Neuromancer
Member
I bet one of them was EA. Had to have been.
-
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's Feargus Urquhart on insane publisher Kickstarter requests
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
We're talking about a niche market here. It would just be a waste to have those sort of games in retail, not to mention I doubt the game will be all that big file wise.
MightyHedgehog
Member
But who the fuck wants AAA shit, anyway? Me, I'm bored to death of it. Aside from big expensive licenses and titles that can only be done with a lot of money and relationships in place, it's just not necessary to sell out to them. The polish and production value is there, but it's no substitute for the kind of games that come from people who want to make interesting high quality game experiences, not just prop up the next two quarters with big shipments and DLC calendars while gearing up for another two games that may as well be planned to suck in advance. So many games come out these days are just boring, soulless shit...and they're all AAA. Publishers don't have to be around to own the whole enchilada or dictate the consensus on quality and what constitutes good and interesting games output. With most of them on the ropes and finding their legs being swept out from underneath them in a change in consumer preferences, I hope most don't come back. I'd like to see something of a return to the more firewalled relationship of the 80s and early 90s, where they take care of logistics and marketing and don't own shit or shape the game itself against the developers' wishes and intentions. They only have as much clout as they do simply down to money, distribution network, and some internal services. You don't need them if you can target DD channels and aren't making the next big thing that also has a $20+ million dollar budget.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
I'm fine with publishers using Kickstarter as a way to a more stable industry. I'm not okay with them not giving full disclosure. For some outfits, this is a desirable way to make money and stay in business. I'm all for stability - but I'm -NOT- okay with them pretending it doesn't have a publisher behind it.
Of course you don't need that sort of budget to make an AAA game, executives just think that more people, bigger budgets, automatically make a better game but it just kills studios and dilutes individual talent. Obsidian have been an independent for nearly 10 years now so I'm pretty sure they now how to manage money without publisher oversight, even though this is their first self-published homebrew game.
Tallshortman
Member
lol no, people tried to say the same when amazon did their self ebook publishing. Kickstarters are certainly fine for a lot of projects but most major games that require an investment more than a few million will need publishers.
Personally I liked Skyrim. A lot. Maybe you didn't, but in my mind there is definitely a place (a big place) for AAA games. Every game doesn't need a huge budget and 100+ people working on it, of course.
I doubt the economics of kickstarter would work with a publisher. A publisher has massive overhead costs to support their activity, while developers don't. Developers have a huge competitive advantage over developers (thankfully, I would add).
I can however see a more organized pre-order platform from some publisher to measure the interest level of risker games. Something like "here's two projects. The one with the greatest number of pre-orders in one month gets funded by us"
I can however see a more organized pre-order platform from some publisher to measure the interest level of risker games. Something like "here's two projects. The one with the greatest number of pre-orders in one month gets funded by us"
I want them. It's still 80-90% of what I play each year despite how much worse they've gotten from the last 20 years. I think of all the games this gen that were interesting or upcoming stuff that looks interesting and none of them can be made with $2 million kickstarter budgets or by an indie studio.
You're not the only one along these lines, but what?
Do some of you know what a publisher is? He's a money man for developers. That's their main role. If your sole role is to be the money man, and you want the developer's to do the fund raising for you, wtf would a developer ever go along? He can just fundraise it himself and cut out the destructive middle man who's just a plague on the industry anyway.
Between DD and kickstarter, no developer would ever have any incentive to go along with this scheme. Either you can fund it yourself and own everything and keep the profits, or you can't. In which case you go begging to the publishers and sell your soul for a little startup cash.
Not that I'm saying I don't expect BF5 to be a kickstarter game. I'm sure EA will start doing this. Just that I'm saying no developer of pedigree would do it. Because they could accomplish the same thing by themself and finally free themselves from the shackles of middle men.
SE
Bethseda
SEGA
EA
LucasArts
Atari
Assuming it is pubs they've worked with before as they had some reason to ask for their name in particular, had some confidence in it's ability to generate KS money. Also they did ask if they would do it, that counts toward that confidence.
