting every project to be a million plus seller. A game can be successful without selling a million copies,they just need to go in with a different mindset.

Aim at a $20-30 PC release with a modest budget. . Drastically reduce art asset costs by staying with 2d isometric gameplay style, but improve the resolution and quality of those sprites. Keep similar gameplay elements but add some new twists; innumerable ways you could expand the scope or improve the depth in the basic games at this point.

It's insulting to say that you can't make X-Com both contemporary and profitable when NO OTHER game since has matched that experience (excluding the direct sequel which is the same game with a new theme).

I wonder if Paradox is laughing at this right now.

 

[Gravijah]

I can't get the image of Ray Charles with Venetian blind glasses out of my head now.

Truly blocking the haters.

 

[Sotha Sil]

Then pillage a different IP?

God, this.

 

[subversus]

Who needs strategies? Blah. Leave this shit to some miserably small publisher like Paradox. Strategies are so not cool.

 

[echoshifting]

Only losers would play games in which you have to wait for the computer to take its turn

 

[VariantX]

That's just a sad thing to read. Making franchises that weren't originally shooters into shooters does not equal success. It makes your game even more invisible because of giants like call of duty sucking up all the revenue and mindshare.

 

[Gravijah]

Only losers would play games in which you have to wait for the computer to take its turn

Oh...

 

[echoshifting]

That's just a sad thing to read. Making franchises that weren't originally shooters into shooters does not equal success. It makes your game even more invisible because of giants like call of duty sucking up all the revenue and mindshare.

What's worst of all is that I think this is the second or third time they've done this. At this point they're just skullfucking a corpse

 

[dejan]

Someone should have warned The Lordz Games Studio. Alpha gamers have beeen robbed of a potential epic World War 2 3rd person cover based corridor shooter.

 

[Coxy]

Valkyria Chronicles says no. If X-com needed to change at all, it should have been in that direction.

I dont see this cunning plan working out any better than Front Mission Evolved

 

[Palette Swap]

BTW, haven't Creative Assembly been fairly successful with the TW series? (from a financial standpoint)

 

[Interfectum]

I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same.

My god...

 

[IoCaster]

I guess that a case could be made that X-Com the IP isn't contemporary either. So why drag it through the mud with a likely ill-fated attempt to revive it as a shooter? I really don't think that genre switching is the best option here. :/

 

[teruterubozu]

What a horrible Ray Charles-Kanye West analogy. No wonder video games are never considered art.

 

[Nirolak]

BTW, haven't Creative Assembly been fairly successful with the TW series? (from a financial standpoint)

Yes, Sega views them as a crown jewel.

Gary Dunn, SEGA Europe senior vice president - Production: Our UK internal studios are probably the bedrock of our business. Certainly, when I was signing off our studio bonus scheme and I was signing of the incentives last week, for the second year both Sports Interactive and Creative Assembly are outperforming their business plans from a profitability perspective. These guys are on top of the game, it's a real testimony to the games they make.

Q: How does the top brass at SEGA in Japan feel about the company having become almost UK-centric?

Mike Hayes: Well, when we continue to hit our revenues and profit targets, they're delighted [laughs]. CA and SI are very integral to that. But we have a spread - let's not underestimate what Sonic does for us, and what we've done with Mario and Sonic. Those are the behemoth titles that have done very well for us. But at the end of the day, regardless of where you are it's the fact that you have to have an internationally appealing game and brand. I think SEGA's fortunate that we've got two excellent UK studios, but the point is the majority of sales, particularly for the Creative Assembly, really have to be outside of the UK. So it needs to have an international appeal - certainly with Total War we get that. I think we're in very, very good shape, actually.

It's interesting: Creative Assembly are seen as the jewel in the crown of SEGA. That's an interesting thing, I don't think that would have been a thought about that fifteen years ago - but probably Creative Assembly has the consistent highest quality in terms of gaming for any studio, so SEGA's very proud of both. But as Gary says, when you break your targets, everyone's happy.

Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-05-16-to-be-this-good-takes-ages-interview?page=2

 

[Lime]

BTW, haven't Creative Assembly been fairly successful with the TW series? (from a financial standpoint)

Sega claimed that Shogun 2 exceeded sales expectations.

EDIT: Beaten by a better post.

 

[PnCIa]

Can´t exploit that stuff every year, Sir?

 

[pieatorium]

Dawn of Wars are million+ sellers too iirc, do dota and it's clones count as strategy games cause they seem to do well.

This really boils down to using the IP though, I would think very few of the people who this new game is aimed at would of ever heard of X-Com so why use the name?

 

[Hypereides]

Ray Charles just rolled over in his grave right now.

Shittiest comparison Ive heard from a videogame game company PR. Motherfucker needs to fry.

 

[Nirolak]

Dawn of Wars are million+ sellers too iirc, do dota and it's clones count as strategy games cause they seem to do well.

This really boils down to using the IP though, I would think very few of the people who this new game is aimed at would of ever heard of X-Com so why use the name?

