|
It's an interesting evolution, because as Bethesda Game Studios
specifically, you've traditionally operated with what some see as a more
antiquated development model -- spend three or four years developing a game,
ship that big thing, get started on something else. How much have you had to
adapt your methods to adjust the way you think about development?
PH: It doesn't change how we think about it. We have always been
really good at what you're talking about, which is managing the game's life
cycle -- what are you doing with the game three months out, six months out, one
year out, two years out?
I think it's actually something we do better than most publishers,
if not all publishers. I say that because -- well, what does your average big
publisher put out a year? Thirty games? Forty games? Whatever the hell the
number is.
They're doing that every year. They have these large number of
titles and they just don't think about them like we do, whereas we do something
like Oblivion or Morrowind. We're still selling Morrowind
on a monthly basis. We still have it out there. Oblivion is still doing
terrific for us.
We don't give up on our stuff, ever. There is always a market and
a niche and people out there who are willing to buy it. DLC is just another
component of that. We make games that have legs and that stick around and that
people will continue to be vested in and play for a long time.
This is just another way to reach out to those folks to say,
"If you really like this, here are some more things that you might
like." It's the lifecycle of the product as a thing you sell, as well as
the game as a thing you play. It allows people to keep coming back to it.
I have people who ping me about this -- I was just talking to a
press guy who said, "I just had a friend start playing Oblivion. He
had never played it and now he's really into it." That guy's going to go
out and start buying downloadable content. He's probably going to go buy the
much-maligned horse armor.
There are people who are coming into our products years and years
after folks like you or your readers have moved past them. There are people who
are experiencing it for the first time.
That DLC stuff is great because it's
still there and available and working with them, and for them that content is
still a new experience, both from a product standpoint as well as within the
game itself.
Particularly lately, Valve has spoken a great deal about that
model -- the idea of a game as a living service. It's probably not a
coincidence that you and Valve are among the more successful independent
developers, while sharing that mentality.
PH: Well, honestly, those guys are masters of it. I wouldn't ever
try and compare us and them. What they've done with Steam is just wholly
remarkable. And when Steam first came out, they took what was the equivalent of
their horse armor lumps and then some. [laughter]
I remember just how much shit they got over it. But they stuck to
it and it's great. It's now the gold standard of delivery online of new games
and previously released ones -- it is fantastic. That's just owing to those
guys having a vision. This is what the industry wants and this is how it needs
to work. They refined it and made it better.
We released Fallout 3 on Steam and it's done terrific for
us. It's really easy to work with and it reaches a core audience. Guys who are
really into Steam are really into games in general and like them and buy them
and play them. They've gotten it 100% right in terms of how to use that kind of
delivery mechanism to extend their product.
When you describe the idea of a game selling for even up to six
years in the case of Morrowind, that reminds me very much of the '90s-era
PC model, with huge, intricate games that would have an active scene for years
and years, even before there was much web coverage -- and obviously, that's
exactly the time and place The Elder Scrolls was born. Now you're doing
that in a multiplatform environment, even though that isn't actually how most
multiplatform games are sold these days. Did you just keep operating that way
because that's what you do?
PH: Absolutely. More than anything, it's just focus. When you've
got 50 titles in a year, you just don't focus on those 50. When you're going to
a retailer, just one of the 50 you released last year is not what you're
talking to that guy.
We don't have those 50, and it's by choice. We could find
a bunch of crap to put out if we just wanted to fill a pipeline or hit a
number, but we just have a very different approach strategically.
When you have that approach, one of the benefits is focus. You go
back into a retailer in 2009 and you're still able to say, "Hey, by the
way, this game is still selling great. Have you looked at our inventory levels
lately? You're selling it well enough that you guys need to think about
reordering, and we have some ideas to keep selling it, because there are people
out there who still want it."
We're getting ready to do something else with Oblivion this
year, because it is still selling and retailers still like it. If we weren't
talking about that game, they'd only be focused on the [newer] things. But we
stay on top it. I think that owes to our sales guys who stay on top of it and
don't want to let it just die.
It's not, "Oh, it's two years old, it's not going to sell any
more." That's not true. It will. If you pay attention to it and keep
taking care of it, it's still got a home, it can still do something.
When you say you're thinking about doing something with Oblivion,
what does that mean?
PH: Oh, I'll let you know. [laughter]
|
There's another interesting point about the perception of product age, too. Excellent games from just ten years ago such as Deus Ex, The Longest Journey, or No One Lives Forever - game of the year caliber products or simply products that are excellent but did not get enough mainstream popularity - were not necessarily played by gamers who are now in their early to mid 20s due to their Mature ESRB rating. There are young adults today who have heard about various "awesome" games from the recent past but cannot necessarily find them in order to play them. I think the industry would be well served if companies started a practice of rereleasing various excellent titles every ten years or so. Heck, if we can do this in other media formats, why not games? Of course, it does happen somewhat already, but it would be very helpful for newer generations of adult gamers to always be able to count on rereleases of titles they were unable to experience when they were younger. Besides, it's another way to make money from a product by selling it to a new, now eligible market.
I think he meant to say "disappointed or upset that the game had a hackneyed ending that forced you to be either an unnecessary martyr or a pathetic coward."
He's not talking about the content of the ending he is talking about the ability to continue from that point on. That coupled with the level cap meant that once that point was reached many gamers would say "now what?" and quit playing as opposed to just continuing on with whatever they were doing previously throughout the game. I know I am guilty of this. I purposely didn't beat the game for a long time, but once I had reached that level cap of 20 the motivation to explore new areas kind of diminished.
It wasn't fully the fault of the cap or the ending though for me. It was also that there wasn't much worth finding in the wasteland for me. I was a melee character so all the ammo and guns I was finding really had no use to me yet I picked them up and converted them to bottle caps, even though there was nothing to buy. Even if I had used guns the only thing worth finding would have been bullets and duplicates to repair my weapon. The skill books were the only thing I had to look forward to while searching every nook and cranny of the wasteland, and the occasional bobbleheads. The skill books weren't enough to keep that motivation though because they were such a small impact on my character ability anyway. And the bobbleheads while nice to find were so few and far between. I also forgot to mention that I was motivated by finding quests even at level 20, but once I had gotten every quest trophy I knew there were no more main quest paths to find.
I think either allowing for no level cap somehow or allowing you to gain some kind of alternate exploration XP to get unique perks would have been a good motivating factor for me to continue searching the wasteland past the previously mentioned ending and level cap.
I second that and third it by my self. Support the PS3 users just like the rest of your loyal customers. I still play Oblivion on the PS3. I will play Fallout 3 as long most likely. Are we PS3 owners any less valuable than the 360 owners as a customers? It just seems unfair and unkind.
They really represented themselves poorly to the Playstation community and I can only assume the financial repurcussion of that will be felt longer than if they would've turned down a deal with MS. Myself and several people I know purchased it on the PS3 even though we have high end computers and Xbox 360s, all of us felt cheated. I, for one, will never buy a product from Bethesda again. I can only hope that Obsidian learns from Bethesda's mistakes.