GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=john_jaxs]Yeah I know I am going to sound like a liar to come back and say after I said I was done, but I really had comment on this one:[/quote]

No, you didn't have to, but I knew you would.

I provided you answer on the licensing of the source engine infomation you asked about and where you can find it, I provided on answer on how Troika's release was overshadowed by making them wait, so Troika could not release the game earlier and give it a fighting chance againest a giant and I told you where you can find it.

I was trying to help you get it clear in your mind that Troika did in fact have a licensing arrangement for the use of the engine, and that you were wrong when you wrote, "Troika did not the license the engine in any way." The main questions I asked you were, and reman, as follows: 1) Show evidence that Valve made an arrangement to sabotage the marketing of Bloodlines, and 2) Show a situation in which a game sold extremely poorly for the first six months of its release, then sold four times again as many units immediately afterwards. These were the important issues I thought we were discussing, which you haven't answered.

I'm willing to go look at any websites where you can show me some proof to the actually request I made of you, that would be "Dedicated to promoting Bloodlines, I don't know I never saw any large campaigns or any, why don't you show me where I can find this infomation in print?

The request you made of me was this: "Also why don't you show me where they had "a large marketing department and set up campaigns in considerable advance of release. They simply got their marketing strategy wrong.""

And I responded in full, with this:

I began working with some of the regulars in Atari/Infogrames' US marketing and PR division, such as Erika Krishnamurti and Jenny Bendel, when they were still at other companies, and I was writing back in the mid-1980s. (Erika was a most capable PR manager for Activision for many years, for instance.) Later they joined or moved into A/I, and I continued the professional relationship, there. I found them (particularly Erika) friendly, helpful, and informative, in contrast to some marketing/PR people I could name at other companies over the years. Nowadays newer names have moved in and some old hands have moved out, but the A/I marketing team remains a large, well-defined group of people with headquarters in LA and (less well-known, because not advertised) in NY. Feel free to call them to determine the size of the department. As regards the campaign remarks I've made, I freely acknowledge those are simply our opinions, based on discussions with some of these marketing people and editors at a couple of magazines I write for. We could well be wrong, despite being game industry watchers for more than two decades. But note, I haven't made any claims of secret contracts between one company and another to sabotage a game's sales, which to be frank sounds like a bad anime plot.

So your question to me was answered. Just read through the paragraph, and analyze what I wrote.

They might belong to different genres, but here your assuming that those that like RPGs don't like FPSs, the audience to a maketing person might not seem identical, but if your person who likes different genres (which there are a alot more of then people who just like one) you got a enough money to buy one not the other, do you go for the game with the super hype that you heard of or do you go for a game you only know from reading HL2/Source engine statements? If your talking about statistics then thats fine, but you know statistics don't cut often in real life and there is always a error in those statistics.

Since you're asking me, I go for a game that fits into a partiular genre I like, and has some feature that I believe I will enjoy, along with a certain level of maturity expected from the audience. I don't play shooters or arcade games as a result. I play some strategy titles and some RPGs, and an occasional simulation like the SimCity series.

But there is very little crossover between FPS players and RPG players. Sure, there's always going to be some people who play both; but in general, they appeal to different groups, much as people who enjoy reading, say, critical analyses of the 17th century economic expansion of the Netherlands differ from those who enjoy reading romance novels. So it does appear to make sense that titles like Bloodlines and Half-Life 2 do have much crossover, nor have you provided any evidence that they do. Or more to the point, evidence that Valve thought they had the same market for Half-Life 2 as Bloodlines. And you have provided no evidence that Valve actually tried to sabotage the marketing of Bloodlines. Again, the idea that a pair of major corporations like Valve and Atari would engage in fraudulent activities in this fashion makes no sense whatever.

Also can you show me these sales numbers or where I can get these sales numbers?

