• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

EatChildren
Chico is Quiet
(09-19-2012, 09:33 AM)
EatChildren's Avatar
I'm giving this its own thread because goddamn. Feargus Urquhart (CEO of Obsidian Entertainment) made a comment on their Kickstarter page, noting prior conversations with publishers in regards to a Kickstarter project. Here:

We were actually contacted by some publishers over the last few months that wanted to use us to do a Kickstarter. I said to them "So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for, 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".

"See, if we don't use lube when we fuck them, we'll save more money!"

Fucking video game industry.
hiryu64
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:34 AM)
hiryu64's Avatar
Last edited by hiryu64; 09-19-2012 at 09:40 AM.
Dreavus
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:35 AM)
Dreavus's Avatar
Goddamnit.
MightyHedgehog
Welcome to the Wasteland.
I hope you're wearing your flak vest!
(09-19-2012, 09:35 AM)
MightyHedgehog's Avatar
It feels like the publisher model is all but burnt down, anyway.
Nibel
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:36 AM)
Nibel's Avatar


This is one of the most fucked up things I've ever heard of in gaming

I want names.
AdventChild
Junior Member
(09-19-2012, 09:36 AM)
AdventChild's Avatar
God.
Prophet Steve
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:36 AM)
Prophet Steve's Avatar
I wonder when publishers are going to make a Kickstarter for a game of "their" developers just to save some costs.

Although this is pretty damn close.
hiryu64
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:37 AM)
hiryu64's Avatar
I joked about this with some friends before, but we're THAT much closer to the logical extreme of big-name publishers creating Kickstarters for their big titles.

Want Megaman Legends 3? Well we got this Kickstarter goin on...
Frankenstrat
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:38 AM)
Frankenstrat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nibel



This is one of the most fucked up things I've ever heard of in gaming

I want names.

Jeremy. Robin. Christopher. Yngwie.

Jokes aside, what a shitty, shitty move by the publisher.
EVOL 100%
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:38 AM)
EVOL 100%'s Avatar
entrydenied
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:39 AM)
entrydenied's Avatar
That's really quite horrid. I'm glad Obsidian didn't take the "offer"...
daviyoung
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:39 AM)
daviyoung's Avatar

Originally Posted by Prophet Steve

I wonder when publishers are going to make a Kickstarter for a game of "their" developers just to save some costs.

Although this is pretty damn close.

Seems logical to me. Can't stay innocent forever.
CambriaRising
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:40 AM)
CambriaRising's Avatar
The sad thing is that if one of these publishers created a Kickstarter to gauge interest on some old nostalgic game, people would donate like a motherfucker and it would end up screwing us all.
Cpt.Underpants
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:44 AM)
Cpt.Underpants's Avatar
Why can't they name the publisher(s)?

Legal issues?
MacBosse
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:44 AM)
MacBosse's Avatar
Isn't it rather obvious that if a publisher can remove the financial risk of building a game that they will jump on that like a crazy monkey?

It's just a matter of time.
Prophet Steve
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:46 AM)
Prophet Steve's Avatar

Originally Posted by Cpt.Underpants

Why can't they name the publisher(s)?

Legal issues?

Obsidian isn't doing that well and will in the future need funding for their games, disclosing the names might bring them trouble acquiring publishers later on.
whalleywhat
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:47 AM)
whalleywhat's Avatar
Obligatory.
EVOL 100%
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:48 AM)
EVOL 100%'s Avatar

Originally Posted by Cpt.Underpants

Why can't they name the publisher(s)?

Legal issues?

They can't afford to burn bridges.

This comment is kinda dangerous too imo.
DocSeuss
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:49 AM)
DocSeuss's Avatar
Hopefully his response was something along the lines of "...and what, exactly, would you be providing for us? Because it sounds to me like you're doing fuck all."

Because seriously... what, exactly, would a publisher be providing? Boxed distribution? Advertising? Obsidian would already be advertising through the Kickstarter, so the latter makes little sense.
NoRéN
Banned
(09-19-2012, 09:49 AM)
NoRéN's Avatar

Originally Posted by EVOL 100%

They can't afford to burn bridges.

This comment is kinda dangerous too imo.

Pretty much.
michaelius
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:50 AM)
I'm perfectly fine with publishers using kickstarter to finance risky projects partially.

What is wrong is using someone else name to do it.
wondermega
Junior Member
(09-19-2012, 09:50 AM)
wondermega's Avatar
this doesn't surprise me one bit. what's also not surprising is if some developers actually agree to such a proposition - there's lots of devs in the red who are pretty desperate to get their heads above water, and making "deals with the devil" like that are hardly new in this industry.

