Avernum Remakes 1-3: Measuring Success

[Aventari]

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask the question, but thought I'd run with it.  It is really aimed at any member of the team that has been working with these games if they are willing to comment on it.

 

When considering the measure of success of a game after it ships, one measure is by the number of units sold  Now I bought originals by CD order but the remakes through Steam.  So I thought I'd look at Steam statistics to see what it said about the games.

 

Avernum: Escape from the Pit

Avernum 2: Crystal Souls

Avernum 3: Ruined World

 

I can't say how accurate the statistics are, but Escape from the Pit does very well, it drops off for 2 then 3rd doesn't come close to 1.  To me that is insane because I was originally drawn to Exile by Exile 3, and in each iteration the 3rd game has been my favourite (3, 1 then 2).

 

Now those statistics (assuming they are accurate) are only of one store, but it leads me to what puzzles me.

 

Do those statistics roughly correlate with how well they have sold overall?

 

If so, what things may explain the disparity?

[Randomizer]

There were another set of statistic that were once posted for Steam and that was hw far into the gam the players got. While people that post here usually make it to the end, other players don't make it that far based on achieving accomplishments,

 

Exile 3 ws my first Spiderweb game too. Of course that might have been because the others didn't work from the sample game disk.

 

Welcome to Spiderweb Software. Please leave your sanity at the door. It will help when the Slartanalyis to questions appears.

[Slawbug]

6 hours ago, Aventari said:

Now those statistics (assuming they are accurate) are only of one store, but it leads me to what puzzles me.

 

It's a little weird that this site has more statistics on AEFTP than on the other two games -- I have to wonder why, and if this could be related to any discrepancy.

 

Also, with an peak of 11 active players out of 15,000, I have to imagine these statistics aren't that reliable, or at the very least don't go back to 2018.

 

I would not be so quick to assume these sites provide accurate info.

[googoogjoob]

22 hours ago, Aventari said:

Do those statistics roughly correlate with how well they have sold overall?

Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not, actually. SteamDB (A:EftP, A2:CS, A3:RW) shows wildly divergent sales estimates for each of the games; VG Insights' estimated sales for 3 are much, much lower than the other estimates (and PlayTracker's estimate of 1.36 million sales is unbelievably high). SteamSpy has 3 selling marginally less well than 1.

 

22 hours ago, Aventari said:

I can't say how accurate the statistics are, but Escape from the Pit does very well, it drops off for 2 then 3rd doesn't come close to 1.  To me that is insane because I was originally drawn to Exile by Exile 3, and in each iteration the 3rd game has been my favourite (3, 1 then 2).

[...]

If so, what things may explain the disparity?

Exile 3 and Avernum 3 became popular at a time when the shareware model was common and viable, when consumers regularly discovered games via demo discs and the like, and when there were far, far fewer games (both independent and big-publisher) competing for a consumer's attention and money. Their exposure was such that they reached a lot of people who weren't otherwise big into RPGs, or familiar with Exile/Avernum 1 or 2; people who played the demos on a whim or out of boredom and got hooked, who would not otherwise have played the games. There's not much room for that sort of thing to happen again today. There are an incredible number of new video games released every day, tastes have moved on, and game genres are siloed in such a way that it's now much, much less likely that somebody not already interested in CRPGs is going to simply stumble upon A3:RW and play the demo and get hooked.

 

Players new to the series are probably more likely to want to start out with the first game, as well, since the games tell a consistent, linear story between them; absent dramatic shifts in appeal (via radically reworked mechanics or visuals or the like), only series with beefy, publisher-backed marketing campaigns can realistically expect later entries in a series to appeal to a larger audience than people already invested in earlier games. That A3:RW should have done about as well as A:EftP is more likely down to fans of the earlier incarnations of the game buying the new version than to anything else.

