Publishers accused of trying to exploit Kickstarter (Obsidian)

[Lexx]

Then again, there is nothing that prevents Obsidian from doing "pre-order dlc" and stuff with Gamestop or at least trying. You don't need to be a publisher to get such stuff.

 

Doubt they'd even contemplate something like that. It would kill a lot of goodwill, and Kickstarter campaigns run on that.

 

Yup. But technically it is a possibility.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Publisher are traders in risk. A developer accepting this would accept the smaller profits for smaller risk. They would not have to fund anything themselves and instead only gain money, even though the publisher would be the one making the most money, but would also carry more risk.

 

Basic course in investing and funding would tell you this.

[Enclave]

Publisher are traders in risk. A developer accepting this would accept the smaller profits for smaller risk. They would not have to fund anything themselves and instead only gain money, even though the publisher would be the one making the most money, but would also carry more risk.

 

Basic course in investing and funding would tell you this.

 

They'd still be risking some of their own money, just not as much. They'd also have a significant discount on their advertising costs

[Farudan]

Then again, there is nothing that prevents Obsidian from doing "pre-order dlc" and stuff with Gamestop or at least trying. You don't need to be a publisher to get such stuff.

 

Doubt they'd even contemplate something like that. It would kill a lot of goodwill, and Kickstarter campaigns run on that.

I don't think this is a publisher's demand. It's a demand by the vendor. They want this bonus to have a unique selling point and as long as they control the shelves, virtual shelves or real doesn't matter, the devs will do so. In some degree this already happens in digital sales for example on Xbox Live. Microsoft won't release Oddworld - Stranger's Wrath because it was already released on PSN and when a game was already released somewhere else they won't release it without some extra content. In that case the developer doesn't have the rights to add something new (it's a remake/remastered by a service provider), so it will not happen. It was the same thing with The Witcher 2 Xbox. CD Projekt is known to be quite generous with extra content, so nobody noticed, but they _had_ to add something new. If steam would start to demand the same, I'm sure every developer will agree at no time, because Steam controls more than 50% of the digital game market. It would be suicide, just like not being listed on Amazon.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Farudan

[dlux]

We should nag Feargus until he gives us the number of this publisher.

If you pledge $10,000 then you can ask him in person. I am sure he we would say who it was. ^^

[Nakia]

In a sense developers have been forced to bend to the wishes of the publishers. Games are expensive to make. The days of four or five guys getting together in the backroom to knock out a game are long gone. Players are more demanding. Just look at this forum and all the things we want.

 

I have no details of what the actual offer was. As I understand it Obsidian would get the money from crowd funding, make the game and then the publisher would publish it. Sounds great for the publisher, they could pay for advertising and that it would be their major expense. What were the terms offered? 50/50? A split favoring the developers or one favoring the publishers? It may sound funny on the surface but is it?

 

Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of Kickstart but I thought it was to give developers independence, the ability to make the game they want to make, the way they want to make them. Once tied into a contract with a publisher how independent would the developers be?

 

If publishers realize that a new day is dawning maybe they will be more willing to negotiate with developers and give the developers more independence. How many of the orginal people of Bioware, Bethesda still work for those companies? I keep hearing that those are names used by publishers to hype the games. So who is currently in charge of the game?

 

I believe there is an old saw about beware of Greeks bearing gifts. No intention to offend any Greeks. It simply means if your enemy or adversary offers you a gift watch out.

[Zoraptor]

I'm a bit surprised by the implication that it was for Eternity that an offer was made, but that's all. Someone like WOTC looking to get a BG3 or similar done would make perfect sense, for them, as it would be effectively risk free venture capital- and at least a bit of sense from Obsidian's point of view as they'd get, for example, the publicity due from and fans of Baldur's Gate. There will also be some who will not contribute to kickstarter on principle (yes, such people do exist) who will contribute if there's a more known property behind the project.

 

I also rather doubt that publishers spend time worrying about kickstarter as a competitor, their biggest threat is increasing costs vs decreasing returns in their traditional fields. The three biggest funded games in kickstarter history don't come close to adding up to the funding for a single AAA game. All the evidence is that publishers simply do not care about kickstarter size projects, as there's no way for them to make money- or enough money- off projects that size that they fund themselves. Of course if kickstarters provide that scope of funding to the publishers then that would be a different story, as it's "free", and more or less risk free, funding.

[Gyges]

Am I missing something?

 

I see the obvious lack of logic in the statement and how ridiculous it is, but I can't help but feel like while I'm laughing at the stupid attempt to basically steal an IP with an offer only an idiot would take, I feel like everyone else is treating this like an extremely cunning plot that would fool many and is a disgrace to society, responsible for the downfall of several potential IPs.

 

Sure, it'd be a disgrace, if it weren't so ****ing funny in how pathetic of an attempt it is. Or am I missing something?

 

No, thats pretty spot on. Nothing Machiavellian about it, its just so offensively sad and retarded.