I shouldn't, since you've yet to provide a single fact backing the various assertions you've made. But since I want to set an example to you...here's the relevant quote from the GameBiz article:

"Boyarsky, Cain and Anderson formed Troika in 1998 after leaving Interplay where they created the classic RPG Fallout. Troika only created three games in the past six years: Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (2001), The Temple of Elemental Evil (2003) and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (2004). These games catered to the niche RPG market, and although most were well received critically, the titles simply failed to generate enough revenue for the studio to survive. Arcanum was the company's best selling game, and it only managed to sell 234K units and generate sales of $8.8 million, according to the NPD Group. It was downhill from there; The Temple of Elemental Evil sold 128K units ($5.2 million) and Bloodlines sold a paltry 72K units ($3.4 million)."

Now, please don't respond unless you have information answering my questions of your posts, which I've repeatedly asked for. You've made some very serious allegations about a couple of companies, and requests that people do what you say because you know they can turn around Bloodlines sales--without providing any evidence that a game has ever quadrupled its sales from the first half of the year in the second half, or that Atari (or any other company, for that matter) is going to jump to do your bidding. I think it's fair enough to request that you back up your allegations and statements, or refrain from commenting again simply to reassert those statements once more without any evidence.

I was trying to help you get it clear in your mind that Troika did in fact have a licensing arrangement for the use of the engine, and that you were wrong when you wrote, "Troika did not the license the engine in any way." The main questions I asked you were, and reman, as follows: 1) Show evidence that Valve made an arrangement to sabotage the marketing of Bloodlines, and 2) Show a situation in which a game sold extremely poorly for the first six months of its release, then sold four times again as many units immediately afterwards. These were the important issues I thought we were discussing, which you haven't answered.

1 I was already clear in my mind that Troika had licensed the engine for Bloodlines (and Bloodlines only), when I meant that Troika had no licensed to the engine I meant that they had no rights after Bloodlines meaning that a sequel using the engine would be Valve's decision not Troika's.

2 Can show reasonable doubt that HL2 did not affect or overshadowed Bloodlines in anyway?

3 Can you show that no game has done that?

The request you made of me was this: "Also why don't you show me where they had "a large marketing department and set up campaigns in considerable advance of release. They simply got their marketing strategy wrong.""

And I responded in full, with this:

You did not show me where they had large departments:

Dedicated to promoting Bloodlines, I don't know I never saw any large campaigns or any, why don't you show me where I can find this infomation in print? I answered two of your questions using actually proof that you can get from website like Gamespot, IGN, gamers, imdb and others.

If you had read it correctly then you would had seen what I meant and if you was not sure what I meant then why did you not ask, instead of giving me something about there departments.

Since you're asking me, I go for a game that fits into a partiular genre I like, and has some feature that I believe I will enjoy, along with a certain level of maturity expected from the audience. I don't play shooters or arcade games as a result. I play some strategy titles and some RPGs, and an occasional simulation like the SimCity series.

But there is very little crossover between FPS players and RPG players. Sure, there's always going to be some people who play both; but in general, they appeal to different groups, much as people who enjoy reading, say, critical analyses of the 17th century economic expansion of the Netherlands differ from those who enjoy reading romance novels. So it does appear to make sense that titles like Bloodlines and Half-Life 2 do have much crossover, nor have you provided any evidence that they do. Or more to the point, evidence that Valve thought they had the same market for Half-Life 2 as Bloodlines. And you have provided no evidence that Valve actually tried to sabotage the marketing of Bloodlines. Again, the idea that a pair of major corporations like Valve and Atari would engage in fraudulent activities in this fashion makes no sense whatever.

The only evidence I could give to you would be about that most people I talk to like more then one genre, also where is your evidence that HL2 would not cut into Bloodlines or that most people that play games don't play more then one genre? How many people go to horror movies also go to comedies and how many people play VC also play sports games for you to say that you know that millions of people don't play other genres is alot bigger then any thing I have said and not provided evidence of it (I talking about a company of hundreds your talking about a world with millions of video game players).

I shouldn't, since you've yet to provide a single fact backing the various assertions you've made maligning Valve and Atari, and because you haven't offered a single fact showing that a game can make four times its previous sales in the second half of a year after suffering a terrible first six months.

You have not shown any proof that a game can not.

