How Should Obsidian Market Pillars of Eternity

[Nonek]

A string quartet plays to a black screen, a solemn, stately piece, echoing with sadness and majesty.

 

The screen irises out and pans in revealing Sir Harcourt Smythe reclining in a comfortable armchair before a blazing fire, his study is crafted of dark polished hardwoods and deep rich brocades and velvets, in one hand he holds a meerschaum pipe upon which he ocassionally puffs contentedly, in the other he swirls a snifter of finest brandy. His gaze is held by the flickering firelight, that dances in the reflection cast by his monocle, and long, magnificent mustaches twitch as he ponders and mulls upon deep matters.

 

All around him are mounted the heads of strange, fierce creatures, exotic treasures and amazing relics from an alien world.

 

"Good evening." He intones, his voice a deep, rich, smooth and pleasant baritone, a voice suited to commands on the battlefield or in the boudoir. "I noticed you were admiring my knick knacks, a most impressive collection what?"

 

"Hard won my dear ladies and gentlemen." He admits, a note of stern warning darkening his tone. "But for those of a stiff constitution and a stiffer stomach, great renown and reward can be won."

 

He leans forward, the firelight dancing in his monocle, his brows beetling and his mustaches quivering with passion. The string quartets music swells to a crescendo, and the study seems to recede while great pillars of stone rise from the shadows to frame the gentleman. "Come, this spring seek the Pillars of Eternity, adventure and glory await. Steel your soul, load your rifle, sharpen your sword and your wits, for you will require all of these in the Reach." 

 

"But remember, there is no rest for the Watcher!"

 

Sweeping music arises, the Pillars of Eternity logo rises to prominence and Sir Harcourt Smythe sits back in his armchair as he diminishes, staring into the flickering flames of his past until disappearing into the dozens of images that play throughout the great pillars of Adra.

 

Iris out, and let the music repeat a soft, sad rhythm that hints of the ticking away of Eternity.

[Katarack21]

Who owns these companies?  EA owns Bioware but who owns EA?  ZenMax owns Bethesda but who owns ZenMax.

Who owns Obsidian?

That's actually very simple. EA is a publicly traded company, basically "owned" by stockholders.

 

ZeniMax Media owns a LOT of companies beyond just Bethesda, because it's basically a shell company created for tax purposes that uses subsidiaries to run the actual business of games production/publishing/development. It's owned by a small group of mutual shareholders, most notably Robart A. Altman, a wealthy lawyer who "founded" the shell "company". ZeniMax operates as a storage business; it's job is to provide legal ownership of various IP's, which are then used by it's subsdiaries. ZeniMax does nothing in-and-of itself beyond tax shelter and legal IP ownership.

 

Obsidian is co-owned by four or five people, who left Interplay when it went under and founded a new company so they could keep making games and having a career. Feargus Urquheart, Chris Parker, Darren Monahan, Chris Avellone, Chris Jones. I'm pretty sure they are the guys who literally own Obsidian.

 

I believe this facts support and substantiate your claims. A big business can make a successful game, no question, but true creativity can't be mass produced. It's the small companies ran by people who love playing and making games who are truly the most creative companies. They're not always the most successful, and there's no guarantee that the products are gonna be any good, but when a game is made by people who love games with profit as a secondary motive, it shows.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Katarack21

[Nakia]

 

Who owns these companies?  EA owns Bioware but who owns EA?  ZenMax owns Bethesda but who owns ZenMax.

Who owns Obsidian?

That's actually very simple. EA is a publicly traded company, basically "owned" by stockholders.

 

ZeniMax Media owns a LOT of companies beyond just Bethesda, because it's basically a shell company created for tax purposes that uses subsidiaries to run the actual business of games production/publishing/development. It's owned by a small group of mutual shareholders, most notably Robart A. Altman, a wealthy lawyer who "founded" the shell "company". ZeniMax operates as a storage business; it's job is to provide legal ownership of various IP's, which are then used by it's subsdiaries. ZeniMax does nothing in-and-of itself beyond tax shelter and legal IP ownership.

 

Obsidian is co-owned by four or five people, who left Interplay when it went under and founded a new company so they could keep making games and having a career. Feargus Urquheart, Chris Parker, Darren Monahan, Chris Avellone, Chris Jones. I'm pretty sure they are the guys who literally own Obsidian.

 

I believe this facts support and substantiate your claims. A big business can make a successful game, no question, but true creativity can't be mass produced. It's the small companies ran by people who love playing and making games who are truly the most creative companies. They're not always the most successful, and there's no guarantee that the products are gonna be any good, but when a game is made by people who love games with profit as a secondary motive, it shows.

