"Study of the modding support for CDPR's games"

+
"Study of the modding support for CDPR's games"

Greetings fellow forum readers!

I’ve been lately inspired by the modding community thread (http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threa...ding-Community) to write a semi-formal study, on which i tried to focus on the subject of the modding support throughout CDPR’s games. I tried to cover multiple aspects during this study, as you can see in the table of contents, while basing it on facts that have been verified by multiple sources, and that you can check yourself, dear readers.

In addition, while writing this study, I tried to be as neutral as possible while approaching certain matters with a “corporate” point of view, using even some of the knowledge I have acquired in project management/product development.

So I hope you’ll enjoy it, and that you’ll learn new things from it (even if it isn’t really rocket science).
I look forward to hear from you guys and your feedback. :cheers3:

Updates (v1.02):
- quick explanation of the notation system for the "Modding score" added (cf. Appendix)
- an observation/remark added to Chapter 1.

(Special thanks to @Sardukhar for giving me his seal of approval before making this thread and posting my report).

P.S: i'd like to keep this thread seperate from others, if possible, since it's somewhat it's own thing.

Links:
“Study of the modding support for CDPR’s games” report (pdf): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-HlS9CMZKQ7dzhSVUg2eUFUUW8/view?usp=sharing

“The witcher 3 sales chart 2013-2016” (pdf): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-HlS9CMZKQ7M1BMNDRyR0N2aVk/view?usp=sharing
 
Last edited:
Very interesting read, i agree with all of your points but you forgot to mention one important aspect in mods, modders think outside the box in many aspects, modders can find ways the use the engine in ways never precived by the company, we seen in in oblivion, skyrim and in other games, as an example elder scrolls online ui is a copy of SkyUI, skyrim combat system is a dumb downed version of Deadly Reflex. Ideas that will be able to create a better games. Mods sell, people still buy skyrim due to mods like Falskaar, yielding better revenue for for the dev.
 
Very interesting read, i agree with all of your points but you forgot to mention one important aspect in mods, modders think outside the box in many aspects, modders can find ways the use the engine in ways never precived by the company, we seen in in oblivion, skyrim and in other games, as an example elder scrolls online ui is a copy of SkyUI, skyrim combat system is a dumb downed version of Deadly Reflex. Ideas that will be able to create a better games. Mods sell, people still buy skyrim due to mods like Falskaar, yielding better revenue for for the dev.
true :eek:
i just tried to focus more on the modding support, it's history and how it evolved, the factors that come in play and so on.
i also tried to put myself in the shoes of the head of a company, who only cares about his financial and strategic goals,which is why i focused more on the cost, marketing, sales predictions and so on. that's why it didn't occur to me to talk about the aspect you mentionned.

i'm happy to see that you enjoyed reading it. i know i kinda over did it a bit with length, but i'm glad you liked it nonetheless ^_^
 
Very interesting read. I wonder if CDPR is willing to react on it in any way. Comments for the community may be? Also, as you noted, modding support relates to their plan for REDengine, and I suspect it's going to go through a very major overhaul now (switch to Vulkan, DX12 and etc.). It also can be related to the fact that REDkit isn't out yet. I.e. it makes more sense to expect REDkit published to match the engine that will move into the future (and DX11 is a dead end).
 
Very interesting read. I wonder if CDPR is willing to react on it in any way. Comments for the community may be? Also, as you noted, modding support relates to their plan for REDengine, and I suspect it's going to go through a very major overhaul now (switch to Vulkan, DX12 and etc.). It also can be related to the fact that REDkit isn't out yet. I.e. it makes more sense to expect REDkit published to match the engine that will move into the future (and DX11 is a dead end).
indeed. there are many plausible senarios to explain why the "REDkit 2.0" still haven't came out yet, and what you said may be one of them and the most probable i.e. "still in development".
 
Excellent article @web-head91, really enjoyed reading it :).
Also, I really appreciate that you tried to write this article from the perspective of a company executive.
This will certainly prevent any of those "entitlement" arguments you mentioned and honestly...it almost looks like a concept you could present to (internal) stakeholders;)

Only one small mistake you made, or I just misunderstood you there:
And besides, what’s better: modding a game that is very well made and polished? or an

unfinished and buggy one, that barely have any worthwhile content ?