[Djole]

I understand why Obsidian is reluctant to reveal any names. I just hope projects like this will allow them the luxury of revealing such information.

[MacMichael]

This sounds like it was a horrible deal, and Obsidian has enough weight in their name and people to do without a publisher, but I could see smaller devs be swayed into a fairer publishing agreement. Something where the devs keep the IP, work with the money that comes from the Kickstarter, and the publishers handle marketing, production(boxed copies), and distribution, then profit gets split in an equitable way. Probably not something the big three, EA, Activision, or Bethesda would ever allow, but maybe a smaller publisher. A hybrid of the two systems might actually be a good thing, though it'd all depend on balancing the dev's and the publisher's power.

[KenThomas]

Big publishers like EA have their band of lawyers who can sue you just because of the way you look at them if they wanted to.

 

So I think Obsidian probably don't want to risk getting into any legal trouble. It won't make any difference for them now since their project is fan funded and they don't have to deal with them anymore.

 

I think legal trouble is the least of their worries. It's more likely they don't want to damage any possible business relationship they might have in the future.

 

Actually, bringing up that it happened yet not naming the studio protects Obsidian far more than if they were to say nothing at all. Now publishers won't dare sue them because as soon as they do everyone will think it was that publisher that tried to engage Obsidian in the kickstarter fraud scheme.

[KenThomas]

It was definitely a bad deal they offered and it would been a shame if it had gone forward...

 

But what developer in their right mind would accept the deal? I don't see any potential advantage, since they'd be raising all of the money anyway. So I'm not convinced this will be a problem in the future.

 

Yeah, it was a stupid offer that only an idiot would be blinded by.

The article posted in this thread, imo, is being a little overdramatic about it.

 

 

Businesses are businesses. By design, they seek a profit no matter the circumstances (unless a CEO or other worker is willing to make exceptions). This means that yes, sometimes they make really scummy offers knowing full-well that it's a scummy offer. They don't give a damn and do it anyways, because not making the offer entails 0 profit whereas making the offer potentially entails a lot of profit.

 

It's to be expected, and I hardly think it's a severe problem like that article makes it out to be.

Nah, it's just god damn hilarious, is what it is.

 

No, I think its important that it gets shamed for the shameful act that it is. If people hear the story and just shrug it off, publishers won't believe there's anything to stop them. They'll find ways to pressure companies into accepting these ****ty deals, therefore keeping themselves in the mix. This should be treated seriously, because it is.

 

We have a legitimate chance for gaming to get back to being a creative process with creative titles, much like it was 20 years ago when games were so simple they could be made by a couple of friends during their free time. Once publishers became necessary, they started restricting everything because that was the condition for getting their money. This project is likely to be the example held up to other developers that they no longer need to be restricted. That is only going to work if we take shady attempts by publishers seriously and don't give them an ounce of legitimacy.

[Umberlin]

I'd heard about this before, but I feel no less sick knowing that such underhanded people exist. It reminds me of why series I loved stopped getting updates and sequels because publishers ate the developers, their properties and destroyed them or deformed them or ran them into the ground or, I'm looking at you Sierra, sat on the rights and did nothing with them refusing to sell them even to the original creators for the longest time.

[silvercross]

Can't blame them for trying.

 

The argument as to why anyone would agree to this deal isn't too farfetched, to be honest. (Not to say it's a good deal.) Pledgers will back out or not follow through. Sometimes budget estimations are wrong. Unexpected expenses happen. Taxes happen. You guys may want to read up on Star Command's Kickerstarterwhere they explain where their Kickstarter money went. Summary: Stuff was more expensive than we thought.

 

Certainly, Obsidian is a more established company and likely more well-versed with budget, but what a publisher offers is security. While it's odd that this unnamed publisher isn't offering to expand the budget (at least according to the quote) like another unnamed publisher offered with Wasteland 2, in this particular deal Obsidian could potentially make more money with the marketing and distribution power of a publisher. (As far as I know, Obsidian doesn't really have a dedicated publicity/marketing division.)

 

---

BTW, Urquhart supposedly posted an follow up to the comment made in the OP's link. (Can't seem to find the original source though.)

"I think they were trying, honestly, to be able to do something with us and they felt that was the easiest way to do it. They would then not need to go get budget approved and deal with the challenge of that," he wrote in a follow-up post. "What I don't think they did was to think about our side of it and what they were really asking."

 

EDIT: You can read Obsidian's comments here (just keep scrolling down for September 18th comments starting with "@Steven" for the initial comment and then scroll up to a comment addressed with "@fredgiblet" to see the comment I quoted above). To see it in context, you're going to have to look through the comments of the kickstarter page.

Edited September 20, 2012 by silvercross

[Metabot]

If you read Obsidian's comment on this on the kickstarter page, this is being blown way out of proportion.

[Nakia]

Are we blowing it out of proportion? One step down the wrong path can lead to a greater evil. Publishers have taken over developers and we are getting shoddy games. A game that needs to be patched seven times and still causes problems is not acceptable. I do think publishers are concerned about Kickstarter because it does give developers freedom to be developers. To make the games they want to make the way they want to make them. Neither do they need to worry about loosing their job. The developer retains the rights to their IP.

 

Maybe the games won't be as big or flashy but maybe they will depth to the, be bug free and truly responsive to what players want. Maybe publishers will come to their senses and having a sense of responsibility to the customers. Maybe I dream.

[Madcat124]

You look at my other thread and you'll know exactly how I feel about publishers like that.

[Zoraptor]

This sounds like it was a horrible deal, and Obsidian has enough weight in their name and people to do without a publisher, but I could see smaller devs be swayed into a fairer publishing agreement. Something where the devs keep the IP, work with the money that comes from the Kickstarter, and the publishers handle marketing, production(boxed copies), and distribution, then profit gets split in an equitable way. Probably not something the big three, EA, Activision, or Bethesda would ever allow, but maybe a smaller publisher. A hybrid of the two systems might actually be a good thing, though it'd all depend on balancing the dev's and the publisher's power.

To be fair, EA actually does offer distribution (as opposed to publishing) and hybrid deals through EA Partners- think Crysis, Kingdoms of Amalur etc- where the developers still own the IP, and they do have the "ninety free days on Origin" deal as well. They probably offer more flexibility than most.

 

Bethesda/ Zenimax is certainly not big three though, by any stretch. They've hardly had any decently successful titles outside their core franchises- even iD's game published through them was disappointing sales wise. If it weren't for TES/ Fallout every two years they'd barely be bigger than Paradox.

[Gatt9]

I think the funniest part is that this publisher actually thought an "Ok, sure!" answer was a possibility.

It was probably a small publisher who is desperate for cash to keep them going, so they had nothing to lose. I can't see a big publisher risking doing this when Kickstarter projects are mostly small change compared to what they deal with.

 

Actually, it was likely a large publisher. Most likely EA.

 

The intention behind this would be to create a layer of misdirection with who is responsible for the game. It means the Publisher is not confident that their name can sell units, so they require some other name to sell the units and they reap the profits. The only Publisher in the industry with a name so poor in reputation is EA, their name on a box causes units to sit on the shelf. That's why they keep renaming studios "Bioware", because "Bioware" can sell units, "EA" causes them to sit.

 

Plus, the Industry is not in healthy condition. Activision's the only one in relatively good financial state. The market is dropping double digits in revenue, for the better part of 3 years, and it looks unlikely to stop as long as the Publishers maintain their current business strategy.

 

I also rather doubt that publishers spend time worrying about kickstarter as a competitor, their biggest threat is increasing costs vs decreasing returns in their traditional fields. The three biggest funded games in kickstarter history don't come close to adding up to the funding for a single AAA game. All the evidence is that publishers simply do not care about kickstarter size projects, as there's no way for them to make money- or enough money- off projects that size that they fund themselves. Of course if kickstarters provide that scope of funding to the publishers then that would be a different story, as it's "free", and more or less risk free, funding.

 

I think you're seriously underestimating how dire the Game Industry is right now, and for the foreseeable future.

 

The Industry is losing massive percentages of revenue, there's very little that's "Guaranteed to sell" at this point. Publishers don't understand why, and they're clinging to the hope that another console generation can save them, ignorant of the fact that it's their endless sequels, lack of diveresity, and anti-consumer initiatives that are driving people away.

 

They have no idea if they can make it to the next console release. They have no idea if that'll even help. They're afraid to return to PC development, afraid to fund anything but "Mainstay" genres like FPS and Action-Adventure.

 

Kickstarter is an enourmous threat to them. It means they lose control of the independent studios, they lose control of the PC market. It means the future they're attempting to force on the market of F2P and micro-transaction loaded titles aren't the only avenue for gaming, and their monopoly is threatened. It means their "Next generation" titles which will likely be the nth-sequel to some tired series has to compete with some reasonably fresh new idea.

 

They've lost control at a time when most of them are disliked or hated, and when they really can't sell console games anymore. They've existed this long only because they were the "Bank" and used that to control the market, now Developers don't need their money, and don't need their distribution channels, so they no longer serve any purpose at all.

[licketysplit]

So EA gave em a call huh?

[Leferd]

Guys, guys. It's so transparently obvious it was Herve Caen/ Interplay and their RPG label, Black Isle Studios!

 

http://www.blackisle.com/

 

Lols.

 

[Longknife]

Are we blowing it out of proportion?

 

Yes.

[salty]

Please stop with the discrimination. Giant, comically evil corporations are people too. It's in the Constitution.

[RosesandAshes]

Wow, that is low....

Kudos to Obsidian for telling those publishers where to go!

[Leferd]

Holy Cow. It is Interplay.

 

http://interplay.com/games/battlechess.php

 

They attempted to do a kickstarter for Battlechess.

 

Edited September 20, 2012 by Leferd