But since I want to set an example to you...here's the relevant quote from the GameBiz article:

"Boyarsky, Cain and Anderson formed Troika in 1998 after leaving Interplay where they created the classic RPG Fallout. Troika only created three games in the past six years: Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura (2001), The Temple of Elemental Evil (2003) and Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines (2004). These games catered to the niche RPG market, and although most were well received critically, the titles simply failed to generate enough revenue for the studio to survive. Arcanum was the company's best selling game, and it only managed to sell 234K units and generate sales of $8.8 million, according to the NPD Group. It was downhill from there; The Temple of Elemental Evil sold 128K units ($5.2 million) and Bloodlines sold a paltry 72K units ($3.4 million)."

This was also stated by your own GB/Leonard Boyarsky people about that

"Troika joint-CEO Leonard Boyarsky stopped by the RPGCodex forums to address GameDAILY's reported sales figures for the company's three games. From the sounds of it, the numbers are slightly inaccurate and skewed due to the amount of time each game has been available:

I don't have any actual numbers at hand (nor do I know whether I can reveal numbers per our contract, since I don't have that with me at the moment either), but to the best of my knowledge, ToEE was our best seller - or at least our fastest. The reason it's difficult to say is because our numbers were often being adjusted after the fact for arcane business reasons (on the publisher's end). I believe Arcanum is close to ToEE in sales, but Arcanum has been out alot longer and is at a much lower price point. Vampire hasn't been out long enough to really judge how well it will eventually do, as our games tend to continue to sell (as do all RPGs) longer than most."

Now, please don't respond unless you have information answering my questions of your posts, which I've repeatedly asked. You've made some very serious allegations about a couple of companies, and requests that people do what you say because you know they can turn around Bloodlines sales--without providing one shred of evidence that this has ever happened before, or that Atari (or any other company, for that matter) is going to jump to do your bidding. I think it's fair enough to request that you back up your allegations and statements, or refrain from commenting again simply to reassert those statements once more without any evidence.

If the fans want a sequel then Bloodlines has to sell more, if they can turn it around then a company will want to take advantage of a good selling game (not to mention a game that sold good basically on it's own then) this is no allegation it is simply a statement of business facts/sense and history. Also I never said that a company is going to jump to do my bidding, why do you think that they will not want to take advantage of something that sold good (it would be the whole point of my original statement to get the fans that want a sequel to help it sell) is beyond me and standard business practices. Can offer once more this on one of your points GTA3 sold fantastic because of word of mouth (commercials was not made until a long time after), if it was not for people telling there friends chances are it would have never sold as fantastic as it did, now I am not sugesting that word mouth would boost sales to GTA status, but it will not hurt to try to boost sales to enough that would warrant a sequel.

[QUOTE=john_jaxs]2 Can show reasonable doubt that HL2 did not affect or overshadowed Bloodlines in anyway?[/quote]

John, I can no more show that X didn't affect Y than prove the non-existence of god. What I mean by this is that you've invoked what's called The Fallacy of the Negative Proof, which takes the form of "Prove that this can't be." Usually literature, logic or English teachers in high schools or universities offer that "disprove god" subject for debate, and only after the class has exhausted themselves reveal that it's a logical impossibility. In such cases, the burden of proof always falls upon the person who makes the allegation. In this case, you. Prove that HL2 *did* affect Bloodlines sales. You might actually be able to, but it will take some work.

3 Can you show that no game has done that?

See above.

You did not show me where they had large departments:

You have yet to answer my main requests for information. I have already answered most of yours. With respect, when you do reply to the main concerns I've voiced, I'll be glad to discuss the marketing department structure of Atari over the years, and other matters.

"Troika joint-CEO Leonard Boyarsky stopped by the RPGCodex forums to address GameDAILY's reported sales figures for the company's three games. From the sounds of it, the numbers are slightly inaccurate and skewed due to the amount of time each game has been available...

Vampire hasn't been out long enough to really judge how well it will eventually do, as our games tend to continue to sell (as do all RPGs) longer than most."

