Obsidian Lost Bonus for Fallout: New Vegas by One Metacritic Point

[Waaghpowa]

This better not be common practice, because I think that's bullshit.

I will say though that the 1% they didn't get may have had something to do with the massive amount of bugs that the game suffered from. I bought the game when it was released and haven't played it till recently because of a fatal freeze/crash the prevented me from playing.

 

[SachielOne]

Looks like Jim Sterling was right again.

 

[happy_turtle]

I think this is pretty much word for word one of the reasons the Jimquisition mentioned why piracy doesn't have the stigma attached. None of the money you spend was going to the developers and the publishers treat them like crap.

 

[koroem]

Metacritic strikes again. Nice to see that pile of shit site is still in the business of fucking thing up with its attempts at relevancy. Why people/buinesses continue to rely on it for any kind of accurate stats is beyond me. The day that crap dies will be a better day for all. Publisher wins this round. I don't feel sorry for anyone on the developers end who entered a business deal based on metacritic. I do however feel bad for the poor employees who got screwed and laid off by this.

 

[Tanis]

Ahh...Obsidian, making even BUGGIER, half-assed, sequels to already buggy games.

 

[Yopaz]

Agreed. Why wouldn't you reward a bonus for sales? You know, the metric every other IP-based industry uses for success? I thought this was capitalism, not a popularity contest.

Capitalism isn't a popularity contest now all of a sudden? Did I miss the memo?

Well let me put it this way: Do you think Justin Bieber's record label cares about all the hate he gets from people who wouldn't buy his albums anyway when he's had three #1 albums and gone double-platinum all over the world?

So you are claiming Justin Bieber isn't popular? Things sell because they are popular, the more popular something is, the more it sells. Thus capitalism is a popularity contest.

 

[TheLastSamurai14]

Ahh...Obsidian, making even BUGGIER, half-assed, sequels to already buggy games.

I don't know what universe you live in, but New Vegas isn't nearly as buggy as it was a few years ago. Upon release, yes, it was buggier than Fallout 3, but after the patches and DLC started rolling in, Obsidian refined the game so that it was actually well-optimized for the engine.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

What kind of backwards bullshit business deal is that? Is this common? For fucks sake gaming industry, forget about Metracritic scores! They are meaningless as many of the publications are bought off anyway (looking at you, Gamespot and IGN). This makes me sick.

Agreed. Why wouldn't you reward a bonus for sales? You know, the metric every other IP-based industry uses for success? I thought this was capitalism, not a popularity contest.

Tbh, I can see what they were (probably) trying to go for. It would be quite nice if studios were rewarded for making GOOD games rather than making games which appeal to the broadest possible range of people.

The problem with that is its very hard to measure critical acclaim, Metacritic is the best we have but it isn't good enough.

 

[happy_turtle]

Ahh...Obsidian, making even BUGGIER, half-assed, sequels to already buggy games.

Granted it was buggy, but "half-assed"?!?! I've really got to disagree with you here. This game took the work fallout 3 started and completed it. Factions, hardcore mode, a more populated map, a more intriguing story, by far better dlc. If they'd been given more time to deveop it like they asked for the bugs would probably have been worked out. (Bethesda did not grant an extension to the deadline).

 

[GonzoGamer]

I think this is pretty much word for word one of the reasons the Jimquisition mentioned why piracy doesn't have the stigma attached. None of the money you spend was going to the developers and the publishers treat them like crap.

That's also one of the main reasons that online pass & day 1 dlc pisses me off: you know the devs don't see any of that money. It goes to the bean counters that come up with crap like that.

I only hope that one of the recent firings at obsidian was of the moron who agreed to this metacritic stipulation.

 

[JPH330]

I think this is pretty much word for word one of the reasons the Jimquisition mentioned why piracy doesn't have the stigma attached. None of the money you spend was going to the developers and the publishers treat them like crap.

That's also one of the main reasons that online pass & day 1 dlc pisses me off: you know the devs don't see any of that money. It goes to the bean counters that come up with crap like that.

