GameSpy Dissapointed By Troika

[Sol Invictus]

GameSpy's resident cynic, Chris Buecheler <a href=http://www.gamespy.com/articles/592/592496p1.html?fromint=1>shares his condolences</a> and provides input on what he thinks about the loss of Troika in GameSpy's latest edition of their "Resident Cynic" editorial, which is a refreshing difference to the usual spiel at the website.
<blockquote>I'm bummed because I liked its games, flawed though they were, and because I think that Troika had the opportunity to be something more than what it was. The talent was there, the creativity was there ... so what happened?

For once I'm not going to heap the blame mostly on publishers. Mark this down on your calendars, kids, because as you well know I am typically much more forgiving of developers than publishers. In this instance, though, the publishers are only part of the problem, and perhaps not even a major part.

Quite simply, Troika was never able to capitalize on its talent because of a lack of quality control.

Three games, three collections of UI bugs, scripting errors, spelling and grammar issues, and even an occasional show-stopper (like the mid-game crash bug in Bloodlines). I understand that part of a publisher's job is quality assurance, and that there's really no excuse for missing major bugs like that ... but sooner or later a developer needs to sit back and go "why does this keep happening?" </blockquote>
It keeps happening because the industry, both developers and publishers, allow it to keep happening, especially when they manage to get away with it ever so often. I wouldn't placce the blame solely on Troika for the quality of their titles, for it is the publisher's decision to publish the buggy title in the first place. The burden should be carried by both developer, and publisher.

Perhaps Troika's demise should be marked as an example to every other developer, and publisher, on the importance of quality control. Activision no doubt lost money on their investment in the Source Engine along with the development of Bloodlines and its advertising. Ultimately, however, Troika paid the bigger price.

 

[taks]

no exitium, i disagree there... it keeps happening because we keep buying, and publishers and developers alike are aware of this.

you are correct, however, that maybe this is a portend for future developments... maybe there's a wakeup call that sounds something like "oh my, they stopped buying our crap!"

well, i can only hope.

taks

 

[NeutralMilkHotel]

Seems like everyone is an expert in what happens in the video game industry these days...

 

[Ortchel]

No more free rides?

 

[Dgaider]

I'm not so sure Troika's demise can be racked up to the technical flaws of its games. As has been pointed out repeatedly, bugs are endemic in the PC games industry... and in RPG's even more so, primarily due to their complexity. If anything, I suspect that if Troika's games were buggier than most (a questionable statement, but ignoring that) it was likely due to the fact that Troika as a developer just couldn't stand up to the eagerness of their publisher(s) to push their titles out the door before they were ready.

Did Troika take too long to polish their games? Possibly. Certainly longer than the publisher was willing to wait, and whether that's the publisher's fault in the end or the developer is the argument.

Regardless of who's fault it is, I think the real crux of the matter is that their games didn't sell. That's a sin that no-one survives. Really, if their games had been rock-solid and nearly bug-less would their current position be any different? A case can be made for it, but personally I doubt it. They probably should, but bugs don't affect sales much except in the long term through word of mouth (and then only negatively... nobody says "wow this game has no bugs! You should get it!").

What I hate is the fallacious logic that seems to creep up whenever the industry tries to decide why a title wasn't financially successful. Like ToEE... obviously it failed because it was turn-based, right? Everybody knows that turn-based games don't sell. Despite the fact that the turn-based combat was probably the funnest thing about the game.

Say what you like, I think Troika was just in an unfortunately weak position to defend their games, made some bad decisions combined with some bad breaks (like being forced to put out Bloodlines against such competition) and that ended up with them being thought of as a bad investment.

Which is a pity, and a bit of an indictment I think on the state of the PC game industry.

 

[Ortchel]

Graced by the commentary of Mr. Gaider himself.

You make some good points, but I think the thing that really sunk Troika is just that their game's weren't accessible to the mass-market. Knights of the Old Republic has an obviously huge license that'd sell even if the box was empty. ToEE sold well on these same merits. Vampire, while a pretty recognizable trademark within our own community is totally unknown to most casual RPG fans. I'm guessing if they hadn't blown their money on the Source engine and all the marketing, they probably would still be here. They just aimed too high I think, up and out of their market. However, I can't speak for their financial situation at the time and maybe it really was more desperate than I'm guessing, but I thought ToEE had done pretty well.

 

[Mr. Teatime]

What I hate is the fallacious logic that seems to creep up whenever the industry tries to decide why a title wasn't financially successful. Like ToEE... obviously it failed because it was turn-based, right? Everybody knows that turn-based games don't sell. Despite the fact that the turn-based combat was probably the funnest thing about the game.

Can we expect a turn-based game from Bioware any time soon?

