It's an interesting pice of read, but I'd like to say most of it is "pulled out of thin air". That's true for a lot of studies, so don't consider this as being offensive toward a study in which you clearly spent some time, yet clearly do you have an idea before you start the study, and this can be reflected in it.
First of all I’d like to thank you for taking the time to read the report I made, and that you recognize the effort put in it.
While it is true that I don’t have much data, it doesn’t lessen from the value of the work I provided. In addition, it is hardly “pulled out of thin air”, since I’ve used knowledge previously acquired throughout my academic formation, based on methods used in project management and product development. So you really can’t say that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But then again, I can’t blame you for not grasping these kinds of concepts, since you probably didn’t study them.
If you want to put doubt in methods that have been proven to be effective and widely used by engineers, recognized internationally by multiple corporations and organizations alike, then be my guest.
I'll give the example of the ponderation used in Chapter 1, which is quite a random choice, and also uses a quite a weird mathematical concept.
It may seem weird to you, but I can assure you I really thought long and hard about it, and it works. It’s just a tool based on previously existent methods, in order to quantify the “modding potential” of CDPR’s games as I mentioned in the report.
For instance, it's enough to switch from 1 to 2 the documentation around the mod kit to suddenly pop out a score around 18, instead of 9. And one could argue that the documentation and support deserves a 1 where there has been an update, and 2. the documentation is more than enough to do what is expected to be done. One could argue the documentation doesn't tell you how to edit a model, a environment, how to create a DLC. BUT, that's fine, because the mod kit ain't made for it (which doesn't mean talented people won't achieve it, like some people would make a tool out of another).
I see your point. While the marks may seem a bit arbitrary and that a slight change in one of values can change the whole thing, it is not as simple as you make it sound.
While the MODkit is buggy, barely works and is limited, and the documentation doesn’t cover everything that it can do. For instance, we still don’t know how exactly the textures system works and many things remain blurry and in a dire need of clarification.
And when you compare the documentation to what was previously done with the D’jinni and REDkit (and the documentation/tutorials for that were non existant as stated in chapter 1), it is just weak and beyond compare. Thus, the “1” mark it received.
Also, placing the popularity of the game on the same level than, let's say, the time of the delivery is obviously arguable.
The popularity and fame mark was supposed to show the popularity of a game, and it does exactly that: TW3 is more famous and well known to the general public than the witcher 2, which in its turn more famous than TW1. It is a fact.
The time of release is simply irrelevant.
Secondly, this study makes no mention of any competition.
I did mention a bit of the competition from time to time, but did not focus on it. My mind was focused on the modding support of CDPR’s games, which was the point of the study.
It mentions, I quote, TES, Fallout, & Else. Anyone knowing The Elder of Scroll series didn't start with Skyrim will tell you than Fallout 4 is a clone of Skyrim, itself a clone of Fallout 3, itself a clone of Oblivion, and that goes like this as far as Daggerfall. The games are seeing regular updates / improvement, few concepts are added, but overall, you get the same game.
The modding community moves from one game to another, port most of the mods, and voila. That's a very successful modding community, and I'm myself having a blast in Fallout 4, but all in all, you cannot compare a 20 years old saga with a 5 year old ones, especially as The Witcher has really evolved as opposed to TES. Apart from TES, no example is given.
I get what you mean, but that is irrelevant. While the engine barely changes from game release to another (which is debatable in itself and exagerated: the engine itself did change, but not the game concept and design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XnGine ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebryo#History ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Engine), The modding support, from morrowind release, is objectively better, especially when you consider that morrowind was their third game, and it came 8 years after the first one.
and guess what ? The witcher franchise is over 8 years old now and TW3 is CDPR's third game. but does The witcher 3 have proper modding support like morrowind ? sadly no, and that game is soon going to be 14 years old.
Thirdly, the mathematic in the sales calculation, after the release of the REDKit are hugely hypothetical. I cannot say they are wrong, or right, for that matter, nor can you. It's thus "pulled out of thin air" again.
while it is hard to verify whether my predictions in terms of sales generated by better more advanced modding tools is a bit complicated to be verified, it is hardly “pulled out of thin air”, as I said earlier.
There is one element completely forgotten out of this study. And one element CDPR surely won't forget. Releases : namely, which game is being released and when. If you believe the relative disinterest in the modding community lately has no relation with games released recently, then obviously you're off.
While I didn’t mention the releases of other games, that is quickly resolved by the sales chart that I made, particularly the “decline phase”. Fewer sales can reflect many things, including the loss of interest in a product.