Personally, I chose the latter.

Shouldn't that read: "...Personally, I chose the former."?

And again, excellent read, really hope it'll be "fruitful" :)
 
Excellent article @web-head91 , really enjoyed reading it :).
Also, I really appreciate that you tried to write this article from the perspective of a company executive.
This will certainly prevent any of those "entitlement" arguments you mentioned and honestly...it almost looks like a concept you could present to (internal) stakeholders;)

Only one small mistake you made, or I just misunderstood you there:


Shouldn't that read: "...Personally, I chose the former."?

And again, excellent read, really hope it'll be "fruitful" :)
thank you for the kind words, and yes the study was written with the "corporate" mindset.
and CRAP ! i didn't notice that XD
i corrected it, thanks for alerting me.
i really hope more people will be able to read it, and see the meanings behind it ^^

---------- Updated at 04:08 PM ----------

i think this video, from 10:34 to 11:08 sums up pretty nicely what you were trying to say @HarelMor :
 
Last edited:
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.

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. 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). Also, placing the popularity of the game on the same level than, let's say, the time of the delivery is obviously arguable.

Secondly, this study makes no mention of any competition. 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.

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.

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.

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
Wikipedia said:
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

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. 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.

So yeah, interesting studies, but a bit too biased I still believe :). You need more numbers. 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 :)
 
Like a Fatcat Executive surpassing the annual average wage of his companies employees before the first week of January is over, @web-head91; lays claim to the trophy for most outstanding post / submission 2016 already. If no such trophy exists one should be minted in the image of this guy immediately !

I thought it was an excellent analysis with which I can find no fault, and hope it may find itself voluntarily perused by the appropriate REDs, absorbed, deliberated on, and ultimately used as a basis for discussion reviewing the whole matter.

To prove I actually read the thing a few comments from me that are not at all intended to indicate weaknesses in this self-styled, and appropriate, "corporate" perspective, rather just elements of the modding scene i've observed since it began.

This is the curse of TW2 modding tools. 2 years of interval after release is waaaaaaay too big.

The absence of the necessary momentum to properly energise a modding scene, caused by the late release of the redkit & the imminent release of TW3 was quite obvious at the time, and must've been so to the REDs. I don't know exactly what they expected to happen, or expected to gain, but I have to doubt they believed it would make a substantial impact. I judged they judged (or gambled) they'd get a few determined modders sufficiently up the tools difficulty curve to form a core of experienced people for the main release, i.e. redkit 2.

part of what caused the downfall of the REDkit (beta), is the lack of proper documentation and tutorials.

Out of such a core group the bulk of the documentation could have been expected. When TES3 kit appeared there was a dearth of information from the devs too, merely a dozen short uneditable webpages if memory serves, explaining just the very basics, and definitely not enough. The modders themselves then helped eachother by sharing their experiments & successes. TES4 kit launched with a wiki, but again a dearth of official information, and what there was had been sourced from TES3's modders. No doubt today the creation kit wiki is highly detailed but realise that took a decade of primarily voluntary work by fans.

Therefore, we have to approach this problem from a different angle: what can a new and advanced modding tools do for the company in terms of profit?

Personally I'm utterly convinced good modtools injects longevity into games like these which results in more sales. Another benefit to the company is in personnel, many great game designers have utilised this very route into their careers, gaining the knowledge, experience and building a portfolio as it were. In fact CDPR did hire a few of the guys who got to grips with the redkit... I can't put a monetary value on that profit, but I'd be tempted to rate it extremely high.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, as a moderator:
@web-head91 - if you're publishing a document that you're claiming as a "semi-formal study" then you need to be prepared for it to be reviewed as such, which means that it is subject to peer review and if there is criticism of it on the basis of methodology, bias, objectivity and so on, any response you give to that should be based on explaining and re-affirming your methodology, not on ad-hominem attacks on the person making the comments.

