Got an email back from "Interplay"

[Pope Viper]

Or more specifically, their PR company.



"Thanks for taking the time to write your note; it is hard for some of us to read, and we might disagree with some of your comments, but I cannot dispute the fact that you are a self-proclaimed gamer, you have enjoyed Interplay’s products, and you took the time to share your impressions."

"I suppose my short answer is that Interplay management is doing what it believes is going to save the company and allow it to make better — and more profitable — games in the future."

"Don’t let any rumors sway you...Fallout lives...now that is not to say we have a new Fallout PC game coming in the next few months, but management will do what it can to maximize the intellectual property it owns and the fan base it has, within the financial parameters it must operate. If current management had not inherited millions and millions in losses and debt, perhaps we would be celebrating Interplay games based on The Matrix, Fallout, and more. But the situation is what it is, and we are focused on making it better."

This came from a Luke Haase, at intellienceagency.com

 

[welsh]

= Buy FOBOS if you want Fallout.

What is the word for "fuckers" in Spanish.

Chinggadas?

 

[Revolver]

If current management had not inherited millions and millions in losses and debt, perhaps we would be celebrating Interplay games based on The Matrix, Fallout, and more. But the situation is what it is, and we are focused on making it better.

Hehe- is this a backhanded swipe at Titus for screwing over Interplay?

 

[ESpark]

= Buy FOBOS if you want Fallout.

You might not like FOBOS. Understandable. However, what kind of message are you sending to those who look at the bottom line when a large amount of people ignore yet another Fallout title?

 

[Wooz]

Welsh wrote:

What is the word for "fuckers" in Spanish.

Pick: pendejos / hijos de su reputa madre / chupapalos / trozos de mierda / putitos

I don't think there is a literal translation fo "fuckers" though... in Polish it's "jebancy".

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

You might not like FOBOS. Understandable. However, what kind of message are you sending to those who look at the bottom line when a large amount of people ignore yet another Fallout title?

what are you saying? that we should all buy FO:BoS so interplay knows that we're still interested in the 'Fallout' series?

 

[Azael]

You might not like FOBOS. Understandable. However, what kind of message are you sending to those who look at the bottom line when a large amount of people ignore yet another Fallout title?

The bottom line would be that Fallout fans aren't interested in whoring out their favorite franchise.

 

[Brother None]

You might not like FOBOS. Understandable. However, what kind of message are you sending to those who look at the bottom line when a large amount of people ignore yet another Fallout title?

Wait, wait, "ignore yet another Fallout title"?

This is the first Fallout title we're planning to ignore. Fallout 1 started it all, Fallout 2 had us all riveted and Fallout:Tactics also got huge attention, before everyone got it and realised it sucked (but that's not our fault, that's Interplay's fault)

 

[Lord Terrible]

Hmm...

Hmm! I say.

 

[Chimp]

You might not like FOBOS. Understandable. However, what kind of message are you sending to those who look at the bottom line when a large amount of people ignore yet another Fallout title?

If they want to know what Fallout fans want, they need only listen to the fans complaints to work out that we don't won't FOOS. They don't which is why the company is losing money.

 

[ESpark]

what are you saying? that we should all buy FO:BoS so interplay knows that we're still interested in the 'Fallout' series?

[/quote]

I would say that since TPTB look at the bottom line, it would be wiser to support the product, so as to make Fallout an actually attractive franchise. The best way to kill Fallout is to not buy a single thing with Fallout on the title. Even if Interplay offers to sell it, who'll buy it / F3 if the last X Fallout games (including F1 and F2 in on this, since they weren't exactly blockbusters) sold poorly?

If they want to know what Fallout fans want, they need only listen to the fans complaints to work out that we don't won't FOOS. They don't which is why the company is losing money.

The company is losing money, yes, but hardly on forum angst.

 

[Montez]

I would say that since TPTB look at the bottom line, it would be wiser to support the product, so as to make Fallout an actually attractive franchise. The best way to kill Fallout is to not buy a single thing with Fallout on the title. Even if Interplay offers to sell it, who'll buy it / F3 if the last X Fallout games (including F1 and F2 in on this, since they weren't exactly blockbusters) sold poorly?

