Alright, after reading this : http://pc.ign.com/articles/446/446379p1.html , I felt compelled to clarify what I've been saying about Fallout 3 and Interplays decision to can it, which in light of this recent news, is now a little dumbfounding.
Interplay has little money to play with, so, with rather weak marketing, there is a good chance FOBOS would sell better then FO3 simply due to the nature of console gaming. Marketing, as many of you understand, IS effective and DOES sell more games than little to no marketing. Now, with that said, this article claims now that not only are the in the process of making FOBOS2 ( which will be marginally quicker to develope than 1 ), but ALSO something called Exaulted, which again according to the article, has NO ENGINE. Hmmm, so now we see some cash. Here is where my equation is modifed...if they can afford to spend money on a sequel to a game that has not shipped, which can very well end up critically slammed( which WILL hurt the sequel regardless of the nature of consoles ), and spend money on a NEW game that has NO ENGINE, then they are clearly making a VERY poor mistake acing BIS and game. All that cash can go to marketing Fallout 3 ALONG with FOBOS to get a 2 for 1. Their money would go FURTHER simply by the exposure of a license 2 fold on 2 platforms! Ridiculous. Spending money WILL make you money, so any money spent on marketing CAN effectively place Fallout more in the eyes of the mainstream, which how can you argue this, since they are clearly wanting to do this with FOBOS.
EVEN if FO3 was not as far along as it was, it would be a poor decision...but in light of the fact that aledgedly FO3 was as far along as to have a complete engine ( the hardest part of a development ), had a completed script and design, with merely maps and game asset integration, the decision was absolutely suspicious. Its VERY hard to for me to fathom that this was a purely financial decision, though I wager we'll never hear the sum total of both sides of the argument. They say it was simply that FO3 would not make it by 2004, which yeah, no shit, it was what a month away at the time of the presentation, yet they can afford to work on 2 games not even started. FOBOS is not making 2004 so what about that!? Clearly a lame and deceptive excuse.
We in fact have legitimacy now to our anger towards Interplay, for clearly defined poor decisions have now led to a near definite end to a world we love.
Cheers
Fallout 3, Interplay and Marketing
-
Spazmo
- Haha you're still not there yet
- Posts: 3590
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 4:17 am
- Location: Monkey Island
- Contact:
Piffle. Developing FOBOS2 will take all of a weekend, simply because they took FOBOS and cut it in half to make two games.EvoG wrote:making FOBOS2 ( which will be marginally quicker to develope than 1 )
As for Interplay, they're just fucked. A lack of any kind of profits over the holidays combined with crap games that have a highly doubtful chance of selling well means doom and gloom for Herve and Darth Molitor.
Oh, no doubt, but I'm referring to their 'decision' to boot BIS and can FO3. With a little marketing, money they could get from NOT developing FOBOS 2 until they see how 1 does and this Exhault that is just nothing as far as anyone seems concerned, they could get FO3 exposure to go along side FOBOS1, and this is a valid option since FO3 was already as far along as it aledgedly is...why waste all that development for something YET TO BE DEVELOPED ( Exhault ).
Oh well, bah, whatever, the end.
Cheers
Oh well, bah, whatever, the end.
Cheers