But the last time I checked, the only game in which the interest of the public and gaming outlets haven’t withered, is the witcher 3, especially with all those GOTY nominations (over 160 winnings, compared to other much more hyped and anticipated games, like FO4 that won only 36). Thus meaning, that the only plausible reason that people could have lost interest in the game is because of the shoddy modding support that the TW3 had, thus confirming my findings in Chapter 1.
Replayability, to finish, is another one. And that's where you are utterly wrong : Sandbox.
Seriously, when I read that bit, it was the last nail in the coffin which seriously proved your bias. I wikipediaed Sand Box, and indeed, that simply doesn't exist for them, and the page links to "Open World". However, you can definitely found examples, yet, which obviously fight your bias, and which tells you that you are unfortunately wrong.
From
wikipedia
Originally Posted by
Wikipedia
Sandbox game
A game wherein the player has been freed from the traditional structure and direction typically found in video games, and is instead given the ability to choose what, when, and how they want to approach the available choices in content. The term is in reference to a child's sandbox in which no rules are present and play is derived from open-ended choice. While some sandbox games may have building and creation aspects to their gameplay, those activities are not required. Sandbox games usually take place in an open-world setting as to facilitate the freedom of choice a player is given
The “definition” you posted of “sandbox” or “open world”, as Wikipedia likes to call it, is more of a summary than a real definition, unlike what I posted in my study, which has a much broader meaning and have fewer specifics.
Just like for instance, with the definition of car
“A
car is a wheeled, self-powered
motor vehicle used for
transportation.” - Wikpedia
And this goes for a dictionary, not just Wikipedia.
The rest that can be found after that is just clarifications.
And again, you're free to believe a sandbox and an open world are the same concept, but they truly are not. The emphasis in on the choice. The Witcher 3 starts by scraping a big choice for you : you do not chose who you play. You are playing Geralt. That's one less for a sandbox there. You can't be a woman, you can't be a wizard, you can't be a thief, you are Geralt.
Oh the witcher 3 isn’t the only sandbox game that doesn’t let you create your character. To mention a few: Assassin’s creed, just cause 3, Mad Max, GTA and so on.
All these games have pre-defined protagonists with a relative possibility for customization, and they’re all widely considered as “sandbox” games, making the argument of yours invalid.
Second, you won't build anything in the game, you're an actor in the game, but your story is somewhat linear. You won't get repetitive quests than will feed you till the end of times, you will eventually run out of content. You don't run out of content in a sandbox game. You always have something to do.
If you take a game like Fallout, you know what I'm talking about. Fallout provides a "guide", the missions will invite you to go there or here, but 95% of the content is out of any guide or linearity. I've played already more than an hundred hours of Fallout, and I've probably been questing for less than 10% of those. Can you say the same of The Witcher 3? I sure cannot, because The Witcher 3 was too interesting to start with.
Different games really, apple and peers.
The gothic series, and the risen series, are considered to be open world/sandbox RPGs, and yet they do not have those “radiant quests” you mentioned for a very simple reason: design choice.
And the same goes The witcher 3: CDPR thought it’d be pointless to put some secondary repetitive activities, because they believed it’d worsen the quality of the product. It’s as simple as that.
So what you’re talking about is not how a sandbox game is, but how Bethesda approaches the concept of sandbox games and compares it to the approach of CDPR.
In short, your argument is invalid, yet again.
So yeah, interesting studies, but a bit too biased I still believe You need more numbers.
Biased ? just because your own flawed perspective of the concept of Modding in general as well as the sandbox games genre happens to be different than what this study has proven (based on objective facts verified by multiple sources that neither you or I can deny), doesn’t mean that I’m biased.
I’ll have to remind you, again, that during this study I was completely neutral and used some of my previously acquired knowledge in product development/project management.
For instance, how many actual users have used mod on The Witcher 3 ? What's the % there, against the % on games such as Arma or Fallout.
In other terms, good job, but there is work left to do
Yes, I may add new elements to the study, but I’m not sure of what yet. We shall see.
As for your proposal, I’m not sure what’s that going to prove, but I already see what you mean.
There has been before a survey before, stating that about only 8% of the players use/create mods. (I tried to look for the source but I couldn’t find it)
And, in the case of CDPR, what you’re trying to say that making modding tools for only about 8% of the players is useless and a waste of money, right? If so, then why did Bethesda try to grain revenue from modding if it wasn’t that popular? It is a rhetorical question of course, but the answer to it is simple: because lots of people use mods.
And this is just from the modding community perspective; we aren’t even talking about the sales that could be generated for cyberpunk’s release or the REDengine’s release. (See chapter 2 and 3).
Thank you again for the lengthy and detailed reply. Even though most of your arguments are invalid, and that your perspective of subject is highly subjective, I appreciate it nonetheless.