 

[dojoteef]

Gaider, you say Troika failed because there games didn't sell, but you can't give a reason why. In fact you state, that it is illogical to make an association with game design issues and the lack of sales and that it is doubtful technical issues had anything to do with the sales.

Pray tell, what then could you attribute the poor sales to? You've off handly thrown the two prevailing viewpoints for poor sales out and you offer no alternative. You don't seem to be furthering the discussion any. I'd hope when a developer discusses the issues, they could try to have something insightful to say, instead of saying you're all wrong, but I don't know why. Coming from someone in the industry it comes out seeming that there is no rhyme or reason and developers can't do anything to ensure a better reception for their games, which I believe is foolish.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What David said.

Really, if their games had been rock-solid and nearly bug-less would their current position be any different?

Exactly.

 

[Sheriff05]

Regardless of who's fault it is, I think the real crux of the matter is that their games didn't sell. That's a sin that no-one survives. Really, if their games had been rock-solid and nearly bug-less would their current position be any different? A case can be made for it, but personally I doubt it.

Right you are Dave, If they just took a lesson from you guys and churned out watered down, by the numbers, shit they would have made bank! Troika walked the line between trying to make games that "sell" and making the games that "they" wanted. As you know better than anyone, you've got choose your audience, and when you make that choice you better be able to operate your company to suit.

 

[ElastiZombie]

What I hate is the fallacious logic that seems to creep up whenever the industry tries to decide why a title wasn't financially successful. Like ToEE... obviously it failed because it was turn-based, right? Everybody knows that turn-based games don't sell. Despite the fact that the turn-based combat was probably the funnest thing about the game.

It appears that the game industry is very much like the movie industry in that the producers are always looking for the magic formula that can be used repeatedly and always generate a hit. Of course, it doesn't really work out that way. It seems to me that successful games seem to walk a fine line between past trends and new innovations. I had hoped that Trioka would be able to walk that line to produce both fun and successful games. At least they definitely got the fun part right.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Pray tell, what then could you attribute the poor sales to?

It's elementary, my dear Watson! Many reasons ranging from making niche games to pirated copies hitting the net before release dates to less than popular settings to competing with heavy weights like HL2.

Coming from someone in the industry it comes out seeming that there is no rhyme or reason and developers can't do anything to ensure a better reception for their games, which I believe is foolish.

You may not like it but that's just how it is. Do you think that Obsidian was happy to cut the planet, the endings, and fuck the ending?

 

[Sol Invictus]

Well, for a certainty I can say that one of the reasons that Bloodlines hasn't sold very well was because the high system requirements limit the target audience to those with high-end computers, usually purveyors of first person shooters like Half Life 2 and Doom 3. Bloodlines' action counterpart simply pales in comparison to those games.

Ortchel: Activision was the company that licensed the Source engine, not Troika. They also handled the PR and marketing, not Troika.

Well, I suppose I'd be wrong if I assessed that the lack of quality control caused the demise of Troika, just as the Christopher Buecheler does, but I certainly think it was a powerful contributing factor to the lack of sales the game suffered and the diminished review scores in TOEE, which can be attributed to the bugs.

Like David Gaider, I don't think the turn-based combat had anything to do with the game's lack of sales or popularity. There were other issues, like the lack of a cohesive storyline or any role-playing elements. It was served as a dungeon crawler and it did Troika a disservice because a lot of people were expecting the next Baldur's Gate when they got the game, and not another take on Pool of Radience. Comparisons were made, between the two games, unfairly so, but ultimately, the comparisons were made, and it affected the sales of the game. However, I am of the opinion that the lack of marketing and interest on Atari's behalf was the largest contributing factor to the game's failure. Whether it was Troika's fault for being unable to polish the game in time for release (they managed to get an extension) or Atari's fault is, as David mentioned, the argument.

Gaider states that their demise can be solely attributed to the fact that their games didn't sell well, but one will come to realize that the sales failure is only a symptom of an even greater problem (or set of problems). Here's my take on why each of the games didn't sell well:

Bloodlines
main reasons
High system requirements limit the target audience.
Target audience is interested in action/FPS, not RPGs, of which Bloodlines cannot provide.
Bloodlines is released too closely with Half Life 2 and other hyped FPS titles.
RPG fans were looking for an RPG, not an action game.
lesser reasons
Troika's reputation for buggy releases.

Temple of Elemental Evil
main reasons
Nobody wants a dungeon crawler unless it's Diablo 3.
Poor marketing.
High system requirements.
Poor reviews, especially in regards to the game's quality and abundance of bugs.
lesser reasons
Turn-based gameplay.
Poor RPG component.
Atari's poor QA and patch support.
The Atari forum is full of complaints.

Arcanum
main reasons
Release screw-up by Sierra, causing the game to be pirated months before it becomes available to buy.
Poorly designed turn-based/real time combat hybrid, poor gameplay, poor character system and dated graphics in the demo turn many people off from buying the game.
lesser reasons
Bugs.