What kind of logic is that? You expect consumers to take a business seriously when it says, "Buy our shoddy products that you don't want, and we promise that someday we might make a quality product that you do want"? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[MrMarcus]

what are you saying? that we should all buy FO:BoS so interplay knows that we're still interested in the 'Fallout' series?

I would say that since TPTB look at the bottom line, it would be wiser to support the product, so as to make Fallout an actually attractive franchise. The best way to kill Fallout is to not buy a single thing with Fallout on the title. Even if Interplay offers to sell it, who'll buy it / F3 if the last X Fallout games (including F1 and F2 in on this, since they weren't exactly blockbusters) sold poorly?

That's flawed logic. By buying FOoS we wouldn't be encouraging Ineptlay to re-start FO3, nor would it do anything to the franchise as a whole. It would mean a defenite creation of FOoS 2 (which nobody on this board wants to see) and probably more cookie-cutter console platformers in the same vein. They'll continue in the well until it's dry.

Besides, I wouldn't buy it regardless of the name. Shooters don't appeal to me anymore.

 

[ESpark]

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Sure it does. Since game titles are partically green-lighted by the possible demand for the game, great sales for a Fallout title would make game designers more interested in continuing along that path.

They'll continue in the well until it's dry

Using that logic, I could say that a Fallout-as-an-RPG 'well' has 'dried up' too - 2 games, not very good sellers, and a third which was cancelled for a few game-centric reasons* and a few non-game-centric reasons**.

Its really quite simple. If you don't buy Fallout games, Fallout will not be made again. You don't make games with an franchise that has had a history of failure.

* My opinion on game-centric reasons for cancellation - lack of a large enough market for the project to succeed.
* My opinion on non-game-centric reasons for cancellation - Interplay simply didn't have the money to throw at F3, and not enough money to survive long enough to recoup their investments from it.

 

[Bradylama]

HOnestly, who do they think they're fooling?

Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that "more profitable" doesn't equate to "better."

Its too bad there are so many people with only one brain cell. -_-

 

[Montez]

Sure it does. Since game titles are partically green-lighted by the possible demand for the game, great sales for a Fallout title would make game designers more interested in continuing along that path.

Well, the main problem I see with this is that if Fallout wasn't a great seller and was viewed by the company as not having a great demand, why would they authorize both FO3 and FO:BOS?

The second problem I have is that, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, although neither FO 1 & 2 were great sellers when they first hit the market they still sell to this day. I've heard a lot of numbers thrown around, but I believe total sales are in the 100,000's. So even though they didn't sell well at first, the years have made up for that and increased the fan base. At almost every forum I've been to Fallout 1 or 2 is always mentioned many times whenever someone asks for a recommendation for a great RPG, and often given as the best RPG ever made (even by non fanboys). The games have a large base of fans, and anyone at Interplay who cared to do the research could find that out pretty easily. What they wouldn't discover, no matter how hard they tried, is a large group of people who wanted to see Fallout made into a console-only shooter. So, what reason could Inertplay have for cancelling FO3 and continuing with BOS when the demand is clearly for an RPG? Instead of continuing with a project with a fan base, they market a project that is a spin-off of the game that the fans want. How does this make any sense?

 

[ESpark]

Anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that "more profitable" doesn't equate to "better."

Sales are the most important thing to those that matter - the people that make new games. The more profitable a game is, the more likely something similar is produced.

Show me someone quoting what you said, and I'll show you someone who likes something that isn't selling. Fair enough, of course, but don't expect any bigwigs to listen to you when it comes to the next Big Game they fund.

Well, the main problem I see with this is that if Fallout wasn't a great seller and was viewed by the company as not having a great demand, why would they authorize both FO3 and FO:BOS?

