Why this game failed in sales?

[Sumers]

Judging from information i've found they've returned not more then 2/3 out of 4+ million dollars budget

In my opinion game is amazing, loved every bit of it, and reviews seem to be good (88% positive). Yet it's only 2,8k reviews compared other "walking sims" like Firewatch with 64k , Edith Finch with 34k, and Gone Home with 12k.

So the audience for the genre is there, yet people haven't been interest enough. Why do you think is that? Is that Setting? Style? Something else?

[easy_going]

The game has a lot of minor glitches. It's not a movie-like walking sim. It doesn't feel big budget enough. There are some optional activities but they are entirely meaningless most of the time. I found myself missing some content because I simply didn't know which way is progress, and I took the "wrong" turn. The story is not all that great. There is no puzzles from what I remember.

The game had huge potential, but left me luke warm. The art style is amazing, but the substance is very thinly spread out. I think it would work way better if the game structure was an actual open world exploration, instead of linear progress. Unreal Engine is really bad when it comes to making open world games.

[Sumers]

You probably have some valid points. That's part of why it have 88% positive, not 95%. Some bugs might be annoying, not everyone like the amount of dialogs, pacing is rather slow etc. etc. That doesn't change the fact that the game is great in general.

Is it all comes to question why good games fail? I've been thinking and so far only two answers come to mind - bad marketing and too small niche.
Let's assume Marketing was fine with "The Invincible". That leaves us with second option.
There are significant audience for walking sim, but what if walking sim in retro sci-fi setting is too niche? If that's the main reason - it's a pretty sad, not gonna lie.

[Mr. Fusion]

As for comparing the number of reviews... How long those games have been accumulating reviews? Many years. The Invincible has been out for 4 months. So that metric doesn't say much (yet).

I'd say one major thing is the appeal of the setting and the story in these games, and how, how should I put it, approachable, maybe, it is. SF, and especially hard SF (and classic, decades old on top of that) which The Invincible is rooted in, is extremly niche, compared to something like Firewatch which is pretty much an (almost) everday story of everyday people, something most people can relate to one way or another (and funny enough, one common complaint about Firewatch was that it had no real story and "no real ending", which showed how many players missed the whole point of what it was trying to tell).

If we stay with Firewatch as a comparison, that wasn't that big of a deal story and gameplay-wise either. You could also miss parts of the story, or get them in the "wrong" order exactly because it was somewhat more open world, while The Invincible drives you through the backbone of the story no matter what, only allows you to nip off some thin side branches if you always keep on the "main road" without looking around a bit. But, it is true that it's primarily about discovering (and influencing) a story, and less about letting you play with the world itself that the story takes place in.

From a financial point of view I dare say they put a bit too much effort into the visuals, the technical presentation, the level of detail etc. As I understand, these things tend to be rather costly to produce, and while the game sure looks awesome the way it is, there is the question: does it have to look this good to tell the story it aims to? Or could it have been realized in a somewhat less ambitious (and likely lower production cost) way, more matching the expectable audience for something like this?

[Sumers]

Unfortunately, general trend in sales on steam is One year = First week x5, So we can't expect big growth for the game without any DLCs.

Originally posted by Mr. Fusion:

SF, and especially hard SF (and classic, decades old on top of that) which The Invincible is rooted in, is extremly niche, compared to something like Firewatch w

Yep, exactly my concern. And if this is a real reason - it's a pretty bad precedent. We might see devs avoiding combination of sci-fi and walking sims entirely. I've enjoyed retro-futurism, but i wonder if different design choice for world development could've helped with public perception.

Originally posted by Mr. Fusion:

From a financial point of view I dare say they put a bit too much effort into the visuals

That's an interesting point. From one hand good picture is a huge marketing point by itself. On the other hand - making same game, but in PS1-style with assets from store and minimum animations could've been more successful financially. But that's just a speculation.

P.S. oh, I've actually read somewhere about possible VR-mode, so i hope it will bring some more players.

[Gassolini]

I love Stanislaw Lem's literature - I have read everything he has written that has been translated to English. I have only played one "walking sim" before, and that was "The Vanishing of Ethan Carter". I.e. the bar has been set pretty high for me.

Just as I was about to purchase this game, I read a few reports on the walking mechanics itself being clunky and limiting. For a walking sim that's a no go for me - the walking mechanics has to be impeccable. Now that I have lost my faith that important aspect of "The Invincible", I don't want to spend my time on it. So that's why it failed to sell to me (so far...).

[Sumers]

Originally posted by Gassolini:

Just as I was about to purchase this game, I read a few reports on the walking mechanics itself being clunky and limiting.

I'd say it's just individual opinions. It might be a bit slow paced, but mechanics are good in general. If you're a fan of retro-futurism and enjoy Lem, Bradbury, Azimov, Strugatsky brothers - you should definitely check it out. After all refund is available.

[Centipede]

I looked at it a couple of times before release but I'm still not exactly sure what it is about.

Also, I like hard scifi and on the contrary I am worried that it might not be that, since it shows a bunch of bombastic set pieces and the descriptions are a bit grandiose. I hope it's not one of those games that start with the pretense of authenticity and then panic about courting mainstream audiences, ending up in the middle without satisfying any of the sides.

[Bobby]

To me it's more a generational thing. People today are so used to playing without manuals or having to research and then go and buy in a shop.
The fact you can sit in a catatonic state -literally- and click and buy anything, shows how hard it is to capture an audience.

For eg, people buy then post up 'will i like this?' like WTF!! You just bought it and are asking US if YOU will like it..............................................that about sums it up.
Previous to this, you would be subscribed to a mail order PCZone/Gamer mag and read reviews etc . Maybe get a demo on their cover CD-ROM and then phone up for a price at competing shops.

People buy on impulse now; it's good and bad, as they then blame the game -for them not liking it, when it's them all along for being lazy. Or they find they love it.
Either way, it's the sign of the times

[Mord]

It was extremely short. It was nowhere near as memorable as say, Firewatch. The story was good and the presentation fine, it just didn't captivate me like I'd hope it would. Perhaps after a few sales and years it will make up its losses. It might also have been extremely limited PR - I read the book and only found out about the game once it was out

[BlueStinger]

Firewatch cost the same as Invincible's current sale price, has had dozens of sales including five in the last year, and it's also been 90% off. This does make a difference.