Leonard is being typically defensive and obscure in the face of bad figures--notice above all that he never denies the numbers that were offered. That in itself says a great deal about their relative truth, IMO. Had GameBiz' numbers for sales been far off, it stands to reason that Troika would have waved the actual figures around triumphantly in order to make GameBiz look a little bad, and themselves look like they were being picked on.

If the fans want a sequel then Bloodlines has to sell more, if they can turn it around then a company will want to take advantage of a good selling game (not to mention a game that sold good basically on it's own then) this is no allegation it is simply a statement of business facts/sense and history.

There it is, again, that allegation. It's a statement of history? I repeat: when has a game that has shown such bad sales in the first six months following its release turned the situation around in the next 6, effectively quadrupling or more its sales? You call it history, but history is a matter of past record, and you have provided no record where this has previously occurred. You just keep repeating this, but doing so does not make it accurate. Let's have some proof, please. Otherwise, it's not "a statement of business facts/sense and history," but a hope on your part, and nothing more than that.

You have yet to answer my main requests for information. I have already answered most of yours. With respect, when you do reply to the main concerns I've voiced, I'll be glad to discuss the marketing department structure of Atari over the years, and other matters.

The only question you asked me that I have not answer by now is a impossible question for me to answer, as I have no resource to check it out and alot of gaming companies are now gone and alot would not give out sales figures to just some guy.

You have yet to answer my main requests for information. I have already answered most of yours. With respect, when you do reply to the main concerns I've voiced, I'll be glad to discuss the marketing department structure of Atari over the years, and other matters.

I don't want to know about the structure I want to know about the campaigns of Bloodlines advertising?

Leonard is being typically defensive and obscure in the face of bad figures--notice above all that he never denies the numbers that were offered. That in itself says a great deal about their relative truth, IMO. Had GameBiz' numbers for sales been far off, it stands to reason that Troika would have waved the actual figures around triumphantly in order to make GameBiz look a little bad, and themselves look like they were being picked on.

"I don't have any actual numbers at hand (nor do I know whether I can reveal numbers per our contract, since I don't have that with me at the moment either), but to the best of my knowledge, ToEE was our best seller - or at least our fastest. The reason it's difficult to say is because our numbers were often being adjusted after the fact for arcane business reasons (on the publisher's end). I believe Arcanum is close to ToEE in sales, but Arcanum has been out alot longer and is at a much lower price point. Vampire hasn't been out long enough to really judge how well it will eventually do, as our games tend to continue to sell (as do all RPGs) longer than most."

I don't see any offensive statement there as all he states is that to best of his knowledge ToEE was the best (or fastest seller) seller they had and that RPGs (as most businesses already know) sell longer than most other games. Also the game daily figures have been contested, quite succesfully. This was a big deal at the No Mutants Allowed and RPGCodex forums. Andrew Meggs posted that at least the ToEE figures were out of whack. See no one is saying that the Bloodlines figures are wrong but if they are wrong about one then there is good chance that they are wrong about the rest.

In such cases, the burden of proof always falls upon the person who makes the allegation. In this case, you. Prove that HL2 *did* affect Bloodlines sales. You might actually be able to, but it will take some work

Yes the burden of proof always falls upon the person who makes the allegation in these cases that would be you:

"But there is very little crossover between FPS players and RPG players."

Can you show me that there is only some who crossover or is there only some that don't crossover. Also your the one who brought up the six month thing wouldn't that be on you to show me that a game can not?

Also this was stated by own GB people who basically agreed with me:
"It didn't help either that Bloodlines, which was published by Activision and powered by the Source/Half-Life 2 engine, was released at the same time as Valve's blockbuster first-person shooter sequel."

There it is, again, that allegation. It's a statement of history? I repeat: when has a game that has shown such bad sales in the first six months following its release turned the situation around in the next 6, effectively quadrupling or more its sales? You call it history, but history is a matter of past record, and you have provided no record where this has previously occurred. You just keep repeating this, but doing so does not make it accurate. Let's have some proof, please. Otherwise, it's not "a statement of business facts/sense and history," but a hope on your part, and nothing more than that.

