Obsidian CEO: Publishers Are Trying to Sneak Into Kickstarter

[DustyDrB]

"We were actually contacted by some publishers over the last few months that wanted to use us to do a Kickstarter," CEO Feargus Urquhart wrote on the Project Eternity Kickstarter forum. "I said to them 'So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for [you], using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don't get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits?' They said, 'Yes'."

Why would any developer agree to that?

But publishers will get more savvy with this in the future. I want publishers out of this. Period. So it's up to us to stay informed. I don't think they are evil. I just don't think they have a place in Kickstarter. It's contrary to the very idea of it, for me at least. When I back a Kickstarter game, I'm saying to that dev that I'm glad to give them money to make the game they are dreaming up. I'm not happy to give a portion of that money to a publisher who will focus group and change the original plan.

 

[Andy Chalk]

The terms of a kickstarter are such, that in the event of failure, Obsidian are only liable to repay any remaining money and not to reimburse the money given.

I'm not aware of any such terms. If a Kickstarter doesn't make its funding project, no money is taken; if it does, and then it collapses for whatever reason, those who donated are simply out the money. Nobody gets a refund.

 

[JPArbiter]

I honestly do not know if this is funny or sad.

"I said to them 'So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for [you], using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don't get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits?' They said, 'Yes'."

Priceless.

 

[Fell]

So what exactly will their work be ?

the consumer will be the one taking a risk, a small risk but a risk none the less and the developer will be making the game.

The only thing i can think of is marketing, but i seriously doubt that you are going to need EA level of marketing.

So they will take what ? 75% cut of the money earned from the game and while doing almost nothing for work ?

 

[Frostbite3789]

You're kidding me right? They want rights to games that they don't fund? Am I reading this right? I can't for the life of me understand how they would even begin to believe that a crowdfunded game, one most often specifically funded as so to bypass the BS that publishers heap on us, would then be turned over to them for no other purpose than for them to make money with minimal risk to themselves. Who wants to bet me that publisher was EA?

Considering it's Obisidian, odds are it was Bethesda. Y'know, the company that publishes their games.

 

[DustyDrB]

You're kidding me right? They want rights to games that they don't fund? Am I reading this right? I can't for the life of me understand how they would even begin to believe that a crowdfunded game, one most often specifically funded as so to bypass the BS that publishers heap on us, would then be turned over to them for no other purpose than for them to make money with minimal risk to themselves. Who wants to bet me that publisher was EA?

Considering it's Obisidian, odds are it was Bethesda. Y'know, the company that publishes their games.

As far as I know, Bethesda only published New Vegas. Sega published Alpha Protocol, Square Enix published Dungeon Siege III, and...I forgot who did the rest. LucasArts for Knights of the Old Republic II, obviously.

 

[Frostbite3789]

As far as I know, Bethesda only published New Vegas. Sega published Alpha Protocol, Square Enix published Dungeon Siege III, and...I forgot who did the rest. LucasArts for Knights of the Old Republic II, obviously.

Bleh on my ignorance! Odds are still that it wasn't EA though. I'd name a publisher they work with.

Then again, it's chic to hate on EA in these parts.

 

[Canadish]

You're kidding me right? They want rights to games that they don't fund? Am I reading this right? I can't for the life of me understand how they would even begin to believe that a crowdfunded game, one most often specifically funded as so to bypass the BS that publishers heap on us, would then be turned over to them for no other purpose than for them to make money with minimal risk to themselves. Who wants to bet me that publisher was EA?

Considering it's Obisidian, odds are it was Bethesda. Y'know, the company that publishes their games.

As far as I know, Bethesda only published New Vegas. Sega published Alpha Protocol, Square Enix published Dungeon Siege III, and...I forgot who did the rest. LucasArts for Knights of the Old Republic II, obviously.

It really could of been anybody. There are only a few publishers who I doubt would have the nerve to suggest the idea.

Eitherway, it should hopefully help towards putting them off trying it in the future with other companies.

Kickstarter is great but ripe for abuse if it's not kept under watch from a vigilant community.

 

[Schadrach]

Major publishers trying to take advantage of the system? That's bullcrap!

Now, major developers taking advantage of the system? That's okay....

Yes. The distinction of course being that one of the primary things publishers bring to the table is *funding*, and all the shit they pull on the other end is doable entirely because they get such a large piece of the ownership of the product.

Rarely, a publisher is only involved for actual publishing (physical manufacturing and distribution), but then they don't own anything related to the product -- they're merely a subcontractor for the developer.

This would be the model that The Secret World used for retail (which also means no matter how cool it is to hate EA, any failures of TSW are entirely on FunCom's hands). There's a reason the EA logo only appears on the retail game boxes, and that's because they aren't in the typical publisher relationship, but were instead hired by Funcom to do printing, disk replication, assembly, and retail distribution only. Still not a bad deal for EA (not as good as the traditional setup if the game took off like a bat out of hell, but almost zero risk for a known payout).

The publisher in this case apparently wanted to get crowdfunding for the game, then still have a traditional publisher relationship where they own everything, but without putting up the budget. One of the primary benefits of doing without a publisher is owning the IP you produce, not being beholden to them and the shit they like to pull because the developer owns the product.

It really sounds like a publisher called them and said "We'd like to have all the benefits of a traditional publisher relationship, but without all that cost and risk on our part. You game?" I think agreeing to that would be a sign that you need to fire your management. All of them. Into the sun.

 

[veloper]

That is a big red flag.

I reckon that most crowdfunding supporters wouldn't want to kickstart a big publisher, say for example EA, but where do we draw the line?

We've already seen a kickstarter where the goal was to create a game demo to better sell an idea for a game to a publisher.
Supporters can forget about independent game development then. You're still helping a bunch of developers to land a job, but you're also making it easier for a company that won't pay attention to anything less than a million dollars.

The spirit of crowdfunding is about funding projects that wouldn't be able to get funding elsewhere and not just placing some kind of very early pre-order.

The crowdfunders risk their money and the developers put their reputation on the line, but for a publisher it basicly amounts to free money.
I'm confident that such a scheme wouldn't work openly, but what's stopping a publisher from staying in the background for a while and let someone else do the sales pitch on kickstarter?

 

[Tradjus]

Pfft-ha. Publishers are such fuckin' dinosaurs.
Really, they're massive lumbering monstrosities made up of equal parts ignorance and money.
They have absolutely no idea whatsoever how to adapt to any innovation in Gameplay itself or in the making of actual games, whether it be IOS gaming or Kickstarter.

They weakly attempt, in all cases, too apply their age-old thinking to new ideas, and in the process, either fail miserably, or completely fuck over the new idea permanently. I really feel that their time is coming to an end, that eventually, Publishers will finally, -finally- go extinct, and allow a new renaissance of game-making, unencumbered by their inane and ignorant approaches.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Translated


Obsidian: Its ok for us to dump all the risk onto the consumer and keep the profits and make the millionaire CEO Feargus Urquhart even richer but when a publisher wants to pass on the risk thats evil.

Not really. Having a failed Kickstarter with your name attached? Very risky. Having a funded Kickstarter that goes belly up? Probably unrecoverable, possibly legally incriminating, though it's hard to say since it hasn't happened yet.

The problem with what this publisher is asking is that they basically want to get all the reward for none of the work. The whole point of a publisher is to have someone to bankroll a project (and, in the old days, make the physical copies of the game), otherwise no one would deal with them and their meddling. To have them say, "We want to not do our job and get paid for it," is where the problem lies.

The consumer is the one carrying the finical risk, they put all the money with no guarantee of a product.

Kickstarter carries as much financial risk to the consumer as pre-ordering a game from the store. Let's take a look at the Terms of Use for the site, shall we?

From the Terms of Use:

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

I don't know about you, but that looks an awful lot like I will get a refund if the project goes belly-up.

 

[LordLundar]

Sounds to me like the publishers are getting nervous realizing that developers are telling them to eff off instead of jumping for the carrot. Then they realized that they get all the rewards but put up none of the risk.

 

[Orekoya]

See the post above yours for why you are wrong. Also before typing away with your preconceived opinion try reading the thread

I read your above post and its logic was so backwards and nonsensical I couldn't stop myself from writing a reply to this overly arrogant post.

The consumer is the one carrying the finical risk, they put all the money with no guarantee of a product. Normally this risk is taken by the publisher but in the case of Kickstarter is the contributors is take that risk.

First of all, consumers are individuals, and as individuals they can choose to carry that financial risk or not. The primary purpose of this money put down is to pay wages of people to make the game. You are literally paying them to work on making you a game, that is the product you are getting. I also feel you are drastically overstating the nature of publisher risk vs crowd funding risk. Publishers are fronting 100% of the risk but those who choose to support through crowd funding are pooling together to front a percentage of the risk. Let me make sure you understand how just how small this percentage is for the consumer. The most common pledge amount to Project Eternity was 20, the average amount pledge per backer was 40.69, and the amount raised was 1,684,319. That's 0.0012% of the risk for the individual consumer based on how common or 0.0024% based on average. Even the highest pledge amount, $10,000, is only 0.59%.

A failed game is going to effect your reputation with publishers using the normal method of funding just as much a as failed kickstarter. A publisher can and does mitigate that risk through the contract signed, the contributors for a kickstarter don't have the management input.

I don't know how else to say this: anybody who does not know how to make a game should not have management input on how to make a game. Also worth noting that the meddling of the publishers from their management input is the primary cause of a game failing to be made. Forcing them to hit pointlessly aggressive milestones which leads to sloppy work that will need to be redone, building useless early demos for conventions which ultimately get scrapped most of the time thus wasting dev time and publisher resources, deciding the market has changed so this game won't sell well so it doesn't need to be made anymore, demanding unnecessary but popular features to a project already in development.

In a kickstarter Obsidian get 100% of the profits without any investment risk because all the money comes from the consumer who has no means of redress in case of project failure.

Money is not the only form of currency in this world. It's not even the most valuable. Time is. You are paying money (in an amount you can choose so potentially a few measly bucks that you could earn in a few hours) to them along with others in exchange for them to put years of their time into making this project. The fact that you think they owe you something more than just finishing the project for that kind of trade is ludicrous.

A failed game on kickstarter is a lesser risk than the normal because if you screw up with publisher they take you to court and win under the terms of the contract. The terms of a kickstarter are such, that in the event of failure, Obsidian are only liable to repay any remaining money and not to reimburse the money given.

From the Terms of Use:

Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill.

I don't know about you, but that looks an awful lot like I will get a refund if the project goes belly-up.

Saves me alot of time typing to quote you breakfastman, thanks for that. Kickstarter is ran through Amazon Payments and they are quite capable of helping you get any available refunds from defunct projects. Which means your actual 'risk' is even less of a risk than you make it out to be.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Translated


Obsidian: Its ok for us to dump all the risk onto the consumer and keep the profits and make the millionaire CEO Feargus Urquhart even richer but when a publisher wants to pass on the risk thats evil.

pretty much what im seeing also.

 

[Sartan0]

The terms of a kickstarter are such, that in the event of failure, Obsidian are only liable to repay any remaining money and not to reimburse the money given.

I'm not aware of any such terms. If a Kickstarter doesn't make its funding project, no money is taken; if it does, and then it collapses for whatever reason, those who donated are simply out the money. Nobody gets a refund.

That would be why I only fund projects from known quantities like Double-fine and Obsidian Entertainment. That and I want those games made!

 

[Sartan0]

Translated


Obsidian: Its ok for us to dump all the risk onto the consumer and keep the profits and make the millionaire CEO Feargus Urquhart even richer but when a publisher wants to pass on the risk thats evil.

pretty much what im seeing also.

It's not like we don't get anything out of it. We get games made that would otherwise not be made. How is this a bad thing? Provided you back the titles that are much more likely to be done it is a good bet. At least for me. As for the publishers I don't care much about them as long as they don't interfere too much. With kick-starter they can't as they are not involved.

 

[Krantos]

Translated


Obsidian: Its ok for us to dump all the risk onto the consumer and keep the profits and make the millionaire CEO Feargus Urquhart even richer but when a publisher wants to pass on the risk thats evil.

That was my first thought too, to be honest.

To be honest (again), though, if this story is actually true, it is hilarious that some publisher actually thought this would work, or be a good idea.

However, Obsidian historically has abysmal relationships with publishers, so it wouldn't surprise me if they're just throwing mud this time around.

Still, though, I'm glad the Obsidian Kickstarter is happening, because I'm interested to see what they do without a publisher.