Pardon my french - No Fucking Clue. BOS had more chance of being made, by virtue of it not being Fallout or Fallout 2, being marketed more towards a different market. As for Fallout 3... again, no clue, but it says something when the game was cancelled before it was was officially announced.

...increased the fan base

Not enough, obviously.

At almost every forum I've been to Fallout 1 or 2 is always mentioned many times whenever someone asks for a recommendation for a great RPG, and often given as the best RPG ever made

Your standards are too limited to be of any value - one of the things I've learned in my life, by myself and those who've worked at computer stores, is that Forum Outrage Doesn't Fix Much Of Anything.

A few examples - Black & White. When the game came out, forums everywhere went nuts, claiming it sucked, was boring, that they'd return it in one second, etc etc. However, few returns actually happened, and the game sold fantastically.

Another example is Deus Ex: Invisible War. When the demo came out, forums everywhere burned about how it was very different from the original, that it sucked, that the performance was horrid, that they'll never ever EVAR buy the game... Well, it too is - not surprisingly - selling wonderfully.

The games have a large base of fans, and anyone at Interplay who cared to do the research could find that out pretty easily.

Obviously not large enough.

So, what reason could Inertplay have for cancelling FO3 and continuing with BOS when the demand is clearly for an RPG?

Lionhead (or is it Lionheart? Damned if I can remember right now) didnt do too hot either. When one SPECIAL-system RPG fails, the market for another one simply isn't there.

Instead of continuing with a project with a fan base, they market a project that is a spin-off of the game that the fans want. How does this make any sense?

I suppose this is the moment when it becomes apparent, like every Forum-going Netizen realizes - that the Hardcore fan simply isn't as important to be pandered to anymore. There is a Legion of casual gamers with the money and the willingness to part with it for what they want. And they outnumber you 10 to 1.

There will not be a System Shock 3.

There will not be a Descent 4.

There will not be a Dungeon Keeper 3.

And it seems, there will not be a Fallout 3. Sucks, I know. But I can understand why.

 

[Montez]

Forum Outrage Doesn't Fix Much Of Anything

Well - I think the goal of expressing outrage on a forum, if there is a goal, is to get people to think twice about buying a game and to express your discontent over purchasing what is in your view an inferior or seriously flawed product. And while it doesn't work all the time, it does perform those two functions pretty well. Take Temple of Elemental Evil, for example. How many people put off buying that game because of the huge amount of bug complaints on the Atari forum? Since I don't work in a game store or the industry I don't really know. But lots of people said that they wouldn't buy the game because of the bugs. Atari had no plans to release a patch for ToEE at shipping. If there hadn't been such a massive outpouring of complaints on the forums, and the large amount of people saying that they wouldn't buy the game until the bugs were fixed, there probably wouldn't have been a patch.

A few examples - Black & White. When the game came out, forums everywhere went nuts, claiming it sucked, was boring, that they'd return it in one second, etc etc. However, few returns actually happened, and the game sold fantastically.

Oh yes, even I got sucked into buying that one, thought thankfully only for $15. Never again, Mr. Molyneaux, you hype machine you. I'll take your word that the game sold well and that there were few returns - how many people are going to rush out and buy a Molyneaux-endorsed game now though? How many people who bought B&W haven't learned their lesson and are going to rush out and buy Fable, blindly believing that it's going to live up to it's absurd hype? If I had actually gone to forums and read peoples complaints about the game, i.e. the fact that you don't even have your animal for half the game and that it boils down to a village micro-management simulation I wouldn't have bought it. Companies spend lots of money and effort to get people to buy their games, and game review sites often give higher scores to games to keep the ad money rolling in. A forum is usually the only place you can go to get an honest opinion, even if you do have to put extra effort forth to judge which opinions are worthwhile and which aren't. Yes, there are lots of idiots who don't learn from experience, but for the ones that do it's a good thing to have forums full of people willing to express their opinion, for whatever it's worth.

Another example is Deus Ex: Invisible War. When the demo came out, forums everywhere burned about how it was very different from the original, that it sucked, that the performance was horrid, that they'll never ever EVAR buy the game... Well, it too is - not surprisingly - selling wonderfully.

