Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Yeah that's what I thought. Obsidian could comfortably take over the Fable franchise.
If Bethesda was going to, they would have by now.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Obsidian open to being bought by another company, talks independent dev pains
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Yeah that's what I thought. Obsidian could comfortably take over the Fable franchise.
If Bethesda was going to, they would have by now.
I'm sure Obsidian would like to also work on AAA games, but it's quite clear PC-only games like Pillars are very dear to them. When they had the choice of where to do Pillars they chose the PC for a reason.
If they'd get bought by Sony I'd be pretty sad knowing I'll probably never see anything like Pillars again. Not that that would happen in a million years, mind you. It's just as sci-fi as Nintendo buying them.
What happened to them after South Park? Why aren't they in charge of South Park: Fractured But Whole? I think if they have that sort of talent, they should branch out to other famous cartoon franchises and make similar games to South Park. That sounds like a THQ move, but Obsidian proved they can handle a big IP, and really nail it in every aspect. I'd love to see them work on Rick & Morty.
Blizzard should buy Obsidian because it would shore up all of the shitty writing across every game AND cover one of the few game genres they don't and have yet to actually make.
Would probably still need to lay off half the studio in the process, but that would apply to virtually any buyer of the studio.
Would probably still need to lay off half the studio in the process, but that would apply to virtually any buyer of the studio.
My assumption is that its just cheaper for Ubisoft to do it in-house and have the resources to do so. Id like to know more about about it as its a shame Obsidian arent linked to the sequel - main reason I bought the first...
ps3ud0 8)
BlindJesus
Member
Obsidian built the foundation of the game with Stick of Truth, so the heavy lifting was out of the way and Ubisoft saw a chance to cut out the middleman. Sketchy, but that's business.
Activision Blizzard purchasing them would actually work out okay. Blizzard and Obsidian are located close to each other already so no employees would have to relocate. Blizzard has a huge campus so adding another 200 people is no big deal. Blizzard is a PC-primary studio so no issues there. And quality of life for Obsidian employees would probably improve because of how Blizzard is structured and the better the QOL for devs, the better the final product.
Yes, I like this idea.
A lot of people in this thread seem to be saying Microsoft, whilst I do agree it would be nice for an externally funded project, this is the most i'd really like to see (and MS' externally funded IP's have shined since the Original Xbox) I wouldnt want them bought by MS at all, Obsidian needs to be managed by a company that truly specialises in enthusiast RPG masterclasses, and that isnt Sony/MS/Nintendo, at least they dont anymore
Even on top of him wanting to work, I imagine the issue is also that it sounds like what Obsidian is doubling down on is exactly the kind of stuff he's previously expressed a very clear disinterest in.
Working on something neat like Prey is almost certainly vastly more interesting to him than more Pillars, Pathfinder, or licensed stuff.
Well, the mismanagement mentioned in the article may have doomed them as far as that goes. Stick of Truth was delayed multiple times and I recall Trey and Matt expressing frustration with the project. They pulled it together in the end but Ubisoft probably wasn't about to chance it again when they have more efficient studios working for them.
Stiler
Member
If their "big" Project isn't a new Vampire: TM or White Wolf rpg game that will be baffling to me 
.
Since they have two of the leading Trokia guys there and they have a strong relationship with Paradox (Pillars of eternity and now Tyranny) , which owns the whitewolf IP, it is like the stars are aligning.
Obsidian are known for making great rpgs with excellent writing and deep rpg mechanics and Vampire: TMB is probably one of the largest cult hits in video game history that while at release it didn't sell a ton over the years through word of mouth it's grown and grown to have a much larger fanbase and put into many peoples top rpg list.
If no one at Paradox/Obisidian are working toward that it would just be perplexing.
. Since they have two of the leading Trokia guys there and they have a strong relationship with Paradox (Pillars of eternity and now Tyranny) , which owns the whitewolf IP, it is like the stars are aligning.
Obsidian are known for making great rpgs with excellent writing and deep rpg mechanics and Vampire: TMB is probably one of the largest cult hits in video game history that while at release it didn't sell a ton over the years through word of mouth it's grown and grown to have a much larger fanbase and put into many peoples top rpg list.
If no one at Paradox/Obisidian are working toward that it would just be perplexing.
I speak mostly as an outsider who hasn't dabbled much in their titles, but I don't really see any situation where getting acquired by a major publisher would be ideal for Obsidian's devout following.
I think the best solution would be to give up on the AAA dreams for now and stay pumping out smaller titles a la Pillars of Eternity or Tyranny. Seems like these are the most cost efficient and people seem to really like them. Maybe slightly diversify genres and markets a tad with these different titles, and/or hope for one of these lower budget games to break out?
Also, I'm very surprised so many people suggesting Nintendo (or Sony or MS) - Nintendo doesn't really have much use since they've already got a massive scale RPG team, that also has the benefit of engine experience that other Nintendo teams use (iirc Obsidian mainly piggybacks on other engines for their games). Sony may be great at first, but the second the games don't sell they'll become the next Studio Liverpool. And MS? Ohhh man...