Somebody knows who they were and you are reading this post right now. I gotta know.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Why not both? Publishers.. they.. Feargus is saying more than one publisher here.
Paladin CL
Member
Probably both (and some more), unbelievable.
NemesisPrime
Banned
diffusionx
Gold Member
It depends on the game, right? I mean, obviously FU worded it a certain way to sort of incite wrath against people who already have plenty of it against publishers. But what if the publishers were offering up their own IP?
Like say, Interplay or whomever saying "hey we want you guys to do Baldur's Gate 3/Icewind Dale 3/Planescape 2 and we want to do it through Kickstarter"? Hmm it doesn't sound so terrible or exploitative now...
Like say, Interplay or whomever saying "hey we want you guys to do Baldur's Gate 3/Icewind Dale 3/Planescape 2 and we want to do it through Kickstarter"? Hmm it doesn't sound so terrible or exploitative now...
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
funkystudent
Member
I dont think EA would be this shitty.
Sounds like something a C tear pub would try and pull. A 505. A majesco, a capcom.....
Sounds like something a C tear pub would try and pull. A 505. A majesco, a capcom.....
This is one of the reasons I refuse to donate to already-established companies. You never really know who is behind what.
I'd rather fund a project from a struggling NEW developer than one that is already very well established.
Although that "new" developer thing could be a ruse, as well.
<.<
>.>
Must fund cautiously.
I'd rather fund a project from a struggling NEW developer than one that is already very well established.
Although that "new" developer thing could be a ruse, as well.
<.<
>.>
Must fund cautiously.
Obsidian is in no position to burn bridges.
Its more than likely a publisher that has already worked with Obsidian. It might not be, but the likelihood is rather high.
Then they should've not said anything at all? I'm sure if I was that sneaky publisher and I would just read this I'd either pick up the phone to give Obsidian a call, or never work with them again
I also somehow doubt it's multiple publishers
Why would you do that?
The old publisher model will always be there if developers choose to go that route. The big deal about KS, though, is that going with a publisher is now just a choice, and not necessarily the only option.
I'm a bit confused. The big publisher publishes the game without investing in it? Why would then Obsidian go to it if the game is being crowd funded? Would an online release take care of international sales. And I don't think english is a huge barrier for most who play games in countries where English isn't the first language.
zerokoolpsx
Member
There should be an anonymous leak about the publishers from one of their employees. Obsidian would neither confirm or deny it.
Yeah, people freak the fuck out over Kickstarter. I see people say "why wouldhow I give them my money, if I don't get to keep any of the profits?", but they are missing the greater point . I am all for developers (not publishers) of any size reaching out directly to the people who are going to buy their product at 60 dollars anyways, offering that product at 20 and completely cutting out the middle man.
By middleman I mean the bloated publishers who foolishy bully developers into taking impossible deadlines and features that no one except executives want. For that, the developers get to see their already meddled-with product mismarketed and mistimed. Then after the publishers have royally screwed them, they get to read the messageboards that ridicule the product they spent years of their lives developing.
If that is the current model, let it fucking burn
Because they're talking about you in the open? They're not name dropping you but I'm sure if you talk with each other it won't be smooth sailing, who knows maybe details are left out and spun upon Obsidian's own favor. I don't know the details, but I wouldn't let it go as if nothing happened if I were the publisher
Tallshortman
Member
I'm guessing they would pay for advertising. Yeah normally the main idea with getting a publisher is either getting funding, advertising, and/or production of physical discs and dealing with retail distribution.
No, there wouldn't be smooth sailing because developer doesn't like the terms. As a publisher you look at the developer and the IP and see how you can profit from it. Obsidian's comments have not changed that position. So there's no practical reason for the publishers to flip out.
Makes think it was EA. They want the kickstarter money but they know no one would ever give it to them. So lets use Obsidian's rabid fan base to try and get the money in a round about fashion. Super Dirty. If you want to kickstart a dead franchise like Wing Commander from EA go for it. But trying to hide game players hatred for you behind Obsidian is shady business.
