“Good enough for game pass”
Laura brings up some excellent points
- Obsidian shipped on time, after being acquired
- Obsidian already has outer worlds 2 in the works
- Obsidian gets the OW team back together
Avowed may not be a win on its own, but in the context of a MS studio it’s a win, and they cleared their plate to focus on OW2.
It’s not a good unit of measurement to determine if the game was successful. Longer games will have higher concurrent players, pound for pound, just because those people are kept online longer. Its success would be determined by copies sold, not concurrent users. Elden Ring did not only sell half as many copies as Black Myth: Wukong, but it had half the concurrent players on Steam.
Game Pass is not captured publicly for Avowed or STALKER 2, and it’s possible that people were more aware of one’s presence on the store than the other, or that they were more confident that they knew what STALKER 2 was than that they knew what Avowed was, and so would be more interested in checking it out on Game Pass. With publicly available information, we can’t determine what Avowed needs to be successful. I can guesstimate that it sold about 368k copies (55 x 6700 reviews) at $70 a piece (it has a higher tiered $90 version that people bought too, but then you get into muddy waters with currency conversions from non-US territories, which is more complicated than I know how to estimate), which would mean it brought in over $25M, before Steam’s cut, in two weeks. I can also guesstimate that the game cost them less than $70M to make, which it doesn’t strictly need to make back in sales (though it very well may over its long tail), because this is a Microsoft-owned game that’s available on Game Pass, the way that Microsoft would very much prefer you to play their games.
That $70M that I just made up as a sort of educated guess could have easily had its development budget spread across The Outer Worlds 2 or even Grounded, reducing the overall cost of all of those games by sharing tech and developers in such a way that they’re getting more mileage out of each dollar spent. Plus, if they decide to make Pillars of Eternity III, they’ve now got a bunch of assets already built that could be reused yet again. Obsidian’s status as a multi project studio is sadly an oddball in the industry at this level of production value, which is a damn shame, but it’s more sustainable for all sorts of reasons, to the point that even if this project is a failure, it could be kept afloat by the other irons they have in the fire.
tl;dr All that to say that Steam charts are data that are good for some things but are bad at measuring this game’s success.
while i do agree with your reasoning i still think a 6x difference in concurrent players on steam says something about a game - especially on launch day/weekend. if a game is a big success it’s a big success everywhere but then since avowed’s budget was probably not as overblown as other current titles’ budgets it might not be all too bad.
I do think it’s reasonable to assume that STALKER 2 sold, in all likelihood, far more copies than Avowed. But for anything other than multiplayer games that rely on retention and monopolizing all of your time, I’d say Steam charts are a bad way to try to get an apples to apples comparison. Number of reviews has been the metric that I always hear devs using as a point of comparison. It still won’t be a very accurate picture of how many copies it sold until you get far enough out that enough of the game’s players have had time to finish the game, since that’s when they’re most likely to leave a review, but while I doubt Avowed’s <7k reviews will catch up to STALKER 2’s 82k by June, it doesn’t mean Avowed is unsuccessful just because STALKER 2 was more successful.