Edited February 20, 2023 by googoogjoob

[Edgwyn]

This data is really odd.  It is showing that A:CS grossed slightly more than A:EFTP despite selling half as many copies.  That could be possible if A:EFTP wasn't originally on the site and A:CS caused people to buy A:EFTP at a discount, but it is still odd

 

[Aventari]

Thank you for the welcome.

 

Accuracy of the data is suspect, that is part of why I thought I'd come ask at the source if it was something that was a topic that would be open to conversation.  I'm not really so concerned about how much money is made (though that data is weird), it is to try and understand level of uptake on the different games and why there may have been different levels of engagement with the revised versions of Avernum.

 

I remember reading some years ago that part of the reason Jeff Vogel revises the games is like the Beatles, people at times want the big hits.  To me the first three Avernum definitely qualify as that, but that data I saw shows widely divergent levels of engagement.  So is it story?  The features available?  Pacing of the narrative and game?  What is working for players and what isn't between the different games?  Or is it a case of people are trying to enter Avernum with the first game, then a measure of those sales should be seen as first timers to CRPG that are entering the genre with Avernum but the genre isn't their cup of tea?

[Slawbug]

Yeah, those are all interesting questions.  But I think there are some challenges with this analysis.

 

11 hours ago, Aventari said:

that data I saw shows widely divergent levels of engagement.  So is it...

First, as has been beaten to death in this thread, the numbers you saw are absurd and clearly inaccurate.  So attempting to explain what you saw in this data is a little silly.  Definitely still interesting to think about what might lead to the games being received differently, but using bad data as a guide will doom your analysis from the beginning.

 

Beyond that, there are a whole flurry of potentially relevant factors, and there's no real way to distinguish which ones were or were not impactful on sales.  It's pure speculation, because there are so many factors and -- even if you had perfect data -- so few data points.  There's just no way to sort this out.

 

So, with the caveats that (1) we can't base our thinking on inaccurate data, and (2) we can really only speculate about what is and isn't an impactful factor, I'd look at your suggested factors as follows:

- Story: Doubtful.  Hardcore Spiderweb fans tend to praise E/A 1 for the originality of its premise and concept; 2 for its plot, atmosphere, and characters; and 3 for its variety and expansiveness.  But these differences are much less pronounced in the remakes, and aren't really apparent at all in the early game.  Plus, all three games are very similar to each other in this regard when compared to other stuff in the genre.  So I'd be surprised if these nuances affected mass market behavior.

- Features: Doubtful.  For the remakes, these simply don't shift much between these three games, especially when compared to other titles.

- Pacing: Doubtful, and I'm starting to wonder whether you've actually played these games?  With the exception of a sequence in E/A 2, they all offer extremely open-ended progression compared to other games out there (and even other Spiderweb titles).

- First-timers to CRPGs: I agree with goo's analysis above; "totally new to CRPGs" is going to be a very tiny proportion of purchases for any game that isn't super mainstream, big-studio, heavily advertised and front-paged by Steam, etc. (and even then probably a small proportion)

 

I think situational factors are much more likely to be relevant:

- Availability on different game-purchasing platforms

- Price, sales, and timing of sales and promotions

- How many other RPGs (big deal, or classic RPGs, etc) were released around the same time

- Pollination from twitter, twitch, word of mouth, etc, which itself will be affected by all of the above plus general gaming culture

[Aventari]

Maybe it is just because it has been a long day, but you come off as a bit dismissive.

 

The data is questionable, that is the whole reason I came to the forum to ask questions about it so, consequently, that data will form the foundation of my thoughts.  While it is likely, it is not clear that the numbers are either absurd or clearly inaccurate and you are not in a position to definitively answer that question. That is why when I first posted I said this question was primarily aimed at the developers because they are in that position, if they don't find my questioning presumptuous to start with.

 

As to an analysis, I don't have one.  I have questions about what factors might have led to differences (if the data quoted does correlate to some degree), I'm hoping to learn from what analysis the developers may have if, once again, it isn't an imposition (which it may well be, I have no rapport with them and they have no need or obligation to answer my questions in the slightest).