I did not mention anything about six months in my statement:

"If the fans want a sequel then Bloodlines has to sell more, if they can turn it around then a company will want to take advantage of a good selling game (not to mention a game that sold good basically on it's own then) this is no allegation it is simply a statement of business facts/sense and history."

I state that if fans can turn it around I don't say anything about six months, RPGs sell slower then most games, the only thing in this whole thing six months would only prove is that this game took longer then most RPGs and that can be sumed up to Bad Advertisement, no matter who part it would fall on (I still believe that it is Activision's fault by paying to much attention to there Blockbuster hit and Valve's not letting Troika released Bloodlines earlier hurt Bloodlines sales considerably and this does make sense as why pay attention to a indie game when you got a mega hit on your hand and Troika using Valve's engine put Troika in more direct competition with HL2 then say any other RPG would had been, and Valve is not stupid they know that Half-Life sucessor would pretty much overshadow just about any other game launch), also if your saying that a company would not want to take advantage of a good selling game and that no company ever did this then I don't know what to say because that is crazy, it goes againest all known basic business practices on the planet.

I also offer this statement to the bad advertisement statement:

"VtMB is quite a complusive and immersive game, but I stumbled upon it by accident - I saw it was rated 18 and liking Blade/John Carpenter etc - I thought I would give it a go. marketing pretty much failed - I had not heard of it before I chanced to buy it."

If you ask most people about this, I am pretty sure that you get a similar answer.

First of, John. Learn to argue correctly. You have ignored all of Fable's questions, and attempted to turn everything around on him. He has provided facts, and has a history of doing so (just do a basic search on any of the discussions he's posted in on GB). And yes, that is a relevant point, as it means he has a lot more credability than you do.

You have have been arguing hearsay, as has been mentioned, and what you and others have come to agree upon, completely dismissing any point made by Fable, rather than countering it in a manner that makes sense.

His point about the 6 month selling arc is a strong one, considering it's truth. The first 6 months a game is sold for are its most critical months. Essentially, the make or break period. If the game fails to sell well during that time period, rarely, if ever, will it boost sales afterwards. Regardless of the fact that RPG's sell more slowly over a long period of time, they still do not sell at the rapid pace you are itching Bloodlines to sell at. You are probably right that Bloodlines will sell more over the course of a year or two, but also consider that it will be marked done, and will be selling slowly. THis is because of a couple of factors, the first being it is not lucrative for the game to be sold at it's launch price, and two, because the lowered price will have people more willing to considering what is, essentially, a flawed product.

Lastly, if you're going to continue in this discussion, do not accuse other members and participants of not answering questions, and failing to provide information, as you are doing the exact same thing. If you discuss things in a civil and mature manner, Fable will do the same with you.

First of, John. Learn to argue correctly. You have ignored all of Fable's questions, and attempted to turn everything around on him. He has provided facts, and has a history of doing so (just do a basic search on any of the discussions he's posted in on GB). And yes, that is a relevant point, as it means he has a lot more credability than you do.

Give me one of his question (besides the one that I have no way to answer) that I have not answer and I will do my best to answer it. As for creditability on posts that only shows that he was here longer then I have been. As for attempted to turn everything around him, statements of his involve things that are his opinion's (no matter how much credability he has does not change that) just as much as mine and statements of his go beyond simple things like dismissing my posts.

You have have been arguing hearsay, as has been mentioned, and what you and others have come to agree upon, completely dismissing any point made by Fable, rather than countering it in a manner that makes sense.

Fable has twist some of my statements to provide a point to them. He has also been arguing on opinions too and that is about the same as hearsay. Also the only hearsay I have used was the Troika's Bloodlines advertisement not overshadowing Valve's HL2 which I admitted to and he still asked me the same question that I already answered.

