If I was metacritic, the publications I'd be including will review the latest games and review them fast. This is the way to make money, because it brings the punters in and they will click on advertising.
-
-
I'm no fan of Metacritic and agree that it's far from a perfect system, but in terms of getting a general flavour of critical opinion it's surely better than some of the alternatives - how about being bonused purely based on Edge scores? I know Flabio has expressed a preference of being measured on sales rather than scores, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are other devs that prefer it the other way round too - sales figures are dependent on marketing & PR, retailer support, price, release day clashes, second hand sales (oh I went there) - and so on. Metacritic does put you at the mercy of journalists - who yes, vary in quality and integrity - but the idea of aggregating is that you expect a certain degree of professionalism and you at least have the opportunity to outweigh the bad apples who don't exhibit this.
I don't doubt there are some horror stories of studios being given unrealistic goals, but this really doesn't look like one of those. I've just looked and Fallout 3 scored 93 on Metacritic; it's not like 85 was a particularly unattainable goal for New Vegas. If the studio was entirely dependent on a bonus to survive then that's not great on their part either - I have a performance driven bonus too, but certainly wouldn't rely on it to cover my bills (apologies if slightly trivialising the issue offends anyone).Comment
-
Paying bonuses based on sales is how it's *normally* done. To agree to a contract with bonuses based on metacritics suggests that either the developer thought it wasn't going to sell well, or that the publisher thought it would sell well but review poorly. I doubt either case applies here.
And I'd be stunned if the contract was worded such that 85% got the bonus and 84% didn't. I'd expect it to have a +/- on it. If not, then who are their lawyers and why are they still working?Comment
-
Charles Fallout NV sold 3 million, so bethseda made money, but i think obsidian where nearly banking on getting 85% and are now having to pay off people, and they microsoft deal went pear shaped too.Comment
-
How many games actually score over 85 on metacritic? Hard to believe there's that many really.
This just sounds like they didn't want to give them a bonus.
Also, have Obsidian ever made a game that has scored over 85? Why on earth did they think New Vegas would?Last edited by rmoxon; 16-03-2012, 11:40.Comment
-
Because the inferior Fallout 3 scored 93 average and New Vegas is a better game?Originally posted by rmoxon View PostComment
-
Its also a very similar game, you didnt have to be a genius to know it would get a much lower average score simply becuase it did nothing new.Originally posted by Guts View PostComment
-
Brian Fargo defends Obsidian.
"When a project goes out buggy, it's not the developer. The developer never says, 'I refuse to fix the bug,' or, 'I don't know how.' They never do that. It's the publisher that does the QA, so if a product goes out buggy, it's not the developer's fault.
"So, [New Vegas] goes out buggy and they didn't do the QA, their ship date got moved up and they missed their Metacritic rating by one point. Did they get a bonus? No. Do you think that's fair? I tried to get some of my publisher friends, who I used to make a lot of money for, to donate. Do you think they donated? No. Their employees did."Comment
-
They agreed the contract and they didn't make 85% - Business is harsh but that was the agreement to the letter.
It is a shame that the hardest working developers didn't get a bonus, and it is a shame that there is not a way to reward the harder, more proficient workers and penalise the ones that allowed such a buggy game to launch. But I don't see a bag of free cash lying around (and if I did I'd hope it would go to an even more deserving set of people) - it all has to come from someone's pocket to someone else's pocket and that sounds like one of the better yard sticks around.
Edit: I read the post above properly, they agreed to moving the date forward without changing any of the other conditions of contract. I know that one hurts from experience and won't be making that mistake again.Last edited by Kaido; 28-03-2012, 14:08.Comment
-
In fairness, I don't think anyone is disagreeing that it's just the way business works, nor are they disputing that Obsidian agreed to the contract conditions. I think the whole affair just sheds light onto the kinds of restrictions and conditions that developers have to agree to and work under in a system where the publisher ultimately has control. It's not a bad thing that people are discussing the implications of this, in my opinion.Comment
-
Yep. A sh*tty deal is still better than no deal whatsoever if it means you can at least stay in business. Their previous game (Alpha Protocol) was a failure so I don't think they were in any place to even negotiate with Bethesda.Originally posted by Shakey_Jake33 View PostComment
-
Any word as to what their NEXT XBOX project was and why MS cancelled it (after 7 months)?Comment
-
This is not strictly true, there are own internal politics and you have to know where to draw the line with what is acceptable and what needs to be fixed. But publishers will have their own deadlines for bug fixing and will enforce these even if it lowers the quality of the experience.
I am guessing that whatever they where working up failed to impress, TBH while they did an okay job with New Vegas there 'original IPs' like Alpha Protocol where not exactly great. In some cases MS will give you a trial product to work on to see if your up to par I would say about 6-7 months for this would be a fair trial. The trial product is often a way to decide what they want to do next as a boxed retail title as well.Originally posted by Guts View Post
Originally posted by Mr M0by View PostLast edited by FelixofMars; 29-03-2012, 08:03.Comment
Comment