RealDeadOne
Member
Come on guys, this is not EA. I know EA is a shitty, evil company, but why would they be interested at all in an isometric RPG? We're talking the same people that didn't want to make Dead Space 3 because the action-horror genre was too niche, the same guys who took the existing Syndicate IP and made it an FPS, the folks who killed off the best classic PC devs to make way for more annual franchises and focus-tested shit. Same goes for Activision, these companies are only interested in ventures that will make them enormous amounts of money very fast, and nothing less.
No, this is more of a small C-list publisher's M.O. To me the first I thought of was Interplay, who has been trying to cash in on their good name built by guys at Obsidian for a long time now.
No, this is more of a small C-list publisher's M.O. To me the first I thought of was Interplay, who has been trying to cash in on their good name built by guys at Obsidian for a long time now.
we.are.the.armada
Member
That is messed up, insulting, and flattering at the same time.
I want Bruce as our impartial arbiter.
I want Bruce as our impartial arbiter.
A publisher trying to use kickstarter to lessen the upfront cost on themselves is one thing. I think that's an abuse of kickstarter but it doesn't anger me. Now trying to basically steal an IP from a developer is something completely different. Like others I have a few guesses as to who's stink this might be.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
They were after the Golden Goose of project investment: Low risk, high reward.
Kickstarter is not a charity. While it's nice to see startups do well, I've yet to see a compelling reason why Obsidian or Double Fine shouldn't be allowed in. Also, define "prominent studios." It's a slippery slope.
I have a feeling that you'll mention that the big companies are pulling funding from smaller projects. I doubt such data exists. All I know is that there was an incredible jump in videogame funding in across the board after DFA. I fall in to that category, myself!
I find this really depressing, I do however think most studios will do whats right. Most are going to kickstarter to get away from publishers, I dont see why they would give into one like this even if the deal is somehow good. Plus if caught it could tarnish that developers reputation.
My guess it was someone with the rights to an IP that was developed by Obsidian or Black Isle in the past.
Perhaps Sega was trying to fund Alpha Protocol 2?
Maybe Interplay tried to Kickstart a non-D&D Dark Alliance 3?
What if Atari wanted them to handle Baldur's Gate 3 or Neverwinter Nights 3?
Or, as unlikely as it sounds, Bethesda wanted some of that Kickstarter money for a turn-based Fallout spin off?
That's the only way I can see the offer making some sense. We have the IP, you have the original talent, let's make some money together off those nostalgic gamers.
Perhaps Sega was trying to fund Alpha Protocol 2?
Maybe Interplay tried to Kickstart a non-D&D Dark Alliance 3?
What if Atari wanted them to handle Baldur's Gate 3 or Neverwinter Nights 3?
Or, as unlikely as it sounds, Bethesda wanted some of that Kickstarter money for a turn-based Fallout spin off?
That's the only way I can see the offer making some sense. We have the IP, you have the original talent, let's make some money together off those nostalgic gamers.
I suspect the conversation went something like this.
Publisher: Hey! What's up?
Obsidian: Oh, not much... not much.
Publisher: Sorry to hear about all those layoffs.
Obsidian: Well, when we couldn't find a new publisher for that project, we didn't really have much of a choice.
Publisher: We know how much that game meant to you... and we would love to be able to fund it. But we don't know if the demand is really there for that type of game.
Obsidian: We think it is. We strongly believe that we could do some fantastic things with it if we had the chance.
Publisher: Oh, definitely, definitely. A lot of us here think it's brilliant. Really, we do. But try to look at things from our perspective. The game industry isn't doing so hot these days. And you're talking about a new IP here. For us to spend that much on a totally unknown project is a pretty big risk. Besides, let's be blunt: the last time anyone gave you money for a new IP, Alpha Protocol happened. That's not exactly doing a lot to inspire confidence.
Obsidian: So why did you guys call? Do you have another IP you want us to create a game for?