His point about the 6 month selling arc is a strong one, considering it's truth. The first 6 months a game is sold for are its most critical months. Essentially, the make or break period. If the game fails to sell well during that time period, rarely, if ever, will it boost sales afterwards. Regardless of the fact that RPG's sell more slowly over a long period of time, they still do not sell at the rapid pace you are itching Bloodlines to sell at. You are probably right that Bloodlines will sell more over the course of a year or two, but also consider that it will be marked done, and will be selling slowly. THis is because of a couple of factors, the first being it is not lucrative for the game to be sold at it's launch price, and two, because the lowered price will have people more willing to considering what is, essentially, a flawed product.

I have not state that Bloodlines needs to sell at a rapid pace. Also Bloodlines still retails for its launch price at most places and I am not the one who brought up the six month period. I know that the longer a game takes to sell the less chance that it will sell, but he has yet to provide me with a fact that this was not a contributing factor of bad advertisment of two other companies put to together and yet to provide me that a game can not turn it self around. Also this does not change things that much, but the game was shipped in mid-November. That would mean five months not six months and since chances are I am not going to continue to post these things for a whole month, that would mean I got a whole another month before Fable's statement about Bloodlines not selling good for six months becomes legit. That is not that I think Bloodlines sales would change at least much in month, but that does mean that Fable's comment is not entirely true and he is basically fortelling the future.

Lastly, if you're going to continue in this discussion, do not accuse other members and participants of not answering questions, and failing to provide information, as you are doing the exact same thing. If you discuss things in a civil and mature manner, Fable will do the same with you.

This goes back to what I first type, give me a question I have not answered and I will answered it and not the one I have no way of answering and he knows that, and he has not answer any question that I asked him execpt giving me his opinion that most people don't crossover in genres which is a big statement involving millions of people (when I wanted a fact about it) and a statement of departments when I asked about departments dedicated to advertising Bloodlines, not where the departments are and I even told him that if he wanted me to make the question clearer all he had to do was ask.

John, I think you're taking this a little personally. Ultimately, you and Fable are not really disagreeing about anything other than adiaphoric issues. (1) You both essentially agree the sales of the game were lackluster. Though, you are slightly more optimistic about the final figures looking a bit higher than early estimates. (2) You both agree that the to this point poor sales of the game are a bad thing. You are a bigger fan of the game than Fable, but he looks at it and Troika's demise as a potentially bad thing for the CRPG community.

Ultimately, your disagreement hinges on your fundamental optimism about the potential for the VtM sales to pick up, versus his pessimism. Secondly, you disagree about the marketing strategies, with you insisting there was some deliberate maliciousness on the part of Valve. Like Fable, I'm hard pressed to buy the latter. It just doesn't make sense to me, particularly considering how small potatoes Bloodlines is compared to HL2. I can't see the developers seeing Bloodlines as anything other than homage to their engine.

One thing I would disagree with Fable on is the notion that HL2 would not appeal to the same audience as Bloodlines. I would agree that this is partially true. Hardcore RPG fans tend to be reluctant to play any type of FPS. Still, HL2 (much like Halo) has a larger reach than most RPGs. HL2 is a bit of a giant, had much advanced word of mouth released about its engine and graphics, and has a more engrossing story than many FPS. With that said, I think it does appeal more to (particularly your casual) RPG fans than many of its counterparts. Moreover, we've seen sort of RPG/FPS/Adventure hybrids such as Resident Evil take off in the past. My inclination is that both HL2 and VtM Bloodlines would appeal to the audience who found those titles engrossing. Still, I doubt HL2 ever even conceived of Bloodlines as competition. The game never intended to have that kind of scope.

Similarly, I imagine that being associated with a FPS probably alienated part of VtM Bloodlines potential audience. It certainly made me skeptical. I generally hate FPS, and was concerned that it would rob Bloodlines of more traditional RPG bearings I loved. Those concerns were unwarranted, but I can see it causing others in the RPG community to be skeptical.

Still, Bloodlines hedged its bet a bit differently than many RPGs do. Rather than attempting to appeal to a cross section of gamers, both hard core RPG'ers, FPS lovers, and those in love with games with a Gothic feel. Ultimately, that gambit seems to have failed a bit in terms of advertising. The finished product was still quite interesting, at least in my estimate.