And now, not as a moderator (so please feel free to argue against what I say, but without ad hominem attacks :) )

Chapter 1 - I'm not going to disagree with the conclusions that you reached regarding the three games, but could you explain the rationale for the scoring system being an unweighted multiplier?
Chapter 2 - OK, so this is the "sales pitch". Nicely written, pushing a particular agenda which is OK, so no arguments there.
Chapter 3 - This is where I would consider the analysis to be questionable.
1 - The Product Life Cycle is, as you say, well-defined and applies to games as much an anything else. However, for video games, there is usually a huge scew, much more than you indicated on your graphs. I, of course, HAVEN'T done any detailed analysis, but I believe this one is fairly representative? It's also my understanding that the maturity phase typically lasts a very short time, usually around 1 month?

2. Your second chart is therefore inaccurate, as releasing the REDkit now would not result in a sales boost during the maturity phase, but when it is already in the decline phase.
"The multiple times TW3 went on sale got ignored (since they increase the sales numbers)." - I don't think you can ignore these. If people have already bought the game despite it NOT having redkit, then they will not be buying a second time.
Overall, I think that this is the weak point in your assessment. You are attempting to justify the cost of Redkit on the basis of increased sales, but it's missing some vital pieces of data:
- How many people would buy TW3 if, and only if, it has modding tools and/or a large pool of mods?
- If they have a limited amount of resources, how would "Finishing Redkit" score in terms of sales in comparison to say a third expansion, or an EE? In the short term, I suspect (with no actual data :) ) that the expansion or an EE would score higher, but in the long term, the REDkit could be better.

Finally, regarding the sandbox argument:

In terms of this discussion, my definition of "sandbox" is a game where the primary attraction for the players is the ability to explore and do your own thing rather than follow a main quest line. (And a subjective comment - the wikipedia definition sucks)

To a certain extent, I'm going to agree with Nolenthar here - TES games are sandbox, TW3 isn't. Subjectively, I also think that this makes a difference in terms of the answer to that question I asked earlier - how many people will buy if and only if there is good mod support. (We're all being subjective on this one). However, I'd also accept an argument that good mod support could turn TW3 into a sandbox game, and thus attract those players.

Unfortunately all of this requires that hard marketing data, data which CDPR have and we don't. But if you do want to boost your argument with this, I think you need to compare it not to Bethesda games, but to other games that were similar, i.e. story-driven games where a modkit was released during the "decline" phase. (Didn't that happen with DA:O? If it has sales figures, it may be a good place to start)
 
Last edited:
Chapter 1 - I'm not going to disagree with the conclusions that you reached regarding the three games, but could you explain the rationale for the scoring system being an unweighted multiplier?
I was wondering this too. In order to produce data that accurately reflects reality, the model you use to create this data must likewise be based on objective reality. web-head91's final scores may be correct to a rough degree. But without having a rationale for his mathematical model they cannot claim to reflect anything objective.

To help illustrate this point, here are a few examples of how wildly the results can change if you use different calculations to determine the final score.

Adding the numbers together instead of multiplying changes the scores to 10 - 9 - 9 instead of 24 - 12 - 9. A result that makes the modding capabilities of each game look roughly equal.

Changing the rating scale from 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 to 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 changes the final scores to: 216, 144, 128. Dividing these by 10 and rounding them changes the final results to: 22 - 14 - 13. Again, a wildly different result.
 
Last edited:
1 - The Product Life Cycle is, as you say, well-defined and applies to games as much an anything else. However, for video games, there is usually a huge scew, much more than you indicated on your graphs. I, of course, HAVEN'T done any detailed analysis, but I believe this one is fairly representative? It's also my understanding that the maturity phase typically lasts a very short time, usually around 1 month?

I've heard this idea expressed a number of times, but didn't see any comprehensive research on this. It sounds incorrect when applied universally. For pulp fiction and low quality art this can be correct (it's something that has a very short attention span, and soon after release it becomes basically irrelevant and forgotten). However high quality artistic work is different. It doesn't make sense for it to be completely forgotten after a month (compare it to timeless hits in literature vs. pulp fiction there which becomes recycling almost as fast as it's printed). That's at least something one can expect, but I'd be interested in a good research on the subject.
 
I've heard this idea expressed a number of times, but didn't see any comprehensive research published this. It sounds incorrect when applied universally. For pulp fiction and low quality art this can be correct (it's something that has a very short attention span, and soon after release it becomes basically irrelevant and forgotten). However high quality artistic work is different. It doesn't make sense for it to be completely forgotten after a month (compare it to timeless hits in literature and pulp fiction there which becomes recycling almost as fast as it's printed). That's at least something one can expect, but I'd be interested in a good research on the subject.