I only hope that one of the recent firings at obsidian was of the moron who agreed to this metacritic stipulation.

The guy who agreed to the metacritic stipulation was probably one of the higher-up executive types, who certainly wouldn't get fired in a layoff like this.

Whatever the case may be, Bethesda, not Obsidian, deserves the blame for this.

 

[MrJoyless]

Maybe if they didnt make such an ass backwards mess of a buggy game, or hell, even patched it as quickly as the unpaid PC community managed to... but to be honest I personally rated this game a 50% because at release, thats how much was available without me running into a major bug or crashing my console.

 

[Hunter65416]

Im going to be in the minority but, to me sounds like a good idea, I cant imagine the bonus was a major sum of money and they would have been paid well for their work anyway, its just an extra incentive to do a good job, don't feel sorry for people who have 3 houses and 12 cars people!! all of that cash would have gone to the privileged people up top.

 

[Imbechile]

Ahh...Obsidian, making even BUGGIER, half-assed, sequels to already buggy games.

Bethesda did the bugtesting for New Vegas.

 

[Realitycrash]

Holy crap, basing how much you get payed on METACRITIC of all things. That's sad. Really, really sad.

 

[weirdee]

So, as opposed to giving the decision to one biased party, you give it to another, except this one has almost no idea why it does what it does, and flops around like a headless chicken, landing on the "NO BONUS" spot.

I guess having any chance at all is better than no chance, and I think the publisher thought it was fairly secure in the bet, and figured the house rules were already stacked in their favor anyway.

This is not how you do business with respect.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

My concern would be a publisher, in a close case like this, could bribe a single or few reviewers in order to push the score below the threshold in order to screw over a studio out of a bonus.

So a publisher, at risk of this act coming to light - because let's face it, a story like this would be huge - would rather pay companies to downgrade their opinion of a piece of their work to avoid paying a studio that they will probably wish to maintain relations with?

Because the publisher is in charge of sales. You never put the power to reward based on sales in the hands of someone who determines sales. You'd end up with the publisher purposely shipping a lower than threshold number to screw over the studio.

Again, just to avoid paying the developer a publisher would cripple it's overall sales on purpose?

I apologise; I don't normally call people out on posts, but this is insanity.

The games industry isn't home to all manner of conspiracy theories - money talks first and foremost and all actions flow from that.

Obsidian didn't have to agree to this bonus model - they believed it could be achieved at the time of creation and it is their fault alone it wasn't attained.

It doesn't matter if a race is won by an inch or a mile - if an agreed KPI isn't hit, that's the end of it.

I deplore Obsidian's lack of professionalism in revealing this information to the public, business agreements should stay in the meeting room and this attempt at sympathy harvesting is pathetic.

 

[WanderingFool]

Imagine if Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 didn't have high metacritic scores. It sold truckloads. But ONE TINY METACRITIC SCORE OFF. No bonus for u!

>_>

Would anything have changed?

Anyways, This just goes to show that Numerical scores are for reviews can and will fuck people over.

I've hated the scoring system for years. A number tells you nothing and offers no real context.

Exactly! That why if I watch a review (anywhere else other than the Escapist), I never watch the end where they give out the score. Usually, it seems the more negative the review, the higher the end score, while the more positive the review, the lower the end score. Its makes one think that they (the reviewer/site) was paid off to give a high score. Thats probably where all the negative feelings directed towards reviewers comes from...

 

[BrotherRool]

Stuff like this makes me want to buy games used. Obsidian are by far and away my favourite developer and they just never get the break (or the bug testing ) they need

Im going to be in the minority but, to me sounds like a good idea, I cant imagine the bonus was a major sum of money and they would have been paid well for their work anyway, its just an extra incentive to do a good job, don't feel sorry for people who have 3 houses and 12 cars people!! all of that cash would have gone to the privileged people up top.

Obsidian are saving up for the day when they can make a game of their own