Actually, I like the game quite a bit. I just can't see that if everybody got their friends and relatives to buy Bloodlines, it would change anything, since the game has been on the market roughly 6 months, with very poor sales--sales that by an extremely conservative estimate would have to quadruple or more to make back their investment. It's return-on-investment that drives the game market. I think we can have more constructive use of the forums than try to force a sequel in an impossilble situation from game companies who perceive V:TM as a pariah at this time.

Okay I am not saying that everybody could get their friends and relatives to buy the game, but if they could then 72000 people if you are right about 200000 mark on making even would only have to suggest to 2 other people each, now I'm not saying that it would be possible as that is alot of people, but you said "I just can't see that if everybody got their friends and relatives to buy Bloodlines, it would change anything," but it would as the person would only need 2 friends and really no relatives to change what you call an impossible to possible, plus it has been shown with the Hunter Reckoning games and some of Midway's new games that if there predecessor can at least make a marginal revenue, then a company might make a sequel and push it further then they did in the past with predecessor.

I never meant to imply that pause/play was the "heart of an RPG," but rather, that it was an important feature computerized RPG games. Much in the sense that any player, in charge of a team, would expect to control the intelligent reactions (such as the game allows) of all team members in combat, as they would, off the battlefield. Like you, it's character development, exploration and interaction with ones teammates, the environment, and NPCs that drive an RPG forward for me. My point was simply that since many RPGers aren't arcade specialists and prefer entering each character's reaction on the battlefield, a realtime FPS model is antithetical to this.

This would imply to the more die hard RPG fans, it has been shown that people like variety in everything.

John, I think you're taking this a little personally. Ultimately, you and Fable are not really disagreeing about anything other than adiaphoric issues. (1) You both essentially agree the sales of the game were lackluster. Though, you are slightly more optimistic about the final figures looking a bit higher than early estimates. (2) You both agree that the to this point poor sales of the game are a bad thing. You are a bigger fan of the game than Fable, but he looks at it and Troika's demise as a potentially bad thing for the CRPG community.

I am optimistic about the fans who want a sequel can increase sales as it has been shown that word of mouth can move nations, and in this case all the fans would need to do is talk their friends that they alread hold sway over in to checking out the game, but I am also realistic enough to not think that I can change the whole sales only that if the fans want a sequel through sales are the best way to go.

As for taking something personally here is my original statement:

"It was posted in numerous times on websites (I am not going to look for it as you can easly type as you have already proven that and it being public knowledge) as like Gamespot, gamers, gamepro, imdb, that Valve would not allow Troika to release the game ahead of Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2 had to be on the market before Bloodlines (if you are in marketing then you know this is a marketing move and this would count as overshadowing the release by a more bigger name game),"

Here is a line from idmb:
"Bloodlines" could not be released before Valve's Half-Life 2 (2004) (VG) because both games made use of Valve's new graphics engine technology and Valve wanted their own game to debut first."

Now I never stated that it was public knowledge that Valve screwed Bloodlines I stated that as hearsay that I found correct as a opinion of mine, but Fable turned it into this:

"This is the information you've provided, thus far: 1) It's "public knowledge" that Valve sabotaged the marketing of Bloodlines, a few of us know this because we discussed it and decided it was accurate."

Now I answered his questions about the overshadowing of marketing stating that it was opinion and he stilled asked me to answer the question that I already did, he knows that I can not answer the question about sales because basically I can't even get that infomation yet he stilled asked me,

Now I stated that if the fans:

If the fans want a sequel then Bloodlines has to sell more, if they can turn it around then a company will want to take advantage of a good selling game (not to mention a game that sold good basically on it's own then) this is no allegation it is simply a statement of business facts/sense and history.

But he changed it to:

"There it is, again, that allegation. It's a statement of history? I repeat: when has a game that has shown such bad sales in the first six months following its release turned the situation around in the next 6, effectively quadrupling or more its sales? You call it history, but history is a matter of past record, and you have provided no record where this has previously occurred. You just keep repeating this, but doing so does not make it accurate. Let's have some proof, please. Otherwise, it's not "a statement of business facts/sense and history," but a hope on your part, and nothing more than that."