 

Ah, good.  Then why do people keep comparing what Obsidian does to what those companies do?    Obsidian is owned and controlled by long time developers, guys who love game playing themselves, guys who started in the business because they wanted to make games.  To me that means they are creative people, people cab able of thinking outside the box.

[Stun]

Who owns these companies?  EA owns Bioware but who owns EA?

Satan? Viacom? Dunno. EA is a publically traded company and I'm pretty sure no single entity owns a majority of their stock.

[Nakia]

My point about asking those questions is that people are comparing two very different things.  AAA companies that have a hierarchy of companies having various stages of ownership and small or moderate sized companies owned by a handful of people who enjoy what they are doing.  Yes, those smaller companies want and need to make money but the owners and employees went into the business because they are game players themselves.   They care about the game, the game itself is important to them.

 

If i had 100K USD to invest in games which would I be better off doing?  Buying stock in EA or backing a company like Obsidian?  

[Katarack21]

My point about asking those questions is that people are comparing two very different things.  AAA companies that have a hierarchy of companies having various stages of ownership and small or moderate sized companies owned by a handful of people who enjoy what they are doing.  Yes, those smaller companies want and need to make money but the owners and employees went into the business because they are game players themselves.   They care about the game, the game itself is important to them.

 

If i had 100K USD to invest in games which would I be better off doing?  Buying stock in EA or backing a company like Obsidian?  

Right now? Well, I'd do Obsidian for a lot of reasons. Profit is one of them. High-risk investment, but Obsidian is poised for extremely rapid growth if PoE and whatever comes out after it both sell well. They're a moderately successful, well-known studio at the moment; they could have something like what happened to Valve after Half-Life came out happen to them (Valve was also founded by two guys who loved making games). More important than this? I frigging love Obsidian. They make awesome games, and I want them to keep making awesome games so much. So, so much. They are amazing, and basically I want them to keep making creative and fantastic things for me to have fun with.

 

EA is a safer investment, more likely to produce profit in the long-term. However, I kind of hope they die in a fire.

 

*shrug*

[Bryy]

 

 

Who owns these companies?  EA owns Bioware but who owns EA?  ZenMax owns Bethesda but who owns ZenMax.

Who owns Obsidian?

That's actually very simple. EA is a publicly traded company, basically "owned" by stockholders.

 

ZeniMax Media owns a LOT of companies beyond just Bethesda, because it's basically a shell company created for tax purposes that uses subsidiaries to run the actual business of games production/publishing/development. It's owned by a small group of mutual shareholders, most notably Robart A. Altman, a wealthy lawyer who "founded" the shell "company". ZeniMax operates as a storage business; it's job is to provide legal ownership of various IP's, which are then used by it's subsdiaries. ZeniMax does nothing in-and-of itself beyond tax shelter and legal IP ownership.

 

Obsidian is co-owned by four or five people, who left Interplay when it went under and founded a new company so they could keep making games and having a career. Feargus Urquheart, Chris Parker, Darren Monahan, Chris Avellone, Chris Jones. I'm pretty sure they are the guys who literally own Obsidian.

 

I believe this facts support and substantiate your claims. A big business can make a successful game, no question, but true creativity can't be mass produced. It's the small companies ran by people who love playing and making games who are truly the most creative companies. They're not always the most successful, and there's no guarantee that the products are gonna be any good, but when a game is made by people who love games with profit as a secondary motive, it shows.

 

Ah, good.  Then why do people keep comparing what Obsidian does to what those companies do?    Obsidian is owned and controlled by long time developers, guys who love game playing themselves, guys who started in the business because they wanted to make games.  To me that means they are creative people, people cab able of thinking outside the box.

 

Because whenever a company does something we don't like, that makes them equatable to other companies we don't like for completely different reasons.

 

So, say, when Obsidian does something "wrong", we instantly label them as bad as EA or whatnot because most people have a horribly naive view of how games are made. And sadly, they get mad when shown that it's not magic rainbows and puppies. 

Edited December 24, 2014 by Bryy

[Stun]

Because whenever a company does something we don't like, that makes them equatable to other companies we don't like for completely different reasons.

 

So, say, when Obsidian does something "wrong", we instantly label them as bad as EA or whatnot because most people have a horribly naive view of how games are made. And sadly, they get mad when shown that it's not magic rainbows and puppies.

Aah yes. The sweet smell of burning straw men in the morning.

 

No Bryy, most of us aren't that stupidly general with our criticisms. If, for example, Obsidian makes a game design mistake in one of their RPGs, I (and others like me) will call them out for it. It will be a specific gripe - aimed at just that problem. Of course, if that specific problem happens to be the very same one that is present in, say, every EA game, or every Bethesda game, then we will call them out for it accordingly. Why shouldn't we?

 

More to the point. EA-owned companies love giving us dumbed down games with shoddy console ports. If the day comes that Obsidian gives us a dumbed down, shoddy console port game, then they will share the same criticism from us that we give EA - because they friggin did the same thing.