Obviously Obsidian knew they didn't need to jump on such a setup, but at the same time I believe they could not have known what to expect when they launched their KS (if they had, it would have happened sooner, and for a lot more than $1m)

As for "the days of publishers are waning" this is absolutely not true. The role of pubs is changing to a degree, but they still pull the strings, and they will for a long time to come (forever?) This new KS period is a strange time, bright even, but it's hardly a herald of a sea change in the way things are done.
Victrix
*beard*
(09-19-2012, 09:50 AM)
Victrix's Avatar
It's hardly anonymous - whoever said that is now fully aware of his opinion!

Admittedly Obsidian has been in a shitty place for some years, Feargus may simply no longer care.

Have to see how this project pans out, I don't see how that's enough money to keep them going for the duration.

Interesting times to be sure.
Prophet Steve
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:51 AM)
Prophet Steve's Avatar

Originally Posted by DocSeuss

Hopefully his response was something along the lines of "...and what, exactly, would you be providing for us? Because it sounds to me like you're doing fuck all."

Because seriously... what, exactly, would a publisher be providing? Boxed distribution?

Marketing I'd assume, and yeah, the box distribution.
EVOL 100%
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:51 AM)
EVOL 100%'s Avatar

Originally Posted by michaelius

I'm perfectly fine with publishers using kickstarter to finance risky projects partially.

What is wrong is using someone else name to do it.

Seriously?

"..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."

so1337
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:53 AM)
so1337's Avatar
That is so incredibly shady that I kinda don't want to know who the publisher in question is...
Lancehead
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:55 AM)
Lancehead's Avatar
Hey publishers gotta eat.

Originally Posted by michaelius

I'm perfectly fine with publishers using kickstarter to finance risky projects partially.

What is wrong is using someone else name to do it.

No, there isn't anything wrong with publishers (big or small) using kickstarter. The egregious stuff in that comment is that they practically do nothing significant but want the IP rights and majority of the profits.
zerokoolpsx
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:55 AM)
zerokoolpsx's Avatar

Originally Posted by michaelius

I'm perfectly fine with publishers using kickstarter to finance risky projects partially.

What is wrong is using someone else name to do it.

Why won't the publishers use their own name to start a kickstarter and develop, publish it? Obsidian would have gotten the shit end of the deal if they let that publisher use their name. Seriously.
Amagon
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:55 AM)
Amagon's Avatar
I WANT NAMES DAMMIT!!!!
Dennis
Banned
(09-19-2012, 09:57 AM)
Dennis's Avatar
Repubs
teeny
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:59 AM)
teeny's Avatar

Originally Posted by EVOL 100%

Seriously?

I am in agreement. Obviously, the way that the publisher sought to use Obsidian and get out of doing any work is fundamentally wrong, but I also have no problem with publishers themselves using crowd sourcing, especially for risky projects that might not see the light of day otherwise.
Callibretto
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:59 AM)
Callibretto's Avatar
you know... there's a chance that some of the current known kickstarter is like this already. the publishers are the one approaching obsidian, so I'm sure obsidian is not the only dev they approached.
whalleywhat
Member
(09-19-2012, 09:59 AM)
whalleywhat's Avatar

Originally Posted by michaelius

I'm perfectly fine with publishers using kickstarter to finance risky projects partially.

What is wrong is using someone else name to do it.

I'm also fine with this, because if they were forthright about it they'd get no money.

Originally Posted by teeny

I am in agreement. Obviously, the way that the publisher sought to use Obsidian and get out of doing any work is fundamentally wrong, but I also have no problem with publishers themselves using crowd sourcing, especially for risky projects that might not see the light of day otherwise.

The thing is, a publisher deeming a project 'risky' generally means that they can invest their money elsewhere and have it be more profitable. I'm not interested in giving money to a publisher to help them save opportunity costs. The devs are the ones who make the games. If they can venture out on their own, then we can talk.
Last edited by whalleywhat; 09-19-2012 at 10:03 AM.
SpaceDrake
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:02 AM)
SpaceDrake's Avatar
It's like watching traditional publishing catching flame and burning in a massive bonfire.

It is beautiful.
Callibretto
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:03 AM)
Callibretto's Avatar

Originally Posted by teeny

I am in agreement. Obviously, the way that the publisher sought to use Obsidian and get out of doing any work is fundamentally wrong, but I also have no problem with publishers themselves using crowd sourcing, especially for risky projects that might not see the light of day otherwise.

I doubt publishers are okay with risky projects even if the money come from kickstarter, because from publishers point of view, the team/developer is better spent on creating other more safe/profitable games
michaelius
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:05 AM)

Originally Posted by whalleywhat

The thing is, a publisher deeming a project 'risky' generally means that they can invest their money elsewhere and have it be more profitable. I'm not interested in giving money to a publisher to help them save opportunity costs. The devs are the ones who make the games. If they can venture out on their own, then we can talk.