Shame that there's so much bad blood between them and Sega, since otherwise it would be the most logical (with how they're expanding their PC game publishing arm).
Maybe SE if they want some more western RPGs in there (and considering how mismanaged SE's big titles are maybe they'll be a bit more lenient on Obsidian). IIRC they are pretty hands-off when it comes to Eidos, and that's what Obsidian needs - other big publishers will want to water their games down too much (look how much simpler the big western RPGs have gotten since the days of the Infinity Engine).
I think the best solution would be to give up on the AAA dreams for now and stay pumping out smaller titles a la Pillars of Eternity or Tyranny. Seems like these are the most cost efficient and people seem to really like them. Maybe slightly diversify genres and markets a tad with these different titles, and/or hope for one of these lower budget games to break out?
Also, I'm very surprised so many people suggesting Nintendo (or Sony or MS) - Nintendo doesn't really have much use since they've already got a massive scale RPG team, that also has the benefit of engine experience that other Nintendo teams use (iirc Obsidian mainly piggybacks on other engines for their games). Sony may be great at first, but the second the games don't sell they'll become the next Studio Liverpool. And MS? Ohhh man...
Shame that there's so much bad blood between them and Sega, since otherwise it would be the most logical (with how they're expanding their PC game publishing arm).
Maybe SE if they want some more western RPGs in there (and considering how mismanaged SE's big titles are maybe they'll be a bit more lenient on Obsidian). IIRC they are pretty hands-off when it comes to Eidos, and that's what Obsidian needs - other big publishers will want to water their games down too much (look how much simpler the big western RPGs have gotten since the days of the Infinity Engine).
tearsintherain
Member
Feel bad reading that article, like the vibe is "we've done so many great games but somehow amazing success has always eluded us". Either with collabs that end up amazing but Obsidian never really gets its due - Southpark comes to mind - or games that are pretty good, but never really bubble into that top tier elite stratosphere of games, like GTA or COD or Battlefield or Mass Effect.
Its gotta be super tough to be a mid sized developer. With a small team you are rolling the dice on your game doing well, but you don't need to really sell that many copies each time to get another shot. Large scale developers have a pretty focus-grouped path to making games that sell 5m+ copies each, while you can't stray too far from what people expect, if you manage it well you are always in the spot light and you can count on a certain threshold of sales.
None of those safety nets for mid sized, you could make a great game and nobody pays attention. You could make a shitty game and not sell enough to cover its costs and have nothing to fall back on. And you won't really know for 3-4 years of insane risk how it ends up.
Its crazy the guys who did KOTOR 2, Alpha Protocol, Fallout New Vegas, and South Park aren't drowning in success, makes me feel sad
Its gotta be super tough to be a mid sized developer. With a small team you are rolling the dice on your game doing well, but you don't need to really sell that many copies each time to get another shot. Large scale developers have a pretty focus-grouped path to making games that sell 5m+ copies each, while you can't stray too far from what people expect, if you manage it well you are always in the spot light and you can count on a certain threshold of sales.
None of those safety nets for mid sized, you could make a great game and nobody pays attention. You could make a shitty game and not sell enough to cover its costs and have nothing to fall back on. And you won't really know for 3-4 years of insane risk how it ends up.
Its crazy the guys who did KOTOR 2, Alpha Protocol, Fallout New Vegas, and South Park aren't drowning in success, makes me feel sad
VicDaMoan03
Member
Bethesda needs more developers to crank out their RPG titles (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, new BGS IP). This 5 - 10 years between series titles is unacceptable..
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Yeah, fine, if it's a life or death choice, save your company. I get that.
But if they have a choice? No thanks to Nintendo. I don't want a company making great CRPGs shackled by Nintendo's proprietary hardware or design visions.
yep
serenewarfare
Banned
So is there an actual story as to why Bethesda kind of just kicked them to the curb after New Vegas, or is it just a simple case of they don't like working together? Given that New Vegas was a critical and commercial success, it just kinda seems like bad business not to continue working with them.
Nostremitus
Member
They should call Vivendi. I hear they are looking for acquisitions.
(I know... Probably beaten like a dead horse.)
(I know... Probably beaten like a dead horse.)
Stiler
Member
I think it might have something to do with Obsidian missing out on their royalties from the game based on being 1% off the metacritic score to receive them and Bethesda not paying with it being that close.
I mean, that really really had to sting. You make , what many people consider the best "new" fallout game, and then you get nothing ibut a one-time payment and no back end royalities.
IIRC, Spencer said he approaches studio acquisitions where there's a good relationship and it makes sense for both parties. AFAIK, there hasn't been a relationship between them and Obsidian in years.
ShockingAlberto
Member
What a sad interview. Like, not pathetic, I mean I felt a sense of genuine sadness.
He doesn't sound like he's defeated yet, but it does sound like he doesn't have that many more rounds left in him.
He doesn't sound like he's defeated yet, but it does sound like he doesn't have that many more rounds left in him.