 

But to say there is no way to sort this out?  Any developer gets feedback, whether wanted or unwanted, combined with sales data that can certainly inform them as to how well people engaged and what things they found particularly engaging, whether feedback was consistent on certain points, whether good feedback was matched with good sales, negative feedback with reduced sales.  That in turn normally informs future product development, it most likely would have played a role in what design elements were added, removed or altered in the remakes of Avernum 1-3.  This isn't a question of having absolute irrefutable data to form a judgement, it is what the developers' opinion is based on what data they have available and their years of experience that informs a judgement.

 

So while I appreciate your attempt to answer the question, though not so much your snide comment about how much experience with the games I may have, this isn't something you can answer with authority.  Debate, muse, wonder and reflect upon certainly and I'm happy to do those, but if you're going to state that something is beaten to death after six posts, maybe you need to consider whether your intention is to discuss or just assert your opinion.

 

 

[Slawbug]

Sigh.  I haven't been trying to "definitely answer" any question; on the contrary, I've been raising objections to your arguments.  You made assertions; your assertions have been criticized; it's your chance to defend the assertions, now, but ad hominems won't do that.

 

I suppose you're right that there is a chance (however small) that the extrapolated predictions you brought (that's what they are -- not actual sales data) are more accurate than not.  That doesn't make them a reasonable thing to base your analysis off of.  See, for example, the wildly different numbers from the links goo posted.  What makes your numbers more reliable than those?  (Legit question, if you think something does, that's worth discussing.)  (And since you brought it up: yes, it does come off a little presumptuous to just walk up and anonymously ask a developer for sales data and analysis based on these numbers.)

 

I will apologize for any hurt from the question about your experience with the games.  It wasn't intended to be snide: it was an actual statement of confusion.  You wrote:

 

On 2/20/2023 at 11:50 PM, Aventari said:

that data I saw shows widely divergent levels of engagement.  So is it story?  The features available?  Pacing of the narrative and game?

These first three things that you point out are blatantly incredibly similar between all three games, compared to other games that are out there.  How easy this is to quantify varies, but let's start with the easy one -- what difference in "features available" are you suggesting there even is between these three games?

I'm genuinely confused as to how somebody could play all three games and conclude that there are even moderate differences between them in the categories you listed, compared with the genre at large.

[Ess-Eschas]

Hello Aventari!

 

First off, let me say that your thoughts and opinions, and your presence on these boards, is valued! You’ve said some interesting things so far, and asked some interesting questions. I do hope you’ll stick with us on here, and share some more of your thoughts with us. It’s always good to see new people on here who enjoy Spiderweb’s games!

 

For my money, I think there’s no harm in speculating about something that may or may not be true. Regardless of the validity of the data you presented, it got you thinking about the scenario in which the later Avernum games might have performed less well than the earlier ones. Again, regardless of whether that’s true or not, why not speculate about what could have caused something like that? That seems like an interesting thought-experiment to me!

 

Regarding the specific questions you raised, I’m afraid it’s unlikely you’ll get an answer from the developer of these games in this thread. Spiderweb is essentially run by two people, and they both visit these forums very rarely. We have a community on here who are quite happy to help out with questions in their stead, of course, and to engage in interesting discussions! But if you want an official response from Spiderweb itself, I’m afraid it’s unlikely you’ll get one on here.

 

The best way to ask Spiderweb something is to do so directly. They’re nice and friendly! In this case, you’d be best using the general contact address, which I put below. However, I should caution you that Spiderweb may not give you the information you seek. Sales information can be a powerful beast, and is often kept quite private. They may not want to go into specifics. But you can still ask! Here’s the address:

 

spidweb@spiderwebsoftware.com

 

As for my own thoughts, I think googoogjoob has already made some good comments. Comparing Exile 3 to Avernum 3 is a tricky thing to do. Exile 3 was released decades ago, in a time that was very different to the one we live in now. What might have held true in the 1990s might not do so these days.