And that's also fine with me.

As long as i get copy of game for my donation I'd be very happy to fund Valkyria Chronicles 4 or translation of VC3 while Sega puts their own cash into another Sonic crap.
Thoraxes
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:06 AM)
Thoraxes's Avatar


I want to know what companies it was now lol

I'll bet you one was EA.
teeny
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:07 AM)
teeny's Avatar

Originally Posted by whalleywhat

The thing is, a publisher deeming a project 'risky' generally means that they can invest their money elsewhere and have it be more profitable. I'm not interested in giving money to a publisher to help them save opportunity costs. The devs are the ones who make the games. If they can venture out on their own, then we can talk.

Originally Posted by Callibretto

I doubt publishers are okay with risky projects even if the money come from kickstarter, because from publishers point of view, the team/developer is better spent on creating other more safe/profitable games

Fair point guys, I didnt really think about it like that. I was just thinking of the devs and IPs that I enjoy being locked to the publishers that own them, but either utilise them differently in the case of devs, or dont exploit them at all, in the case of some IPs.
Acosta
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:08 AM)
Acosta's Avatar

Originally Posted by Callibretto

you know... there's a chance that some of the current known kickstarter is like this already. the publishers are the one approaching obsidian, so I'm sure obsidian is not the only dev they approached.

The backfire would be massive.

Honestly, I have no problems with publisher using KS. I don't see crowdsourcing as a merit based system like those people who think that only startups and individuals should have the right to start one. I see it as a consumer, as an alternative method to buy something I'm interested enough.

What puzles me about this is that there is really no benefit for Obsidian at short term. They would burn the goodwill of their userbase if they kept that hidden, they would lose the chance to create their own IP for the future, they get attached to the ususal conditions in the relationship with a publisher... and all for what? Marketing support (that would be crappy for sure)? support for a multi release Obisidan doesn't want to make anyway? financial support that will be worthless at long term when they get screwed with royalties ?(New Vegas anyone?).
whalleywhat
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:09 AM)
whalleywhat's Avatar

Originally Posted by michaelius

And that's also fine with me.

Then you'll get what you deserve, I guess.
subversus
I've done nothing with my life except eat and fap
(09-19-2012, 10:09 AM)
subversus's Avatar
Con artists
Imp the Dimp
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:12 AM)
Imp the Dimp's Avatar
You really have to wonder, what was the publisher thinking? Why would anybody accept such a "deal"? There seems to be absolutely no upside to this at all.
Pikma
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:13 AM)
Pikma's Avatar
OMG, there already are people defending/excusing publishers from using Kickstarter?
Idontwanttoliveinthisplanetanymore.gif

I mean, fuck, that's one of the reasons kickstarter exists in the first place. We deserve the shitty industry we currently have.
Dennis
Banned
(09-19-2012, 10:13 AM)
Dennis's Avatar
Publishers. Publishers never change.











But publishing did! Now we have Kickstarter!
SparkTR
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:18 AM)
SparkTR's Avatar

Originally Posted by Imp the Dimp

You really have to wonder, what was the publisher thinking? Why would anybody accept such a "deal"? There seems to be absolutely no upside to this at all.

They probably had a different idea as to what game Obsidian wanted to make. They probably thought, like with all of Obsidian's recent games, there would be console versions that would needed some publisher support in order to distribute. In the world of PC digital it's apparent how pointless publishers are.
Last edited by SparkTR; 09-19-2012 at 10:33 AM.
Truant
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:20 AM)
Truant's Avatar
The next CoD to be crowd-funded.
RSP
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:22 AM)
RSP's Avatar
I'm curious to see what happens to "second generation" Kickstarters.

This game will get made, it will sell a lot more copies aside from the people already backing the project, making Obsidian a lot of money.

Will developers eventually just make the investment themselves, or will they still look to the crowd to fund the game before starting development.

I can also see a "participation" project where people are paying some money to be part of the development cycle. Coming up with quests, or doing QA for instance.
Yagharek
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:24 AM)
Yagharek's Avatar
Goddamn, publishers are stepping up their scam game again.

I want to see names named as well. Bunch of thieves.
highluxury
Member
(09-19-2012, 10:30 AM)
highluxury's Avatar
Fucking unethical. I'd love to know the name of that publisher.
SovanJedi
provides useful feedback
(09-19-2012, 10:32 AM)
SovanJedi's Avatar
Welp, this can't bode well. It's only a matter of time before a gullible fool takes the bait and lines a publisher's pocket with Kickstarter money. Then it'll be ruined for everybody.

Thread Tools