 

Not sure why that's so hard to understand. Or why we're "horribly naïve" for calling a spade a spade.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Stun

[morrow1nd]

It should adress the challange of merciless tactical combat and the story that aint about saving the world..again... xD 

 

New kids arent prepared for this! (especially against the beetles!)

 

u dig it ? 

Edited December 29, 2014 by morrow1nd

[Nakia]

Beware the bugs in this game.  There are many and they are fierce.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Nakia

[Guest 4ward]

 

 That being said, I am really looking forward to some IE style gaming when this comes out. Maybe I will stop playing Baldur's Gates and Icewind Dales for a while.

Am not sure about IE style gaming with PoE. I’ve in the past also compared it to IE games but i’ve reconsidered. PoE is no d&d, and i don’t think the intention is to simulate an IE game. PoE is a game that stands on its own among rtwp party-rpgs (whether this is a good or bad thing is another topic). Just because it has an isometric view doesn’t make it an IE game. You can as well compare it to DA:O or NWN or KotoR. For example, take away health and leave just endurance and you have KotoR and don’t have to rest at all anymore. The healing/resting/spells/combat mechanics, calculations/attributes, classes all are different than in the IE games. An IE game was also different to another IE game as well. BG1 along with PST had the worst combat of the IE games. BG2 improved in that by leaps and bounds mostly through improved area and encounter design.  Different speeds and added abilities/spells were another reason. Why, e.g., was Firkraag moving faster, had high resistance and nasty abilities? So he could hurt several chars in your party at the same time, no need to give the guy a disengagement attack on top of that.

[Nakia]

D&D is copyright by Hasbro so it cannot be used without their permission so the PoE is not a D&D game and does not claim to be one.  It is being developed in the spirit of those early games not as a clone of them.  

[Luridis]

Anyway, I'd find it expensive.

 

That's precisely what the free-to-play movement is trying to program into you. Why? Because they make much more money by wearing down your self-control and hitting you with a ridiculous charge for some trite in game material precisely when you aren't likely to be very resistive. This is how people end up dropping hundreds of dollars on a FTP game. You can have more fun and even get free drinks with that at a casino. It's all very creepy and I'd rather pay $40 for a complete product.

[Luridis]

As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that within a decade we see "free consoles" hit the market. Consoles with "free" games. Well, until you try them 5 times and then each play after that charges a quarter to your credit card. Companies like EA would like nothing more than to turn your living room into a pay-per-play arcade.

[PrimeJunta]

Am not sure about IE style gaming with PoE. I’ve in the past also compared it to IE games but i’ve reconsidered. PoE is no d&d, and i don’t think the intention is to simulate an IE game. PoE is a game that stands on its own among rtwp party-rpgs (whether this is a good or bad thing is another topic). Just because it has an isometric view doesn’t make it an IE game. You can as well compare it to DA:O or NWN or KotoR. For example, take away health and leave just endurance and you have KotoR and don’t have to rest at all anymore. The healing/resting/spells/combat mechanics, calculations/attributes, classes all are different than in the IE games. An IE game was also different to another IE game as well. BG1 along with PST had the worst combat of the IE games. BG2 improved in that by leaps and bounds mostly through improved area and encounter design.  Different speeds and added abilities/spells were another reason. Why, e.g., was Firkraag moving faster, had high resistance and nasty abilities? So he could hurt several chars in your party at the same time, no need to give the guy a disengagement attack on top of that.

 

It's not an IE game, obviously. It doesn't run on the Infinity Engine, and it's not D&D.

 

It is, however, closer to the IE games than anything since then that I've played, by a wide margin. The visuals, the dialog, the overall "feel" of most classes, the "feel" of selecting characters, issuing commands, and seeing how they respond, the breadth of spells, talents, and abilities, the "feel" of the PC races... they are all very IE-ey to me. The game has a "crispness" to it that, for example, the NWN's and their successors lack, and it's nothing like the DA mechanics involving cooldowns, aggro, and ability spamming.

 

Many of the innovations are also material improvements as far as I'm concerned. The cipher and the chanter are way-cool classes with no D&D equivalent, making the spellcasting classes much more clearly differentiated. I know opinion is divided on it, but I like the way engagement works now: it effectively stabilizes the battlefield, making it possible to think of things in terms of flanking movements and whatnot; also AoE spell effects are much less chaotic in such an environment.

[Lord Wafflebum]

As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that within a decade we see "free consoles" hit the market. Consoles with "free" games. Well, until you try them 5 times and then each play after that charges a quarter to your credit card. Companies like EA would like nothing more than to turn your living room into a pay-per-play arcade.

Unless you buy an online pass for $100, then it's free!!