Don't see how Bethesda screwed over Obsidian. Are publishers under some obligation to provide bonuses for contract agreements that haven't been met? Would the lack of royalties per copies sold for New Vegas (as opposed to a one-time payment) be considered that uncommon, given the fact hat Fallout is Bethesda's intellectual property and not Obsidian's?
Not uncommon at all but
that particular subject hasn't really been called into question.
Except they can't control the metacritic score to that degree of accuracy.
Considering MetaCritic is not transparent and practically nobody knows how it works as they don't reveal their algorithms or the rationale behind choosing the reviews to factor into scores, you are awfully eager to pretend that you
do know. Where we can not even know the mechanics behind it, nobody can even claim how open to influence if not direct business deals MetaCritic may or may not be.
Living in the real world and having some perspective over how it works would favour the former as everything is built around money. Transparency = death of business. Non-transparency = anything could happen and it's quite very likely that it's already happening.
If you think they are able to have precise control over exactly what metacritic score it receives you are not very bright.
Ask yourself: if you are a business holder, would you willingly go into a contractual bind to spend more money than necessary without any return value to you or preserve that money based on a platform that you don't even know how it works?
Now ask yourself again, this time like this: would you willingly go into a contractual bind
with another business holder, to give them more of your money than necessary without any return value to you or preserve your money based on a platform that you don't even know how it works?
If you said yes to either, we can only hope that you are not a business holder as you likely wouldn't survive a single fiscal year.
If there was even any evidence that Bethesda was rigging the metacritc score to avoid paying a bonus Obsidian would be able to sue the shit out of them. For the full bonus and then some.
And lose the good graces of one of the highest profile contacts in the industry who also gave them a high profile job that also happens to be a personal dream come true for them? That's not how business world works, son. You are not very bright. I hope your ability to write a wall-of-text isn't deluding you.
As much as people like to think that the game reviews are bought there has never been much evidence of straight up payments for scores happening.
Get back to the real world, some time. Publishers buy ads on gaming news portals and pay for accommodation and entertainment of their game journalists in return for high scores. There are enough examples of how not adhering to that model ends for journalists: getting scolded if not fired. It is actually quite very common knowledge with recent examples. If that is news for you, just you wait until you find out about the private connections between publishers and game journalists eg. how being a loyal and faithful game journalist on a leash can eventually result in a new job at your favourite publisher or game developer. Just ask Pete Hines or Emil Pagliarulo for the nearest examples to Bethesda themselves.
It is more tied to access to exclusives and advertising revenue.
And where do you think the advertising comes from, genius?
And the level of leverage that gives publishers isn't within the range of dictating exactly what score the game will receive on metacritic.
Oh no, not "exactly" but close enough.
They certainly didn't pay off metacritic as was suggested here
Oh so now you know for certainty. I would like to get to your source.
(Think about how metacritic is valued and makes it's money
Indeed, indeed. You just think about it. Think about how MetaCritic has become a reliable tool for publishers to use in contracts while not offering any transparency into its inner workings. Think about why a publisher would willingly use a non-transparent tool of uncertainty in a deal where they seek to exert influence over a game's design in order to minimize uncertainties and maximize profit? How does that make sense? Is it that they feel adventurous every now and then? Think about my previous questions above. Stuff to think about, indeed.
And Bethesda did spend lots of money and marketing effort on New Vegas.
They did? I have to say that it wasn't shoved down my throat the same way Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim were everywhere I turned my gaze to. To give credit due, FNV didn't get the abandoned bastard child treatment other titles published by Bethesda did, like Dark Corners of the Earth, Star Trek or Rogue Trooper or whatever the shit it was called.
I don't know if you were paying attention when the game was being developed but it received plenty of coverage and attention.
So did Minecraft. Does that mean now that Notch spend lots of money and marketing effort on Minecraft? I think you are confused about what "spending lots of money" and "marketing effort" actually means.
The fact that New Vegas got a 84% is not a result of some conspiracy.
Oooh, "conspiracy", got them fancy words. LOL. It's just fucking business as usual, son. Nothing conspiratorial about it. You just need to man up and face the real world.
Not paying a bonus for a condition that wasn't met is not fucking someone. Deciding not to give a bonus anyway because they got close is not fucking someone(although I agree that doing so would be a nice gesture). Not offering them a great deal is not fucking them.
Making scores determined by a non-transparant and non-cooperative rating platform a condition is. Why would Bethesda give a fuck about scores if it still sold in millions? They wouldn't. And they don't.
It seems to me like it is a normal developer publisher deal.
And that is precisely the point. Publishers basically have a monopoly on the money and thus, they exert power on the conditions to lend their money. And that is their right. It's just business. It becomes sketchy when they start using sketchy methods such as MetaCritic to maximize profits.
I'll leave it here and just quote myself from earlier in the thread to hammer it into your head, as the rest of your post is rubbish, devolving into an effort to put Obsidian in a negative light quite irrelevantly to the subject at hand, though it's worth pointing out that in the case of NWN2, it must have sold well enough that it warranted two big and one minor expansions well after release when it's a lucky day if any game at all gets any. Oh and this last bit:
Sounds like a sweet deal for developers but not exactly a fair deal for Publishers. Because Publishers need the massive profits from their successes to offset all their games that lose money or don't make much money. You know, games like Hunted: the Demon's Forge.
Oh, them poor publishers! This is just too funny.
This is like someone rushing to the defence of 21st Century Fox and using Fox News as a source to back his data.
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?
Also, I'm not sure why you think Bethesda gets a pass on bugs. I looked up several reviews of FO3 and NV and in both the bugs are not considered a big deal and just get a passing mention. Then again I only got to the gamespot review before I stopped reading this shit in disgust. All the reviews seemed to be cocksucking parades and the authors get basic details wrong, as if they don't play anything for more than a couple of hours before writing their reviews.
avatar pliz.