I wouldn't consider it universal, my comment was specific to video games.

I don't think that this is an authoritative source, but it's the best I can come up with at short notice :)
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1453/the_circle_of_life_an_analysis_of_.php?print=1

(Edit: See below, I don't think that actually is a good source after all. Reading comprehension fail)
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't consider it universal, my comment was specific to video games.

I was talking about games specifically. I.e. there are good games, and bad games (good / bad from multiple perspectives, but primarily artistic one). Bad games should have what you described as one month lifespan. It's basically a disposable art. Good games should be different, same as good books are. Or you think it's not the case?

---------- Updated at 09:57 PM ----------

To give a concrete experience. I recently bought Start Wars: Knights of the Old Republic because of some recommendations here on the forum and started playing it for the first time. And I'm enjoying the game so far. I don't think I'm alone like that. Wasn't GOG built initially on interest in old (and good which is important here) games?
 
Incidentally, my "maybe authoritative source" in my previous post isn't useful - they were discussing genres, I think, not individual games.

And to reply to your new post:
I was talking about games specifically. I.e. there are good games, and bad games (good / bad from multiple perspectives, but primarily artistic one). Bad games should have what you described as one month lifespan. It's basically a disposable art. Good games should be different, same as good books are. Or you think it's not the case?

I think the key word there was "should". Yes, good games SHOULD have a longer maturity phase. However (and as a subjective opinion), thanks to the intense marketing, pre-release offers and all of the other means that game developers use in order to concentrate those sales into a short period, I think that the model still stands. The period of peak sales is short, and then declines rapidly. The difference between a good game and "throwaway" game is how far it declines - a good game should level out, the "niche" period could last a very long time and still represent decent sales (as with you and KOTOR).

Still on subjective opinions (I'm not going to start looking stuff up to justify them, sorry :) ) I would consider the video-game industry unique in terms of the way products are marketed. Off-hand, I can't think of any other industry that relies so heavily on pre-sales.
 
Last edited:
Games might be marketed heavily right around release time, but good games live on their own without much marketing, like you said. Compare it let's say to The Lord of The Rings (the book). It became high fantasy classic, and even though it's long since it was initially published, it doesn't lack interest from those who discover it for the first time. Games (or any art really) shouldn't be drastically different in that aspect.

However I think games are affected by a different issue. Unlike books which rely on reader's imagination, which as part of the art presentation stays a pretty constant method, computer games in addition rely on technology. I.e. technology is used to engage people in that art. And technology doesn't stay in one place. It's progressing. So older games can be viewed as inferior (by some) based on the fact that they use outdated technology. I.e. it's "cool" to get new and shiny technology in games. This can skew games lifetime in a different way than it happens to books and other art which doesn't have that technological aspect involved.

However it still should be balanced by the above. I.e. new players discovering old classics and playing them for the first time even though it's a long time since the initial release and virtually no marketing exists for those games.

---------- Updated at 10:20 PM ----------

Also, note that mods unquestionably prolong interest in games. Some games have modding communities which are active for many years after release.
 
Last edited:
@web-head91. @Dragonbird summarized my view pretty well I have to say. I argue the mathematical formula because it seems extremely simplistic, and you claiming it was studied heavily and that it works doesn't necessarily make it true. You sound more like a politician, claiming facts where they don't have any. Your study would gain from offering sources, and details. E.G : using X formula, used in Product Management and Development, and used to calculate the Y of a product (with a source explaining the formula) [...]

When it comes to the product life, I also fully agree with Dragonbird. I seriously doubt we can use a standard product life cycle to define video games, which are a pretty unique industry. If some games have indeed a very long life span (after all, I have bought Fallout New Vegas this year), the income for gaming companies is largely reduced, as the games are on heavy sales quite fast. As a consequence, I would also be surprised that bringing a new, AAA quality modding tools would attract so many new players, who missed the game in the first place, or who had no interest in it what so ever and suddenly get an interest in The Witcher 3, because it has a mod tools. Again, I'm not arguing a Mod Kit would be good for The Witcher 3, what I'm arguing is your argument that CDPR should do it for commercial reasons, because it will bring them more money than, let's say, a third expansion, an EE, or a richer CP 2077. Cause yes, as a relatively young company, CDPR must use its resources to the best of their interest. Irrelevant of Mod Kit, non Mod Kit, EE, non EE, TW3 is a game on the decline commercially.

web-head91 said:
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.

