Elder Scrolls Did Bethesda fuck Obsidian or not?

[darkpatriot]

Yeah. Even as they were fucked twice by them.

In what way were they fucked by them? They were payed many millions of dollars to produce a product. Not only did they receive millions of dollars but obsidian reputation really took off after the success of New Vegas. They had a real hit that they could hang their hat on. Kotor 2 and NWN 2 didn't do as well as good have been hoped and had a much more mixed reception than New Vegas did.

New Vegas is to this day Obsidian's most successful game.

Are you referring to the 85% metacritic score for a bonus? That's not Bethesda screwing them. Bethesda didn't deliberately get the scores to be 84%. They don't have that much control over the process, despite what people seem to think. And do you think that bethesda would deliberately try and get the game rated lower in order to avoid paying a few million more to Obsidian? To publishers higher review scores = more sales = more money. Much more money than the bonus to Obsidian would have been. They try and get the review scores as high as they can. As long as they think the game is worth investing the marketing into. And Bethesda certainly put a major marketing effort into New Vegas. In all the interviews from Obsidian people the point I see hit on over and over again is what an outstanding job the Bethesda marketing people did.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

In what way were they fucked by them? They were payed many millions of dollars to produce a product. Not only did they receive millions of dollars but obsidian reputation really took off after the success of New Vegas. They had a real hit that they could hang their hat on. Kotor 2 and NWN 2 didn't do as well as good have been hoped and had a much more mixed reception than New Vegas did.

New Vegas is to this day Obsidian's most successful game.

Are you referring to the 85% metacritic score for a bonus? That's not Bethesda screwing them. Bethesda didn't deliberately get the scores to be 84%. They don't have that much control over the process, despite what people seem to think. And do you think that bethesda would deliberately try and get the game rated lower in order to avoid paying a few million more to Obsidian? To publishers higher review scores = more sales = more money. Much more money than the bonus to Obsidian would have been. They try and get the review scores as high as they can. As long as they think the game is worth investing the marketing into. And Bethesda certainly put a major marketing effort into New Vegas. In all the interviews from Obsidian people the point I see hit on over and over again is what an outstanding job the Bethesda marketing people did.

Please kill yourself. Dumbfuck.

 

[Outlander]

And do you think that bethesda would deliberately try and get the game rated lower in order to avoid paying a few million more to Obsidian? To publishers higher review scores = more sales = more money. Much more money than the bonus to Obsidian would have been.

For fuck's sake! You can't be THAT stupid that you think an 85% as opposed to 84% metacritic score would had meant 'much more money than the bonus to Obsidian would have been.'

 

[Outlander]

I believe nobody ever accused Bethesda of rigging anything, as for the rest of your mind numbing nonsense:

 

[Onholyservicebound]

Then how did Bethesda fuck them? Since that was what I was replying to.

You already know the reasons people say that, you're just waiting for someone to explain it so you can attempt to contradict them. If you are genuinely unaware, Lurk moar, it's been explained in depth multiple times.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

Yes the 84% metacritic thing.

I agree that metacritic isn't that great a metric to use for establishing bonuses

The other one would I suppose be not providing adequate QA.

You already know the reasons people say that, you're just waiting for someone to explain it so you can attempt to contradict them.

ZING!

I'm not sure that you're correct on the QA, I'm doubtful that they provided the same level as they did with their shit. I read somewhere that they actually didn't provide any, so Obsidian did their own QA, mostly after the game was already released. (Take with a grain of salt as my sources are )

I also remember an analogy made about one of their meetings regarding the release date, was a star wars reference relating to Cloud city.

I'm not actually interested in this argument, it's been done to death, I just wanted to point out that you knew exactly why people think Bethesda fucked them over, and were just looking for a fight.(There's a saying about chips and shoulders that immediately comes to mind.)

 

[Rake]

If someone makes a statement that I disagree with and I feel like challenging it, I challenge it. Not looking for a fight for a fights sake or to prove anything. I just feel some statements that I believe are wrong and dumb shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged. Especially when they are stated as if they are a fact.

Look the thread from Antony Davis stories. Look for his donut analogy. Bethesda fucked Obsidian, and no, it had nothing to do with the metacritic score.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

If someone makes a statement that I disagree with and I feel like challenging it, I challenge it. Not looking for a fight for a fights sake or to prove anything. I just feel some statements that I believe are wrong and dumb shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged. Especially when they are stated as if they are a fact.

Look the thread from Antony Davis stories. Look for his donut analogy. Bethesda fucked Obsidian, and no, it had nothing to do with the metacritic score.

Why bother giving references? Didn't you read? He knows what everyone thinks already, he wants them to say it so he can tell them off. No one's mind will be changed at the end of this,(In either direction) and no one will say anything that hasn't already been said.

Ohey look..

I've read that before.

I disagree.

 

[Volourn]

"'I'm not sure that you're correct on the QA, I'm doubtful that they provided the same level as they did with their shit. I read somewhere that they actually didn't provide any, so Obsidian did their own QA, mostly after the game was already"

THE HORROR! A creator having to make sure their product isn't broken! LMFAO

 

[FeelTheRads]

I've read that before.

Publishers retain the right to make changes because they are the ones putting the money up and that gives them certain privileges and rights. Especially concerning release dates. Those rarely stay the same throughout a development cycle. That is the nature of contract labor. The person providing the money gets to set the conditions for the labor. And the person providing the labor can either agree to it or disagree to it.

I know some here think that the developer/publisher relationship is somehow special and different from all other sorts of contract labor, but it isn't. That is probably why they and I disagree.

Actually, if you read the illuminated minds of the codex (like Skyway) you'd know that publishers don't actually do anything and never interfere in any way. They're basically donors who say here take these money and maek gaem.

Of course, you're pretty illuminated yourself with the "they can change whatever they want and the developers can either agree or not". What the fuck does that mean? Can you come up with a more imbecilic remark? So, what exactly is the conclusion of that? What happens if they agree? What happens if they disagree?

 

[Athelas]

Bethesda may not have fucked them over in a true causal sense, but they are still contributing to the problem by tying financial bonuses to Metacritic scores. Obsidian has never been in a position to renegotiate such agreements.

but obsidian reputation really took off after the success of New Vegas.

I am not so sure. Outside of this forum, Fallout 3 is generally regarded as superior both by critics and fans.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Is it not clear what that means? They can agree to work for the publisher or they can decline.

So, in other words, if every publisher does this, and you don't agree to have conditions changed whenever they please then you can just well.. not work. That's awesome.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

The first fuck was when Obsidian didn't get the bonus 'cause they didn't get 85% at Metacritic. This is not my wording, I mean there was a thread on the Dex called more or less: "Obsidian was fucked by Bethesda". It was just a playful comment. I don't get why a dumbfuck like you, derppatriot, become too livid because this, probably a severe case of butthurt.

The second fuck, this is something that I can't comment because I don't think that the person that told me (us) the related anecdote, is willing to share to the public.

P.D. Please kill yourself, derppatriot.

 

[Rake]

Developers agree to let publishers change those things in the initial contracts. Those contracts are mostly binding on the developer, with the parts being binding on the publisher having mostly to due with compensation received by the developer. They can't just decide to change how much they are paying a developer. But they can certainly move the release date. Decide to add features to a game or remove them. Change the focus of the game. Or just choose to cancel the game outright.

Because they are paying for it and the developer is providing the labor. So as long as the publisher keeps paying the developer for the labor they get to decide how that labor they are purchasing is being used.

If a developer doesn't agree with publishers as to how publishers want to spend their money then they can indeed choose not to work. They will have to find a new profession though. That's how all work goes. You have to be willing to agree to what the person who wants to pay you wants or they aren't going to pay you. You may have a little more leverage in some cases, like if you are sought after enough that you have many people seeking your services, but usually it's not the case. Not as long as someone else is willing to provide the same labor under the conditions that the employer wants.

Of course it will have some variation from contract to contract and if the developer is bringing more to the table than just labor, like a sizable chunk of money or an IP, The relationship is more of one between partners and less of just contracted labor.

Cosmic Misogynerd lol I'm hardly livid. I just disagree with you. You are the one using harsh language and personal attacks. Actually I did use one personal attack, but that was in response to a personal attack so I'll let myself slide that time.

OK, that seals it.You are mentally handicapped. Did you actualy think than when he said that, he meant that Bethesda made something illegal? If so .
Of course they were within their rights, and of cource it was a sensible buisness move. After all, they can so why not. After all game devs are "just contracted labor". It's just how capitalism works.

That doesn't mean that the publiser-developer relationship isn't fucked up, harms the games and doesn't need to change.

 

[DalekFlay]

I don't care how fucked they were I still want more Obsidian Fallout games. Prepare with lube, Sawyer.

 

[Rake]

What is your alternative to the publisher model for AAA games?

None. Let them disapear. And if a dev is succesfull enough that he can and wants to piss 80M in his game, let him make it.
But for my point of view, extra ultra super detailed grass that swings to the wind and it's more realistic than in my city's park, and having Holywood celebrities voice every line in a game was never a necessity,
and to have a buisness model that is "5 M sales the first month or bust" is sheer idiocy and harmfull to the games' quality.

 

[DalekFlay]

There's a middleground guys. Something like Payday 2 can look pretty good and still be made for relatively little money. One million copies sold at $20 a piece was considered a great success.

Nothing has to cost a hundred million dollars. It should only be done when success is practically guaranteed, like GTA5.

 

[Rake]

There's a middleground guys. Something like Payday 2 can look pretty good and still be made for relatively little money. One million copies sold at $20 a piece was considered a great success.

Nothing has to cost a hundred million dollars. It should only be done when success is practically guaranteed, like GTA5.

His whole point is that kickstarter can't provide for AAA sums, and i said that it doesn't need to. Smaller sums are good enough. I mean, imagine PE2. Let's say PE is succesfull enough that Obsidian will be able to finance it themselves easily. I can see them puting at most 8 millions, for a trully humongous game, bigger than BG2, but that's it. There is no point to go beyond that, and more money wouldn't make the game any better.
At some point if they have more games out and have financial stability, i expect Obsidian to make their own New Vegas like open world action RPG. Maybe their SKi-fi Skyrim proposal. But i still don't think they will put in it more than 20 million dollars, and propably they will make a kickstarter to take 5 of that money.

 

[DalekFlay]

His whole point is that kickstarter can't provide for AAA sums, and i said that it doesn't need to. Smaller sums are good enough. I mean, imagine PE2. Let's say PE is succesfull enough that Obsidian will be able to finance it themselves easily. I can see them puting at most 8 millions, for a trully humongous game, bigger than BG2, but that's it. There is no point to go beyond that, and more money wouldn't make the game any better.

Yes, but not all games are 2D isometric RPGs. If you want to make a 3D open world game kickstarter isn't going to cut it, probably. However you're right, you also don't need to spend hundreds of millions either. There's a common sense middleground a publisher can fund without breaking the bank and demanding a crazy amount of sales in return.

I'm hoping the entire last decade has been a learning experience for publishers that hopefully results in common sense budgeting and audience indulgence. Time will tell.

 

[Rake]

Yes, but not all games are 2D isometric RPGs.

Only the good ones

If you want to make a 3D open world game kickstarter isn't going to cut it, probably. However you're right, you also don't need to spend hundreds of millions either. There's a common sense middleground a publisher can fund without breaking the bank and demanding a crazy amount of sales in return.

I'm hoping the entire last decade has been a learning experience for publishers that hopefully results in common sense budgeting and audience indulgence. Time will tell.

Even without publisers, i don't think is a huge stretch to imagine Obsidian gather 6-7 millions from kickstarter ( remember, Chris Roberts is at 16 millions) for an AAA openworld game from the creators of New Vegas,
puting 10-15 themselves if they have them, and find an investor or a publiser to throw another 5-10.

By that point if Obsidian has 4-5 kickstarters under their belt, they would have proven that kickstarter by them is reliable, and the game is going to come out. So i bet there will be a couple of millions Bethtards willing to put the 30 dollars preorder money, and maybe they won't need a publiser at all.

 

[cherry blossom]

It is a callous code of conduct to follow, imposing an article in a contract that ensures a bonus payment on an external condition as fickle and opaque as fucking Metacritic which isn't even transparent or communicative nor does it retain any reliable level of standard regarding the quality of the reviews chosen to rate a game and for anyone with the slightest clue about the state of "game journalism" and how deep big publishers' fingers goes in game journalists' anuses, you can bet Bethesda had at least some influence, direct or indirect, in the result. Also considering that Obsidian doesn't get any cut or revenue from the game which we know sold at least 5 million units (plus DLCs), the most anyone can claim in favour of Bethesda is that they were lawful on the surface and suffer no repercussions for they are the guys running the game. Otherwise I have serious doubts regarding the lawfulness of such an article in a business contract under legal scrutiny but that is games industry for you. Regressive and underdeveloped.

So, did Bethesda fuck Obsidian or not? Consider this:

A game sells "poorly", as in not in millions of units, but the publisher still profits and they can the IP and disband or fire the devteam even if the game is a critical success. Just another day in the business. Win-win for publishers.

Another game sells great, as in millions of units, and the publisher profits massively but the publisher has it setup just so that they don't have to pay a fraction of the profits as a bonus to the devs for the game's success because they had this article in the contract to rely on critical scores determined through some convoluted and non-transparent process by a shady third party . Devs are bereft of money they deserve. Win-win for publishers yet again.

So when it seems like it is always the publishers who get to decide what is an acceptable parameter to measure success and when, to the point of self-contradiction and hypocrisy, a question such as yours lose all the fucking meaning in the world. Then the only question that remains is this:

Are you fucking with us, darkpatriot?

 

[DalekFlay]

Even without publisers, i don't think is a huge stretch to imagine Obsidian gather 6-7 millions from kickstarter ( remember, Chris Roberts is at 16 millions) for an AAA openworld game from the creators of New Vegas,
puting 10-15 themselves if they have them, and find an investor or a publiser to throw another 5-10.

I wonder if people would pledge that much knowing it wouldn't fund the whole game.

In any case Bethesda games are immensely profitable. They don't take an insane amount of money to make and sell millions upon millions of copies. So I don't think Obsidian would have a hard time finding a publisher and decent budget if they wanted to make another game of that type. They're probably making one now and just haven't announced it.

 

[Rake]

Even without publisers, i don't think is a huge stretch to imagine Obsidian gather 6-7 millions from kickstarter ( remember, Chris Roberts is at 16 millions) for an AAA openworld game from the creators of New Vegas,
puting 10-15 themselves if they have them, and find an investor or a publiser to throw another 5-10.

I wonder if people would pledge that much knowing it wouldn't fund the whole game.

In any case Bethesda games are immensely profitable. They don't take an insane amount of money to make and sell millions upon millions of copies. So I don't think Obsidian would have a hard time finding a publisher and decent budget if they wanted to make another game of that type. They're probably making one now and just haven't announced it.

More or less. I said i beleve they will try their own some point in the future because they would take the majority of the profits and keep the IP. As darkpatriot was so kind to teach us, working with publisers is just contracted labor, and just passes the time for Obsidian without earning them something. PE will be the most profitable game Obsidian ever made, despite it will propably sell half the copies F:NV did.

 

[Morality Games]

Even without publisers, i don't think is a huge stretch to imagine Obsidian gather 6-7 millions from kickstarter ( remember, Chris Roberts is at 16 millions) for an AAA openworld game from the creators of New Vegas,
puting 10-15 themselves if they have them, and find an investor or a publiser to throw another 5-10.

I wonder if people would pledge that much knowing it wouldn't fund the whole game.

In any case Bethesda games are immensely profitable. They don't take an insane amount of money to make and sell millions upon millions of copies. So I don't think Obsidian would have a hard time finding a publisher and decent budget if they wanted to make another game of that type. They're probably making one now and just haven't announced it.

More or less. I said i beleve they will try their own some point in the future because they would take the majority of the profits and keep the IP. As darkpatriot was so kind to teach us, working with publisers is just contracted labor, and just passes the time for Obsidian without earning them something. PE will be the most profitable game Obsidian ever made, despite it will propably sell half the copies F:NV did.

Half of Fallout: New Vegas is kind of optimistic. NV shipped five million at launch and has sold upwards seven million over its lifetime. Project Eternity will be lucky if it sells a million copies.

 

[Rake]

Even without publisers, i don't think is a huge stretch to imagine Obsidian gather 6-7 millions from kickstarter ( remember, Chris Roberts is at 16 millions) for an AAA openworld game from the creators of New Vegas,
puting 10-15 themselves if they have them, and find an investor or a publiser to throw another 5-10.

I wonder if people would pledge that much knowing it wouldn't fund the whole game.

In any case Bethesda games are immensely profitable. They don't take an insane amount of money to make and sell millions upon millions of copies. So I don't think Obsidian would have a hard time finding a publisher and decent budget if they wanted to make another game of that type. They're probably making one now and just haven't announced it.

More or less. I said i beleve they will try their own some point in the future because they would take the majority of the profits and keep the IP. As darkpatriot was so kind to teach us, working with publisers is just contracted labor, and just passes the time for Obsidian without earning them something. PE will be the most profitable game Obsidian ever made, despite it will propably sell half the copies F:NV did.

Half of Fallout: New Vegas is kind of optimistic. NV shipped five million at launch and has sold upwards seven million over its lifetime. Project Eternity will be lucky if it sells a million copies.

Even so the point stands.