Publisher: Not exactly. That is to say... yes, and no. We hear you're interested in doing a Kickstarter?
Obsidian: Yeah, that's right. It's a great model for us since it will allow us to work on a passion project that might not necessarily get the sort of sales you guys would be interested in.
Publisher: Oh, definitely! It's a nice way for little indie games to generate some buzz and create a splash in the marketplace. We totally support that. Admire it, actually. But isn't it a bit risky to put all your eggs in the Kickstarter basket? You guys make big, complex games. Games with high production values. Are you sure you're going to get enough funding to support the team you have here?
Obsidian: Well, obviously Kickstarter isn't perfect for everything. We're still big believers in the publisher model. But like you said, you're not here to offer us a project, so...
Publisher: I didn't say that. I said that for us to fund a new game in a brand new IP would be a huge risk for us. But what if you could combine the best of both worlds? Work on the project you want to, and do it without worrying about funding for your next project?
Obsidian: I don't follow.
Publisher: It's pretty simple, really. You go ahead and do the Kickstarter, so we can see how much interest it gauges. If it's a lot, and we can clearly gauge that there's demand for the game, we're prepared to publish the game for you, free of charge.
Obsidian: Uh... what?
Publisher: Pretty exciting, right? We'll handle all the PR, marketing, and distribution the game needs to make sure it's a hit with the public. Obviously we'd take a share of the profits...
Obsidian: Of course.
Publisher: ...but I think you'll find that compared to the sort of relationship you've had in the past, it's a very good deal for you guys.
Obsidian: Better than getting basically all of the profits?
Publisher: First of all, let's be very frank about the fact that neither of us even knows if your Kickstarter will be a hit. You may have the kind of nerd cache that we can only dream of, but you've had a rough couple of years and your games were never huge sellers.
Obsidian: New Vegas did pretty well sales-wise.
Publisher: That's an established franchise, though. And even then, you didn't make out too well. This, on the other hand, is a new IP. If it flops, the game and the IP are dead in the water. But let's say for a moment that it is successful. How much do you think you're going to get just from the Kickstarter? A million? Maybe two? That might be enough to support a small team for a year or two, but what happens after that? Another South Park? Maybe some free to play games? Or do you want to go beg for money again?
Obsidian: We're hopeful that sales of the game will help keep us afloat and act as seed money for newer games.
Publisher: If you really want the game to be a success outside the "hardcore" gamers who fund Kickstarters, then you're going to need a marketing budget. That's something we can provide. If the Kickstarter is successful--if the demand is there--that's a signal to us that it's worth investing our money in it. We're offering you the chance to get your game some real exposure--major advertising dollars, high-profile interviews, free pre-release copies for game reviewers, presence in big-box stores... hell, if it sells enough, we can even make sure console gamers get the rich experience they deserve.
Obsidian: If we do a Kickstarter, we're not going to want that game on consoles.
Publisher: Well, don't worry about that for now--we can cross that bridge when we come to it. The point is, the risk if this game didn't sell would be entirely on us. At worst, you guys would be in the same place you would be without us. And if, with our help, it did sell--do you know what we'd have?
Obsidian: A lot of money.
Publisher Even better--a brand new franchise! Obviously we would own the IP, but think about what you would get. First of all, we'd be able to give you guys the money and team you needed to make a sequel. We'd handle the legal battles for you and protect the new IP from people looking to exploit you with unlicensed products and cheap knockoffs. We'd handle all the ugly business decisions that none of you ever wanted to make in the first place, and you guys could just worry about making the game fantastic. You'd have made the game you wanted, you would have the financial security you needed, and you wouldn't have to return to the Kickstarter well to continue producing those games.
Obsidian: 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.
Publisher: Yes, but it's not like we're asking for creative control or anything. This is still your game. We feel that we can bring your vision to a much wider audience by using our existing connections with both online and traditional retailers and make this a success for both of us. What do you say?
Obviously Obsidian said no, but I can definitely see how the pitch could have been made in a way that didn't sound unbelievably ridiculous.