 

I think the point about discoverability is a particularly pertinent one. As someone who was interested in Mac games when Exile was released, I can say that it was hard to not notice them. The demos were everywhere, and turned up all the time. They’d appear on Shareware CDs, on ftp pages, on online archives, you name it. If someone was using a Mac at the time, and was interested in RPGs, they’d be hard-pressed not to give Exile a try. At least, that was my experience. Did you have a similar experience yourself back then?

 

But things are different now, in the 2020s. Shareware CDs don’t really exist any more, and neither do ftp sites. There are still online archives, of which Steam is a great example, but they’re so large that even games of good quality are very easily missed.

 

To put this into perspective, imagine picking one game at random from the Steam library every day. Statistically, how much time would pass before you could be reasonably confident that you’d picked at least one Spiderweb game?

 

Rough Answer: about 10 years!

 

In other words, a factor that was really important in the 1990s – how easily a game can be discovered – is very different now. These days, advertising is far, far more important than it used to be. So, from my perspective, I wouldn’t be too surprised if what we see now is a little different from what happened in the 1990s. The games industry is in a very different place!

 

To round things off, if you’re interested in Jeff’s views on remasters, there are a few posts on his two blogs that touch in these issues. Here are a couple that are relevant to Avernum 3!

 

http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2017/10/avernum-3-remasters-and-joy-of-owning.html

http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2018/02/we-released-avernum-3-ruined-world.html

 

Incidentally, metaforest/slarty, and with the greatest respect:

 

9 hours ago, metaforest for the pedantries said:

You made assertions;

 

On 2/19/2023 at 10:59 AM, Aventari said:

Do those statistics roughly correlate with how well they have sold overall?

 

If so, what things may explain the disparity?

 

Those sound like questions to me, not assertions. Or I am being silly, and misinterpreting something here? It wouldn't be the first time this slith's gotten things wrong!

[Edgwyn]

In addition to the shareware CDs, there was also some coverage in hard copy computer magazines that focused on the Mac market.  That is another mechanism that essentially does not exist any more.  Not just because hard copy magazines are going away, but also because there are so many more games on the market that covering a small indy game is unlikely.

[Aventari]

Meta, a small correction there.  I did not ask for their sales data: 

On 2/19/2023 at 9:59 PM, Aventari said:

Do those statistics roughly correlate with how well they have sold overall?

I later clarified with:

 

On 2/21/2023 at 3:50 PM, Aventari said:

I'm not really so concerned about how much money is made (though that data is weird), it is to try and understand level of uptake on the different games and why there may have been different levels of engagement with the revised versions of Avernum.

I asked whether the data I saw correlated, that is a yes/no/sort of, not a request for Spiderweb Software's financial statements. Still a bit presumptuous to ask a question of the developer, but not to the degree that you have framed it.

 

I also agree that ad hominem is a reductive fallacy, that would be why I took exception to your statement that you have since qualified as merely being an expression of confusion.  Maybe it is something lost in translation, where I come from we express our confusion over a statement with a question about that statement rather than a negative observation about the person who made the statement.

 

But since you've now asked the question, I'll run through my thoughts on each element with the caveat that I am primarily observing differences between the games, not making a comparison of them to the genre at large:

 

 

Story

 

- Avernum 1: The big challenges are decentralised from one another, in fact you only need to escape to actually 'finish'.  You are a small fish in a big world with threats that have been looming for sometime.

- Avernum 2: Your party exists in a time of war, when you get to Formello you are effectively railroaded into going to the Vahnatai due to the magical fields restricting your access to the rest of Avernum.  At that point, you are on the story train of doing what you can to secure the alliance and end the war.  Narratively, that is not nearly as free as the first game.