Bottom line? Bugs probably didn't kill TOEE or Bloodlines. I stand corrected in that, thanks to David Gaider. My original assessment was wrong, as is the Gamespy guy.

In the end, you could probably release the best looking, bug-free pong clone and nobody will buy it because nobody wants to play a pong clone. Troika should have stuck to the Arcanum 'hardcore RPG' niche and developed games similar to Fallout and Baldur's Gate, instead of veering off course with a dungeon crawler like TOEE or a Deus Ex-wannabe like Vampire: Bloodlines. Who even prefers Bloodlines' setting over Deus Ex?

Who's fault is it? Probably Troika's, for taking on those projects. The choice was theirs to make and nobody else's.

 

[dojoteef]

Coming from someone in the industry it comes out seeming that there is no rhyme or reason and developers can't do anything to ensure a better reception for their games, which I believe is foolish.

You may not like it but that's just how it is. Do you think that Obsidian was happy to cut the planet, the endings, and fuck the ending?

What does that have to do with my contention? He states that design decisions (such as Obisidian cutting out a planet for example) can not be attributed to poor sales. He uses the turn-based combat controversy as an example of what he believes to be fallacious logic. Now I took that to be a generalization of design decisions. If he was trying to speak only about turn-based combat, though it didn't seem that way to me, then I have no argument. Otherwise, it makes it seem as though nothing the developers do matters, it's based on factors that you can't account for. If people think like that, then were going to see a continual stream of defunct companies that blame everybody except themselves.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Right you are Dave, If they just took a lesson from you guys and churned out watered down, by the numbers, shit they would have made bank! Troika walked the line between trying to make games that "sell" and making the games that "they" wanted. As you know better than anyone, you've got choose your audience, and when you make that choice you better be able to operate your company to suit.

Troika betrayed their audience when they opted to develop Bloodlines and TOEE. Where is TOEE's audience, I ask? They wanted an RPG, not a dungeon crawler. If they were intent on targetting the fans of Icewind Dale, they probably succeeded, but that audience is a limited one in comparison to the hordes of Fallout, Baldur's Gate, and yes, NWN fans. Who was their Bloodlines audience? Goths with high-end computers? Most people who play RPGs don't even own computers capable of running the game. On top of that, I'd like to say "Fuck Vampire". It is a trite, worthless setting. If they had gone with a cyberpunk setting, they'd have at least managed to bag the Deus Ex crowd, which is quite numerous in comparison.

They chose their audiences poorly and betrayed their true audience.

 

[Vault Dweller]

What does that have to do with my contention? He states that design decisions (such as Obisidian cutting out a planet for example) can not be attributed to poor sales.

I used Obsidian's KOTOR 2 as an example of a developer being unable to "do anything to ensure a better reception for their games".

 

[Sheriff05]

Troika betrayed their audience when they opted to develop Bloodlines and TOEE. Where is TOEE's audience, I ask? They wanted an RPG, not a dungeon crawler. If they were intent on targetting the fans of Icewind Dale, they probably succeeded, but that audience is a limited one in comparison to the hordes of Fallout, Baldur's Gate, and yes, NWN fans. Who was their Bloodlines audience? Goths with high-end computers? Most people who play RPGs don't even own computers capable of running the game. On top of that, I'd like to say "Fuck Vampire". It is a trite, worthless setting. If they had gone with a cyberpunk setting, they'd have at least managed to bag the Deus Ex crowd, which is quite numerous in comparison.

They chose their audiences poorly and betrayed their true audience.

Totally agree in theory, Rex..noone( like myself for instance) gave a fuck about the vampire setting. Even as a *cough* "Troika Fanboy" I never bought Vampire because the setting has zero appeal to me. I don't know if "betrayed" is the right word, I didn't feel "betrayed" ( as in the sense of NWN wasting my fucking time) but Vampire was definitely a "bad call" and obviously done to try reach a bigger audience and to keep working with big publisher dollars get themselves out the logistical bind they found themselves in with ToEE. They should'ev went a different direction after ToEE , to their PA maybe and started looking at self publishing or definitely a small co-publishing deal. Obviously that would mean layoffs and salary cuts, but again you need to choose your audience. While people like myself are "fringe" we do spend alot of money usually buy multiple copies and don't balk at $50 price tags. So I think you can survive going that route. I guess they figured they were past that.

 

[obediah]

... If anything, I suspect that if Troika's games were buggier than most (a questionable statement, but ignoring that) it was likely due to the fact that Troika as a developer just couldn't stand up to the eagerness of their publisher(s) to push their titles out the door before they were ready....