Yeah, DotA games definitely count. They're derived from RTS hero mechanics, camera view, ability structure, and unit behavior.

As for sales, the Dawn of War series is over 6.5 million copies and according to Valve, DotA 1 has 20 million players. Most of the DotA 1 players are pirates, but still, that's an insanely huge reach.

 

[echoshifting]

Basically, he's trying to justify being a pale imitation of something great for money. He's saying it's okay to abandon all of one's gifts and passion in order to tag along with someone else's winning formula for a little financial gain. As a person in a creative industry I find the whole argument offensive and absurd.

 

[Aaron]

His statement doesn't just apply to X-COM though. He says strategy games as a whole are not contemporary.

I don't think there'd be that much controversy if he said "An X-COM first person shooter is a lot more marketable than an X-COM TBS game."

I'd take issue with this statement, since just another FPS is going to be buried when it comes to sales. Nothing shown so far will make it stand out like Bioshock and Borderlands did. Throwing a 50s gloss on it isn't going to his the FPS demographic. They didn't have to make a turn-based game, but they should have at least done something interesting from a gameplay perspective. No, cribbing from Mass Effect 2 doesn't count. Maybe a FPS/RTS hybrid would have worked. Shit, Halo Wars sold well, and that game was kind of shit. With the right marketing and the critics on your side, people will eat a game up as long as you make it accessible to them. The FPS market is too competitive to wade in lightly.

So he better get an excuse ready when XCOM sells like shit.

 

[Tacitus_]

“I use the example of music artists. Look at someone old school like Ray Charles, if he would make music today it would still be Ray Charles but he would probably do it more in the style of Kanye West. Bringing Ray Charles back is all fine and good, but it just needs to move on, although the core essence will still be the same."

How can someone be so wrong?

 

[Lopson]

It's always been like this though. A company strikes gold with a game formula (often this is coupled with generation leaps) and several other companies release a title in the same vein. Platformers were all the rage in the 32bit/64bit console generation; Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, you could even lump Tomb Raider into that.

Point taken. When I made that comment, I was also thinking about the whole Op Rainfall thing, as well as the PS3 lawsuits and all that jazz. Guess those things kind of clouded my judgement of this situation.

 

[Nirolak]

I'd take issue with this statement, since just another FPS is going to be buried when it comes to sales. Nothing shown so far will make it stand out like Bioshock and Borderlands did. Throwing a 50s gloss on it isn't going to his the FPS demographic. They didn't have to make a turn-based game, but they should have at least done something interesting from a gameplay perspective. No, cribbing from Mass Effect 2 doesn't count. Maybe a FPS/RTS hybrid would have worked. Shit, Halo Wars sold well, and that game was kind of shit. With the right marketing and the critics on your side, people will eat a game up as long as you make it accessible to them. The FPS market is too competitive to wade in lightly.

Oh I agree, there's definitely controversy to the statement, but at least someone could try and make a compelling argument.

His current position though barely makes sense given the current market.

 

[echoshifting]

Point taken. When I made that comment, I was also thinking about the whole Op Rainfall thing, as well as the PS3 lawsuits and all that jazz. Guess those things kind of clouded my judgement of this situation.

A+

 

[MMaRsu]

I really really really doubt this X-Com game will sell better than a true to form X-Com game.

 

[Automatisch]

I really really really doubt this X-Com game will sell better than a true to form X-Com game.

I'd be surprised if anyone even remembers it a few weeks after it comes out.

 

[VariantX]

i wonder what excuse will he have then for it not selling

 

[Interfectum]

I really really really doubt this X-Com game will sell better than a true to form X-Com game.

You think we'll get another 'bu bu bu bad release window' excuse?

 

[echoshifting]

i wonder what excuse will he have then for it not selling

That the X-COM brand is no longer viable. Sorry guys, we tried and tried.

 

[Nirolak]

You think we'll get another 'bu bu bu bad release window' excuse?

Hartmann explains why: “It was the publishing window. It was the spring of death. We shipped two weeks after Mass Effect 2. Every two weeks there was a major release so you had two weeks to sell. And if you look at the statistics of all of those titles, sales fell off a cliff for all of them after two weeks."

Becomes:

Hartmann explains why: “It was the publishing window. It was the spring of death. We shipped it the same day as Mass Effect 3. Every day there was a major release so you had zero days to sell."

Spoiler

Yes, it actually is releasing the same day as Mass Effect 3.

 

[MMaRsu]

You think we'll get another 'bu bu bu bad release window' excuse?

-It seems X-Com was maybe a bad choice for us, the IP is not useful for a FPS game.

-We timed the release window wrong and therefore sales have been under the target we set.

One of those, or whatever really.

 

[Soda]

Bioshock 4 - 3rd person cover shooter now featuring hats and play with your poker buddies and other people who enjoy whale watching.

 

[Interfectum]

Yes, it actually is releasing the same day as Mass Effect 3.

I didn't realize that. Wow wtf. Sent to die?