- Avernum 3: You aren't even an independent party, you have been chosen to explore the surface.  While you could pursue different objectives at your own pace, you effectively end up completing the provinces in order from the slimes to cockroaches to trogs/giants, golems and alien beasts partly due to difficulty and also due to the fact that you need to establish your reputation in easier provinces to get access to the harder ones with less hostility from the Empire.

 

Three different premises from which you operate within as the player.  From a little fish in a world to survive, to a little fish who can change the course of the war, to a little fish who must save those who were once the enemy from those who claim to be allies.  I would say that is substantially different.

 

Features

 

This is a less salient point point, but elements such as the Vahnatai crystal to steal and replicate creatures, or the increased use of timers for events to shape the world over time are some examples of difference of features between the games.

 

Pacing

- Avernum 1: There are great challenges but there is very little push story wise to proceed quickly, they are all big threats that loom in the background in the world you have been thrown into.

- Avernum 2: The start has a restricted access to most of Avernum based on the magical fields, you HAVE to progress by meeting the Vahnatai, you HAVE to complete all three challenges to end the war.

- Avernum 3: You have to complete the initial challenges to get to the surface, you are incentivised to complete the challenges of the provinces quickly due to the threat of the provinces deteriorating.  Particularly because the sooner you complete one province, the sooner you can get to the next before it deteriorates.

 

Pacing, like story, does not seem to me to be the same or so similar as to be irrelevant.

 

First-timers to CRPGs

 

Here I am thinking of people that may have been recommended to Avernum by friends, they get the first game but because it isn't their cup of tea never end up buying and playing the others.

 

Now these are all opinions that I've formed off my own experience, they aren't gospel, am more than happy to discuss them further.  Hopefully this clarifies why I believe there are substantial differences between the games and the experience they offer.

[Aventari]

Hey Ess-Eschas

 

Thanks for the welcome, I'm not sure how much I'll have to contribute being so late to these forums but I'll probably wander through the Queen's Wish and Avadon forums for some tips at some stage.  Avernum in its different forms I've played enough of to feel familiar with, Avadon and Queen's Wish I found harder to wrap my head around in terms of balancing the party.

 

I'll probably email the developers at some point, but I'll need to take your articles into account.  Jeff notes in there that Exile/Avernum 3 were the most popular of their iterations (which makes far more sense to me based off my own taste).  It would seem unlikely that A3:RW didn't follow that trend.

 

As to how I came across Exile 3, I think it was a PC Powerplay or PC Gamer CD.  I remember exiting Fort Emergence and feeling thwarted when the Shareware ended there.  I loved it because it reminded me of Ultima 4 & 5, I remember tracking down the series to download and, I will admit, I did crack it at first (but later bought it, and everything else that was on the catalogue).  Finding out Exile was remade as Avernum was an excuse to dive in all over again.  Then cue the latest remakes, sure enough dived in again.

 

Discoverability is a factor, and while the Steam Store is big it does recommend games that fit your taste ('more like this', discovery queues, curators, etc).  I've also found that whenever I come across another CRPG fan, I'll recommend Avernum and have found a few converts.  I'd be curious about how much business for Spiderweb Games is generated from that factor, happy customers then referring others across.  That was part of why I wondered about whether the data on the remakes was correct, whether word of mouth customers were buying A1:EftP were buying there but not going further because it didn't fit them.

 

Hey Edgwyn

 

To a point, though once already established in the market it seems that an Indie can still get attention and Jeff is definitely established:

https://www.pcgamer.com/spiderweb-software-is-remastering-another-classic-rpg/

https://game-news24.com/2023/02/05/remastered-open-world-rpg-geneforge-2-infestation-kicks-off-kickstarter-campaign-on-feb-8th/

https://www.well-played.com.au/geneforge-2-infestation-remaster-coming-to-kickstarter-later-this-month/

[Misc Staple]

On 2/23/2023 at 7:14 AM, Aventari said:

As to how I came across Exile 3, I think it was a PC Powerplay or PC Gamer CD.  I remember exiting Fort Emergence and feeling thwarted when the Shareware ended there. 