I know for a fact that Arcanum and Bloodlines weren't released early. And I'm pretty sure that ToEE was granted at least one delay by the publisher. I remember reading that part of the reason Troika was able to land ToEE, is that they said they could leverage the arcanum code to get the game to market quickly. I think Atari (who had been through milestones with Troika) lost confidence in their ability to fix the game and decided their best chance to minimize loss was to dump the game. If you have infromation that disputes this, I'd love to hear it -and restore some of my love for Troika.

 

[crufty]

"They chose their audiences poorly and betrayed their true audience."

I think that is probably the harsh lesson learned, and is true in any business. It makes me wonder what the publisher/developer relationship was like. If one depends on publisher money, then the true audience is the publisher itself, not us. The publisher's job is to fund the developer--and ultimately, nothing more. If they couldn't get funding, that means they pitched and failed--and either quit or were told not to come back. I wonder what went wrong. Derek Smart is able to get games out the door (somehow).

 

[Vault Dweller]

... If anything, I suspect that if Troika's games were buggier than most (a questionable statement, but ignoring that) it was likely due to the fact that Troika as a developer just couldn't stand up to the eagerness of their publisher(s) to push their titles out the door before they were ready....

I know for a fact that Arcanum and Bloodlines weren't released early.

Two different things.

 

[Greatatlantic]

They chose their audiences poorly and betrayed their true audience.

Just out of curiousity, do you know if they were approached by Sierra for Arcanum 2? Or that one of those four projects they were selling to publishers wasn't an Arcanum style game? If the Arcanum sales figures are even close, no wonder why. Considering they only had maybe eleven employees making it, saying they needed to consolidate is a pretty big demand. I remember one interview from Boyarsky when he stated he thought for a while Troika would be a one game company. So, they weren't in a position to sell their ideas, they had to convince somebody else that Troika could do something with their ideas. If Bioware is any indication, a company really only needs one big hit, that they can take control of their destiny and make the games they want to. Then we could go after them for betraying their fans or not.

There is a flip side to your argument, though. Do people really want the same game over and over? Sales usually say yes, but I'd say otherwise. Trying different paths and pushing the genre is something few attempt to do. By attempting to do new things Troika was doing just that.

On another note, had they released Arcanum 2 or a similar game this year, would enough people buy it over the hot shot Doom3, Half Life 2, or World of Warcraft titles? Its hard to ignore all the Game of the Year Awards and must have lists, no matter how much your prefrences fit into some niche.

 

[obediah]

... If anything, I suspect that if Troika's games were buggier than most (a questionable statement, but ignoring that) it was likely due to the fact that Troika as a developer just couldn't stand up to the eagerness of their publisher(s) to push their titles out the door before they were ready....

I know for a fact that Arcanum and Bloodlines weren't released early.

Two different things.

Remember a little game called Diakatana? Or another doosy called MOOIII. Publishing companies allow games to slip all the time, but they can't give developers an infinite amount of time. It's the the developers responsibility to make sure the two match up, not the producers. I do software development for a living. I miss deadlines - and when I do I don't blame my boss for my shitty time management skills or over-ambition.

 

[Kuato]

Remember a little game called Diakatana? Or another doosy called MOOIII. Publishing companies allow games to slip all the time, but they can't give developers an infinite amount of time. It's the the developers responsibility to make sure the two match up, not the producers. I do software development for a living. I miss deadlines - and when I do I don't blame my boss for my shitty time management skills or over-ambition.

If games slip all the time publishers should be aware of that fact and prepared at all times for games to slip if they aren't then are they really backing their product?
What is a couple months to year compared to an infinite amount of time ?
Remember these games Half Life 2 delayed, Halo 2 delayed, Resident Evil 4 Delayed, World of Warcraft delayed, Warcraft III delayed, Diablo 2 delayed, Sims 2 delayed etc.

maybe the hardest lessons to be learned are so simple... release a game when the game is ready to be released

 

[Ortchel]

Okay, you new guys (and crufty), go pick an avatar. It takes two seconds. It's getting hard to tell you all apart.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Regardless of who's fault it is, I think the real crux of the matter is that their games didn't sell. That's a sin that no-one survives.

Which leads us to the question: Why didn't they sell?

I agree with Exitium's post (Except the bit about ToEE's systems requirements being too high - unless this is a reference to the slowdowns which occured even for high-end systems). There are a number of factors that affected the games financial performance. With ToEE though, I personally didn't buy the game until the second patch had been released. That was a deliberate decision I made because I knew of the bugs. I also know a few others who still haven't bought the game because of the bugs. Though admittedly, most conversations about ToEE are along the lines of "Ermm.. well, it's got great combat?" before they slip onto bugs, lack of story and everything else. "Bugs" has probably become synonymous with that lack of everything, lest God forbid, we accept the story (or lack thereof) as a feature.

It sure did look nice though. Heh.. Actually that reminds me of this thread. Makes interesting reading after the fact. We all wanted ToEE to be something more than it was.