I see his point about the six months thing, but I did not make a mention of it and then he says that I called that history I called companies wanted to take advantage of something that sold good history not companies wanting to take advantage of a six months bad selling game if the people can turn it around to a profit I doubt that six months would make a difference as long as the companies get a sense that they can make a profit off of it, and if they push it further they can make an even better profit on a sequel.

Okay I am not saying that everybody could get their friends and relatives to buy the game, but if they could then 72000 people if you are right about 200000 mark on making even would only have to suggest to 2 other people each, now I'm not saying that it would be possible as that is alot of people, but you said "I just can't see that if everybody got their friends and relatives to buy Bloodlines, it would change anything," but it would as the person would only need 2 friends and really no relatives to change what you call an impossible to possible...

John, 70,000 people don't read these boards, despite their popularity: perhaps 1500 in all forums combined, on a semi-regular basis. I don't think 70,000 people regularly read the top three Bloodlines boards combined together, or come near that figure; perhaps 5,000, probably less. You're expecting every person who bought the game to somehow discover your message; that seems very unlikely. Then on top of that, they're to get at least two friends to buy Bloodlines, six months or more after it's been out: an unprecedented situation. There is no game that has taken off like that before; no game that has trebled or quadrupled its sales in the second six months' of its initial release compared to its first six. I've asked you this before, and I have to ask it, again, since you keep bringing up this idee fixe of yours. Find me some games that have done this, so we can see the possibility of Bloodlines doing the same. If you can't, then please stop reiterating this theme. There are better, more achievable goals for you to put your laudable energy in.

Now I never stated that it was public knowledge that Valve screwed Bloodlines I stated that as hearsay that I found correct as a opinion of mine, but Fable turned it into this...

You stated it was hearsay only after I asked for your source. You did not offer this information until it was asked of you. Here is your original remark: Also Valve made it strick that any marketing of Bloodlines would not overshadowed Half-Life 2s marketing and would not even try to overshadow Half-Life 2s marketing, they also would not allow Troika to come out with Bloodlines before Valve came out with HL2." As you can see, this is stated as if it was a fact rather than a few people simply speculating (hearsay). It's easy for anybody to read back in this thread and judge who said what, and why; then make up their own minds.

I also have to ask you at this point to cease turning this into a personal attack by appealing to others for judgment against me. You are welcome to disagree with my views or anybody else's, but personal attacks are not allowed in these forums per our forum rules, and it also approaches spam (useless posts that don't further the discussion). If you persist, I'll remove those future posts that go over the line. I would do the same if it was anybody else who was subjected to something similar to this, and I have, in identical situations. We should move onto the discussion analyzing went wrong with Bloodlines, and whether indeed non-kiddie RPGs even have a future in the computer gaming industry.

Please take your disagreements to PMs or emails, please. The point of this thread is to discuss Bloodlines' low sales figures and what went wrong - not how best to convince thousands of people to buy the game. If the thread continues in this manner, it's going to be closed.

Please take your disagreements to PMs or emails, please. The point of this thread is to discuss Bloodlines' low sales figures and what went wrong - not how best to convince thousands of people to buy the game. If the thread continues in this manner, it's going to be closed.

I started this thread to discuss how to help a sequel get made nobody never gave a better way then what I gave, not went wrong with sales and Bloodlines low sales figures, but I see no way to continue this discussion fairly on any side wether it be mine or fable's or faust or Ageis because of previous statements.

So I am asking you to please close the thread.

John, I removed your next to last post for flaming and spam. I warned you what would happen, and you really pushed it. I hope I don't have to warn you again about language and spamming in these forums. Eventually it could mean the loss of your posting privileges.

On a separate matter, as you want the thread closed that you started, we'll close it. And I"m copying several of the posts to another thread so that we can continue what was proving to be an interesting discussion--one that really centered the problems surrounding Bloodlines, serious RPGs, and how a sequel might get made.