That's odd. The shareware version I played allowed you to finish a few of the plagues on the surface.

[Aventari]

Hey Misc, you had better luck than me then.  I cleaned out the underworld as much as I could, then it would cut out after leaving the fort.

[Kelandon]

On 2/22/2023 at 6:39 AM, sails From lamplit havens said:

These first three things that you point out are blatantly incredibly similar between all three games, compared to other games that are out there.  How easy this is to quantify varies, but let's start with the easy one -- what difference in "features available" are you suggesting there even is between these three games?

I'm genuinely confused as to how somebody could play all three games and conclude that there are even moderate differences between them in the categories you listed, compared with the genre at large.

Given that early Blades community savaged the plot and pacing of E3/A3 while praising the same aspects of E2/A2, I'm not sure that your opinion that they are "blatantly incredibly similar" is universally held. 

 

More generally, to Aventari's question, from Jeff's occasional statements about his business methods, my understanding is that Spiderweb does very little (nothing?) in the way of market research. So it's entirely possible that Spiderweb knows differences in game sales and has little more than conjecture to answer why those differences exist.

[googoogjoob]

On 2/22/2023 at 6:48 AM, Aventari said:

The data is questionable, that is the whole reason I came to the forum to ask questions about it so, consequently, that data will form the foundation of my thoughts.  While it is likely, it is not clear that the numbers are either absurd or clearly inaccurate and you are not in a position to definitively answer that question.

They're absurd. Definitely. Absolutely. I have no idea what methodology VG Insights is using, but the A3 sales number they give is unbelievable. If A3:RW genuinely only sold 15% the number of units A:EftP did, Spiderweb Software would almost certainly be bankrupt. PlayTracker's sales numbers are, similarly, unbelievably high- I wonder if they're basing their numbers on concurrent players/playtime? In which case these lengthy 25-hour-plus CRPGs would have terribly skewed numbers.

 

SteamSpy's numbers are rough, and should be taken with a grain of salt, but, having talked to indie devs about this, I know they're always at least in the right ballpark. SteamSpy shows A:EftP selling 105k copies, A2:CS selling 64k, and A3:RW selling 103k copies. These are eminently plausible numbers. They indicate that A3 is actually still probably the most popular of the trilogy, though not overwhelmingly so- it has a comparable number of sales to the first game, despite having had six less years of being on the market, and six less years' worth of sales and bundle appearances.

 

The influence of the relative features/story/pacing/etc of the games on their relative sales (as in, does 1 selling the most copies mean it has the most appealing story, etc?) is i think kind of moot. For these things to have an influence on the purchase or not of a potential buyer, that potential buyer has to have experience with them before their purchase (or, on Steam, before they decide to refund the game or not); and we simply don't know how many people are playing the demos before making their decision to buy the game or not. There are, I'm sure, people buying A3:RW based on their experience with E3/A3, but I think there are too many confounding factors to think that these aspects have a decisive influence on any given number of consumers.

 

Anecdotally- I've encountered maybe half a dozen people who aren't hardcore Spiderweb fans- and often aren't even CRPG fans broadly- but who played a Spiderweb demo off a demo disc or the like at some point in the 90s/00s. I've never encountered anyone "in the wild" who's played a more-recent Spiderweb game demo without it being recommended to them by word of mouth or a review or the like. Consumer habits have changed radically. The main use of demos these days is as pre-release marketing (cf the "demo fest" type events Steam does regularly), rather than as a way of letting consumers "try before they buy." I suspect consumers today are much more likely to end up owning and playing a Spiderweb game because they picked it up for very cheap in a Steam sale, or got it collaterally in a bundle, than because they were hooked by a demo.

Edited February 28, 2023 by googoogjoob