My rebuttal would be that a few issues and changes aside, the demo isn't a radical departure from the style and setting of the original Deus Ex and was pretty fun - seeing your avatar I'm assuming you think the same thing - and most people who played Deus Ex remembered the original having a lot of issues too. Apart from the over the top posts though, there were some valid points raised - the helpful info about changing the *.ini file from read only so that your changes actually got saved stands out, and what it says about the effort put into the game. Yes, a lot of it was over the top, but if it keeps you from rushing out and blindly spending $50 on a game then it's a good thing.

Lionhead (or is it Lionheart? Damned if I can remember right now) didnt do too hot either. When one SPECIAL-system RPG fails, the market for another one simply isn't there.

It's Lionheart. I don't know where to begin here. You don't honestly believe that, do you? "If one Half-Life-engine based FPS fails, the market for another one simply isn't there". It's much too simplistic a view, and if game companies hold this view and are this out of touch with their products, then it's a wonder more haven't gone under.

This is the moment when it becomes apparent, like every Forum-going Netizen realizes - that the Hardcore fan simply isn't as important to be pandered to anymore. There is a Legion of casual gamers with the money and the willingness to part with it for what they want. And they outnumber you 10 to 1.

Unfortunately this is true, although I don't know if hardcore fans have been pandered to at all since the mid-eighties. What is your suggestion? We all just shut up, give up, stop complaining? Resign ourselves to the fact that the RPG demographic is minor enough to not warrant the effort or money making a game targeted at it? There's no better way to guarantee that we'll never see a game we want to play if we do that.

Most everyone here understands why FO3 is cancelled and why BOS is going to be released (assuming Interplay doesn't go bankrupt first). We all know that buying BOS isn't going to lead to Fallout 3 though, and this is why we argue when people say it will. It's just a sad, manipulative argument to get money out of fans pockets, and that's all.

 

[ESpark]

there probably wouldn't have been a patch

There's always a patch.

How many people who bought B&W haven't learned their lesson and are going to rush out and buy Fable, blindly believing that it's going to live up to it's absurd hype?

People will buy Fable (and B&W2, of course) on name alone - the people on forums thought it was one of the Worst Games Evar, but it sold enough to the mainstream to ensure success on producer alone.

game review sites often give higher scores to games to keep the ad money rolling in

A conspiracy theory. I've heard that line often, usually in tandem with some sort of "game X I don't like got a good review".

My rebuttal would be that a few issues and changes aside, the demo isn't a radical departure from the style and setting of the original Deus Ex and was pretty fun - seeing your avatar I'm assuming you think the same thing - and most people who played Deus Ex remembered the original having a lot of issues too.

Trust me. The forums were ablaze about its "dumbing down" and "xboxification". People claimed left and right that they wouldn't buy it before a patch. Yet here it is, and its selling fantastically.

Yes, a lot of it was over the top, but if it keeps you from rushing out and blindly spending $50 on a game then it's a good thing.

Thats the point I'm trying to make! It doesn't.

You don't honestly believe that, do you?

I don't, but its certainly something to think about. You want Fallout 3, right? Companies look at how well Lionheart did. Same system, same basic game, and it sells poorly. Whats that gonna do to Fallout 3's chances of remaining in production?

Resign ourselves to the fact that the RPG demographic is minor enough to not warrant the effort or money making a game targeted at it?

Basically. Its not a nice thing to suggest, I'll admit, but I think its the truth. There will always be RPGs. Odds are, it won't be Fallout 3.

 

[Sarkus]

If current management had not inherited millions and millions in losses and debt, perhaps we would be celebrating Interplay games based on The Matrix, Fallout, and more. But the situation is what it is, and we are focused on making it better.

Hehe- is this a backhanded swipe at Titus for screwing over Interplay?

Actually, it's a backhanded swipe at Fargo and the decisions made before Titus took over Interplay. Titus still controls Interplay, though the board doesn't always go along with what H. Caen wants.