I would be OK with something like this:
Year 1: Bethesda Elder Scrolls game
Year 3: Obsidian Elder Scroll game with same engine
Year 5: Bethesda Fallout game
Year 7: Obsidian Fallout game with same engine
The bad blood between the companies seems to be something that gamers invented. There have been a few attempts at further collaboration that ultimately did not get off the ground. The two were in discussions about developing a game called Backspace using the Skyrim engine that ultimately never got past the pitch stage, and I think Obsidian was at one point involved in the aborted version of Prey 2. A few years back Feargus pitched a Fallout:LA project but since it was during the development of Fallout 4 it obviously was not destined to go anywhere.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Ideally, they'd abandon the poisonous cycle of big staff big sales and move to smaller games, but they seem pretty dead set. I hope it doesn't hurt the quality too much in the end.
Gnome Scat
Member
Hopefully Bethesda scoops them up.
cartographer
Member
This is pretty much exactly the type of large acquisition EA is no longer interested in. And other large publishers likely have similar views.
As for Urquhart being open to the idea, can you blame him? It's rough being independent, especially at that size with so many people depending on you. If they had a cash cow they could fall back on it would be different, but they don't. I don't blame him at all for thinking about the kind of stability and security the right owner could bring the studio. I know there's a romanticism often attached to the idea of being independent, but there's few people in the industry who understand the practicality of it like Urquhart does.
exmachina64
Banned
Since this thread has become fantasy draft, what if GameStop, Unity or Epic bought them?
lightskintwin
Banned
This is true, plus Microsoft would be better off doing a per title publishing deal like they'd tried doing with the cancelled RPG game. Maybe not, if Microsoft cancelled their first deal due to what they viewed as incompetence on Obsidians part.
I am guessing at this point they are doing so well that they are just okay with not making bank every 2 to 3 years. Not every company is greedy and ... yeah okay, I don't know where I was going with this. This will totally happen, just not with Obsidian I guess. The games have gotten so soulless that really any studio could crank them out.
decoyplatypus
Member
I guess the question is what those smaller games look like as the base of Obsidian's business. Pillars was crowdfunded and, if I'm not mistaken, still required Obsidian execs to forego pay for a while. Paradox is publishing Tyranny, but that's a pretty new relationship. I agree Obsidian should go this direction: it suits the studio's talent; it's probably no riskier than begging for AAA opportunities; and producing a lot of new IP both boosts the odds you make a hit and increases the value of your studio if you're angling to be purchased. But how confident are we that there's a place in the market for a 200-person studio making cRPGS? Larian is, what, 50 people?
As much as it's my favourite genre, the rise of story and choice driven games with no combat at all just pushes cRPGs further into a niche. I agree that working on a $50mil RPG pitch is probably a waste of time.
The_Spaniard
Netmarble
Six of one, there are a lot more details and nuance that the general public is not aware of that sadly can't be gotten into.
StereoVsn
Member
Yeah, Larian, HBS and Inxile are all quite a bit smaller then 200 people.
decoyplatypus
Member
I take your point that Obsidian should be as diverse in their projects in the mid-budget space (and, frankly, the low-budget and mobile spaces) as they were in the AAA space -- where, for example, Alpha Protocol, New Vegas, and the canceled Alien game were quite different kinds of RPGs. I'm still curious how many publishers are interested in funding projects of any kind in that space. Obsidian may need to commit to semi-regular kickstarter campaigns to supplement publisher funding. They're clearly concerned about going back to Kickstarter too quickly or too often. That, to me, is an interesting conversation in itself.
There was a time I would've said that's unfair to Microsoft....but man, they completely dropped the ball with the Fable franchise in recent years and lost the good people at Lionhead as a result.
I bet a lot of peeps in Obsidian's management would fear a similar fate.
DanielJr82
Member
Was hoping for another Fallout game from Obsidian... =/
decoyplatypus
Member
I don't think anyone wants Nintendo buying Obsidian. Apart from everything else, Nintendo's external studios don't get to make a ton of new IP. But it would be funny to see how Nintendo would react to a pitch for, say, an F-Zero RPG. My guess is Tokyo Mirage Sessions has cooled them on those kinds of projects for a while.
But they already did that with Tyranny. It uses the tools developed for PoE, but in terms of theme, story and mechanics the game is pretty far away from BG nostalgia.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
EA already has Bioware to cover the WRPGs so what does Obsidian bring to the table?
Nah, I can't blame him, but from a consumer perspective I prefer them to not get bought up(so long as they don't actually end up shutting down, mind).
If they have to get bought up the only company I can see not fucking with them too much would be sega
They'd be getting rid of a competitor at the least.
When was the last time Obsidian released anything similar and significant enough to be considered a competitor?
No remorse.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
I
They haven't released a game anywhere near the scale of something that could be seen as a direct competitor to a Bioware release.
This whole thread is people valuing obsidian way to heavily based on its past.
BioWare's scope has also increased dramatically.
Mass Effect: Andromeda has had a five year development cycle, and judging by how BioWare operated with Dragon Age: Inquisition, a 400-500+ person development team when in full production.