That's a frequent mistake, taking your wish for reality. I believe you should have studied the modding community in The Witcher 3 more closely, because it would have revealed to you that technically, The Witcher 3 is a game where modding has not caught a huge interest by the community. By adding the total unique downloads of the 3 most downloaded mods on the nexus (which will very likely bring MORE users than actual), we reach ~350 000 unique download. I'd expect we are about 7 000 000 copies sold (I can't say if your Sales Chart are real or made up ?, so you may have more accurate numbers).

So when you say this "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." I cannot see where you base this assumption. The Witcher 3 is a heavy story driven cRPG. It's my favourite game of 2015, yet I'm no longer playing it, not because I'm unhappy of the modding support, but because like a good book, I won't read it 3 times in a row. I'll gladly replay it with Blood & Wine comes, fully, but TW3 is not one of those games where you roam all day doing "stuff".

Which brings us back to our sandbox argument : again, I fully agree with Dragonbird, and I'm quite happy to see that I'm not the only one who expects a bit more than an open-world to tag a game a Sandbox. I've browsed Steam for Sandbox (I'm sorry, but I consider Steam a higher gaming autority than Wikipedia - keep in mind Wikipedia is a user driven encyclopedia, the popularity of articles make them more reliable. Also, I keep being unable to point your definition to wikipedia in any way, looking for sandbox points me here which points me here for video games. Look carefully at the brackets, clearly stating than neither your "open world" article, neither the video game glossary are up to wikipedia standards, making your argument than wikipedia can be trusted invalid.

So, why does it matter what a sandbox is, in relation to The Witcher 3 ? because it clearly affects the modding capability of the game. The fact than you can't play a woman for instance, already heavily affects the willingness of players to "customize" this woman, generally into a sex muse. The fact that you don't have followers, or companions, remove one additional layer possibility out of you. The fact that you can't "own" a property, further reduce the possible mods. I could go on a long time, but I neither have time, nor will to do so. As part of your study, this is something you ought to study, to better understand the modding capacity.

Surely, a Red Kit will bring possibilities we don't have, such as creating quests, which by itself may be enough to entertain the community, but you have to keep in mind that this kind of mods represent a huge amount of work, and thus are less likely to be done by the community. Things you would know by studying other gaming community. Is Skyrim offering many "new quests", "dunjeons", and areas as new content ? Was Dragon Age Origin offering this often ?

In other terms, if you are to build a study than you estimate to be unbiased, and to "make authority", you must not attempt to bring the message you want it to bring, but you must study it from an unbiased perspective. What would the Red Kit really bring, and not what you want it to bring.
 
In other terms, if you are to build a study than you estimate to be unbiased, and to "make authority", you must not attempt to bring the message you want it to bring, but you must study it from an unbiased perspective. What would the Red Kit really bring, and not what you want it to bring.

OK, I'm going to disagree with this. Yes, I think the study was biased, but I don't consider that a criticism. It doesn't have to be unbiased, but it does need to be factual in certain places.

Chapter 1 was the "where we are". As I said earlier, I'm not comfortable with some of the details in the methodology, but the final conclusions seem accurate enough.

Chapter 2 was the "where I think we should be". This is, again as I said earlier, a sales pitch*. The OP wants a particular outcome (REDkit), so clearly this is what the study says. It's subjective and it's biased, but that really doesn't matter.

Chapter 3 is the important one, as this is where the reader needs to be convinced that the wishes expressed in Chapter 2 are viable and desirable. So, unlike Chapter 2, this DOES need to be objective. I believe that the OP has achieved that objectivity, I just think that it's not complete, and that the omissions may significantly change the conclusions.


*Maybe that's why I'm OK with it being biased. I'm more used to reading sales pitches and business propositions than formal academic studies :)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom