Obsidian gets no royalties from Bethesda after missing the target Metacritic score by 1 point

[Savagezion]

As part of the "audiences," I found New Vegas to basically be Fallout 3: Good Edition.

dude this has NOTHING to do with the thread, but every time i read your posts i read them in Jules's voice...

I do that too.

OT: how did this thread turn into a Fallout3 Vs New Vegas flame war?[/quote]
Bethesda (Fallout 3) made this contract with Obsidian. (Fallout: New Vegas)

Fallout 3 which had corrupted saved games and freezes a slew of other bugs got a 93. Fallout New Vegas is the same and actually has much better mechanics in place. (For instance VATS isn't broken, not to mention the faction system.) FO:NV had much better dialogue and writing in general. At the very least, FO:NV should have gotten a 90 if FO3 deserves a 93. However, Bethesda pulled a string or two for their game and Obsidian doesn't have that luxury. As well, Obsidian is known for releasing buggy games and they often get slammed by critics for it. They had no one there to nudge their game with marketing like Bethesda did.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Funny thing is that one of main points of criticism you see for New Vegas is the bugs.

Yet Bethesda were in charge of QA.

I would also like to add...metacritic?

Really?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

The South Park RPG and a game adaptation of the Wheel in Time books. Though the latter is still in the very early stages.

I'd be willing to bet the recent layoffs are linked to the WoT deal falling through.

No, project Virginia fell through. It was their untitled project. Wheel of Time had been announced and wasn't a secret.

 

[lacktheknack]

Still, Bethesda's decision to not pay up is ridiculous, as is the decision to base bonuses on a bloody Metacritic score.

Obsidian agreed to be paid the bonus based on meta score. It would have been ridiculous for Bethesda to pay for a criteria not met.

Its a bonus after all. To go the extra mile. Its like if I offer a cab driver a bonus if he can get me to the airport 10 min ahead of time and he shows up 2 min ahead of time and then all of a sudden I'm the dick for not giving him the bonus.

At this point, it's more like he showed up nine minutes and fifty five seconds ahead of time. I'm sure he'd be a bit ticked if he didn't get that bonus, because he was so damn close.

 

[McJobless]

I would just like to say KOTOR 1 was ten times better in story and characters than Obsidian's KOTOR 2. I forget like 3/4 of that game yet remember almost everything from KOTOR 1. And I played both of them alot.

I have to disagree with you. Sure, it takes downloading the TSLRCM and installing it to rectify some of the deleted content and fix some of the bugs, but ultimately I had more fun, and found a much more rewarding experience in the second game than the first.

 

[Sexy Devil]

welp, if you make a buggy game, people will lower that score, yes its good, but by good it had so bugs that would put make austailians piss them selves.

The Skyrim metacritic suggests otherwise. Hell, the PS3 version barely even worked at release and it still scored 92.

 

[Dejawesp]

It's not that simple... as I put it in another thread, during that time when they accepted the contract work for Fallout: New Vegas they were going through a particularly tough time, their contracts for both the Aliens RPG [http://kotaku.com/5152193/rumor-aliens-rpg-canceled-layoffs-hit] by SEGA along with a project titled "Seven Dwarfs [http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/52202-project-new-jerseys-working-title-was-seven-dwarves/]" fell through, after which people were laid off in 2009 and 2010. Bethesda swooped in during that period and basically held all bargaining chips.

Excuses excuses and more freaking excuses.

Oh no. Obsidian, a major game developer with hundreds of employees with a full legal team and experienced management corporation where on hard times and took a job to make ends met. They had no idea what they were doing, judge. They weren't responsible for their actions. They where impaired and cannot be held accountable to any contracts they signed in their impaired state.

They got paid for the job. They just didn't earn the contract bonus. yes I'm sure obsidian fans can feel sorry that they didn't get the bonus but you cannot possibly argue the morality and definitely not the legality of Bethesda not paying a bonus that was not earned.

You have to think with your brain on this matter and not your heart. Just because you're an Obsidian fan does not mean they deserve to get out of business arrangements that they signed.

By your logic Bethesda fans could argue that Bethesda should refuse to pay Obsidian anything at all because they feel the money is better off staying at Bethesda. I mean if Obsidian don't have to follow contract obligations to get paid then why should Bethesda have to follow the same obligations to pay?


Can we just separate emotion and reason here for a bit?

Also, maybe it's just my cynicism but I find it rather strange that both the PC and Xbox360 ratings on Metacritic are exactly at 84%:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/fallout-new-vegas

If it was possible to buy a meta critic score then Bethesda would not be buying down their own games. They would have been buying them up.

Hell if companies could buy Meta critic scores then the EA title Tiberium twilight wouldn't be sitting on a 64.

Yeah its sad that it ended at 84 but there's no foul play here. If it had ended at exactly 85 had you accused Obsidian of doctoring the score?

 

[Elfgore]

I would just like to say KOTOR 1 was ten times better in story and characters than Obsidian's KOTOR 2. I forget like 3/4 of that game yet remember almost everything from KOTOR 1. And I played both of them alot.

I have to disagree with you. Sure, it takes downloading the TSLRCM and installing it to rectify some of the deleted content and fix some of the bugs, but ultimately I had more fun, and found a much more rewarding experience in the second game than the first.

What is that thing I need to be able to fix the lost content and bug. I borrowed the game like a year ago and it broke halfway through on the place with the Mandolorians (think thats how it's spelled) and it wouldn't load the city. But I would like to try it again.

 

[xorinite]

Also Im curious as to what makes you think NV is more akin to the orginals.

When you see what they did with the ending(s) and the range of choices and outcomes that are avalible to you, I think that will impress you. Oh and that is also probably the area that its most like the originals you get some decent consequences for your actions and a lot of player agency as opposed to FO3's good ending/bad ending. Or... *shudder* other endings I could mention.

Edit additional: I know they patched it in DLC, but I'm still annoyed about that "What me, immune to radiation, uh.. well, I could, but uh.. destiny and stuff.. so time for you to die"

2nd edit: well, no I'm not actually annoyed by it anymore, since they were so good natured and humorous about it in the DLC. "now you mention it, it does make more sense" heh, good stuff.

 

[Jegsimmons]

welp, if you make a buggy game, people will lower that score, yes its good, but by good it had so bugs that would put make austailians piss them selves.

The Skyrim metacritic suggests otherwise. Hell, the PS3 version barely even worked at release and it still scored 92.

i think skyrim had the advantage of fan boy hype as opposed to fall out new vegas's average ad campaign

 

[Dejawesp]

The game was no more buggy than any other Bethesda title at launch

HA! That's a good one. Cheers for the laugh...

and there's only so much bug finding a company team can do. Its only when the game goes out to millions of different users with a million different computer setups that the real issues will reveal themselves.

...

The game was downright broken on consoles when it was released. You know, consoles. Those game machines that have uniform software and are therefore supposed to be easier to program for. Game breaking issues such as lag and broken quests were showing themselves on 360 and PS3 versions of the game within days of release.

All thanks to Bethesda's reluctance to bug-test the game properly.

You know, you're right? There is only so much bug hunting a company can do. Unfortunately for you, and Bethesda, in this case this is not the case. Even a cursory playthrough of the game on consoles would have told the Bethesda QA team that New Vegas was still broken and in dire need of more fixing.

The fact that the game shipped in the condition it did suggests either of two things: either Bethesda couldn't be arsed to playthrough New Vegas on consoles even once before release to see just how buggy it was, or they did play through and simply didn't care. Either way, this reflects incredibly poorly on Bethesda, as it shows them lacking in their responsibility to fix up the game's bugs before release.

Obsidian aren't being punished for doing something wrong here. Bethesda is simply trying to avoid taking responsibility for the fact that they didn't release the game in a suitably bug-free state, and are punishing Obsidian as a result. This shit should not stand. Obsidian created a game that went on to sell 6 million copies. For them to not see even a dime from those sales is a disgusting indictment of Bethesda's policies as a publisher.

There's no such thing as a bug free game. Bethesda did the bug testing on Skyrim, Fallout 3, Oblivion and Morrowind and they all came out buggy and still had Meta scores in the 90+ range (89 for morrowind)

[/quote]

I think what you meant to say was. "unfortunately for Obsidian" Not me and Bethesda. Me and Bethesda are doing just fine.

 

[Elamdri]

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/

Between this, the recent layoffs and the cancelled 'Vermont' project, it looks like Obsidian are going to go the way of the Westwood.

This, this right here? This is TERRIBLE for gamers.

Forget all your DLC bullcrap.

A contract between developer and publishers that conditions benefits to the dev studio on Metacritic ratings? I'm sorry but that's just plain awful for us as gamers. I want developers to take risks, to innovate, to make new and interesting stories. I don't want them all to try and make the same game because they it think will get them the best Metacritic rating possible.

High Metacritic rating=/=good game.

 

[McJobless]

What is that thing I need to be able to fix the lost content and bug. I borrowed the game like a year ago and it broke halfway through on the place with the Mandolorians (think thats how it's spelled) and it wouldn't load the city. But I would like to try it again.

It's called TSLRCM...they're almost at 1.8 which is probably going to the final. You can download it from the following forums (no need to register, just head straight to downloads):

http://deadlystream.com/forum/

 

[wintercoat]

I think what you meant to say was. "unfortunately for Obsidian" Not me and Bethesda. Me and Bethesda are doing just fine.

No, I meant Bethesda. As in "unfortunately for Bethesda, because this shows that they completely and utterly fucked up."

How about "unfortunately for everyone involved" because I'm pretty sure everyone lost due to Bethesda's idiocy. We lost out on a stable release, Obsidian lost out on mountains of pay, and Bethesda lost some customer loyalty. Maybe next time, they'll think twice before releasing a bugged to shit game. Oh, who am I kidding. Skyrim was buggy as fuck and people ate it up.

 

[wintercoat]

It's not that simple... as I put it in another thread, during that time when they accepted the contract work for Fallout: New Vegas they were going through a particularly tough time, their contracts for both the Aliens RPG [http://kotaku.com/5152193/rumor-aliens-rpg-canceled-layoffs-hit] by SEGA along with a project titled "Seven Dwarfs [http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/52202-project-new-jerseys-working-title-was-seven-dwarves/]" fell through, after which people were laid off in 2009 and 2010. Bethesda swooped in during that period and basically held all bargaining chips.

Excuses excuses and more freaking excuses.

Oh no. Obsidian, a major game developer with hundreds of employees with a full legal team and experienced management corporation where on hard times and took a job to make ends met. They had no idea what they were doing, judge. They weren't responsible for their actions. They where impaired and cannot be held accountable to any contracts they signed in their impaired state.

They got paid for the job. They just didn't earn the contract bonus. yes I'm sure obsidian fans can feel sorry that they didn't get the bonus but you cannot possibly argue the morality and definitely not the legality of Bethesda not paying a bonus that was not earned.

You have to think with your brain on this matter and not your heart. Just because you're an Obsidian fan does not mean they deserve to get out of business arrangements that they signed.

By your logic Bethesda fans could argue that Bethesda should refuse to pay Obsidian anything at all because they feel the money is better off staying at Bethesda. I mean if Obsidian don't have to follow contract obligations to get paid then why should Bethesda have to follow the same obligations to pay?


Can we just separate emotion and reason here for a bit?

Also, maybe it's just my cynicism but I find it rather strange that both the PC and Xbox360 ratings on Metacritic are exactly at 84%:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/fallout-new-vegas

If it was possible to buy a meta critic score then Bethesda would not be buying down their own games. They would have been buying them up.

Hell if companies could buy Meta critic scores then the EA title Tiberium twilight wouldn't be sitting on a 64.

Yeah its sad that it ended at 84 but there's no foul play here. If it had ended at exactly 85 had you accused Obsidian of doctoring the score?

Actually, either way, Bethesda stood to gain by having FO:NV's Metacritic score below 85%.