The original Pillars of Eternity received a lot of social media buzz as a revival of a lost sub-genre. The original PoE kickstarter did a good job of capitalizing on player nostalgia for those types of games, and as a result, had good word of mouth. Alongside the games strong critical reception, it performed very well.
But I think those circumstances also lead Obsidian to overestimate the market size for these titles. If I were to speculate I would also say that I imagine they don't perform all that well on console especially. Pillars has a isometric, retro graphical style with a relatively muted colour pallete in most scenes and I find that it's hard to appreciate the detail when it's a little further away on a TV screen. It's just my preference but I tend to have a nicer time playing titles like The Witcher, Dragon Age Inquisition or even Divinity Original Sin.
This isn't a new problem for Obsidian though, Tyranny had the same issue
The article blames fatigue, but I'm not sure that's a fair explanation for Tyranny's poor commercial performance. Are there really enough titles in this sub-genre that players are likely to feel 'fatigued'? Again, I think it's much more likely that the particular circumstances surrounding the original Pillars of Eternity's game and it's marketing simply caused the developer to overestimate the market for this type of title.
It looks like they're doing well with Outer Worlds, a game which isn't quite as well received as Pillars of Eternity. I think there's simply a much larger market for games like that, either first or third person RPG's that put players more directly into the shoes of a particular character.
Divinity Original Sin is an interesting series, because I think looking at what that game does well, with it's marketing, with its presentation, helps underpin why Pillars might struggle. I think a big difference between the two is in their USP and how they advertise it. Divinity Original Sin's 2 makes the game appear much more vibrant, and pulls the camera down to the level of the city, and player character to make the game feel more akin to a more typical third person RPG.
It also communicates it's unique selling points very well to the player. As someone that plays predominantly on console, an outsider to this subgenre, Divinity Original Sin and it's sequel pulled me in with it's emphasis on tactical combat. Watching the trailer I could immediately understand how the game played, and why I would want to play it over other titles. For me, I think the USP is the combat system and the interactions between spells and the environment, that's not something I've seen very often, and it's very clearly communicated in the trailer. I also appreciate that despite the bleak themes, the trailer presents some lighthearted moments, even Larian's logo (the knight with the plunger on his head) implies that the game might have a sense of humour.
They also posted an even more detailed 'features' style trailer onto the, again demonstrating an emphasis on communicating what the game is about to a potentially new audience of players.
If we look at the launch trailer for Pillars of Eternity 2, the way they chose to market their game is quite different.
It's easy to see how this trailer takes a very different approach. Unlike Larian's trailer for Divinity Original Sin 2, this trailer focuses more on the atmosphere and theme than anything else. As an outsider to the genre, I feel there's a lot of missing information that I would need to find myself interested.
- Who do I play as in the game? The trailer doesn't tell you
- What is the gameplay like?
- Why play this over anything else? If the USP is deep RPG elements, why aren't these communicated?
They marketed the game with a features trailer too, but it's mostly the same footage from the other trailer, with text written atop. Many of gameplay sequences are shown, with the text 'take command in combat'. This particular phrase really doesn't do much to communicate anything, and because the UI is stripped away in the gameplay sequences shown, it's still difficult to tell what's happening, or what type of game it is. Big elements of gameplay are missed out entirely, such as the emphasis on dialog and interaction with NPCs.
Larian make a point of keeping the UI present in the trailer and I think that goes a long way to help communicate what's happening, it's easy to identify the player characters on-screen, and the UI helps paint a complete picture of what type of game it is. Even if players come into this trailer not having any experience with the sub-genre, they'll likely see similarities between previous titles they've played like Dragon Age, X-Com and even more action orientated titles like The Witcher 3.
In any case, I feel as though Obsidian's marketing for Pillars of Eternity 2 feels more targeted to the audience that are already invested in that type of game. They know what Pillars of Eternity is, they know the genre conventions, and it's easy for them to understand what the trailer communicates. I think this style of advertising might be a problem if the market for this type of game is smaller than originally anticipated, as for players sitting on the outside, it's difficult to understand what the game, or sub-genre offers compared to other titles they've already played.
The tl;dr version is that I think it comes down to overestimating the market, the aesthetic presentation of the game not being as appealing for console players, and the games marketing poorly communicating what the game is, and thus missing out on opportunities to grow the series towards new audiences.
