Fallout: New Vegas - Missed Metacritic Bonus by One Point?

[Dhruin]

Fascinating news via Joystiq who claim Obsidian's contract with Bethsoft for Fallout: New Vegas was a straight payment - no royalties but a bonus for making 85% on Metacritic...which they missed by a point. The original tweet from Chris Avellone seems to have been deleted, so we'll have to take it at face value at the moment:

Business sucks, alright? It's cold and rigid and occasionally unfair. Such is the case with Obsidian's Fallout: New Vegas contract with Bethesda, wherein the developer only received royalties if the game matched or exceeded an 85 rating on Metacritic. Leaving aside the fact that Metacritic is a woefully unbalanced aggregation of review scores from both vetted and unvetted publications, agreements like this can leave indie studios -- like Obsidian -- in the lurch should that Metacritic score just barely miss the mark.

Unfortunately for Obsidian, Fallout: New Vegas currently has a Metacritic average of 84, a single point below the average that would've earned the company royalties on its product. "[Fallout: New Vegas] was a straight payment, no royalties, only a bonus if we got an 85+ on Metacritic, which we didn't," Obsidian creative director and co-owner Chris Avellone told one Twitter user.

More information.

 

[LuckyCarbon]

Am I the only one here that thinks maybe Zenimax made sure it only got an 84? Bethesda has certainly been accused on these boards often enough of inflating their rating through...well....we'll call it advertising dollars.

What's the difference to an average buyer between an 84 and an 85? Nothing. So instead of having to pay out a couple of million in a bonus, why not just make sure you don't have to pay the bonus? What reviewer (totally unaware of the contract) wouldn't have a problem knocking the score DOWN to 84 for a couple of grand in "advertising money".

I know F:NV wasn't a perfect game and it had it's bugs coming out the door, (here's my conspiracy mind again, rushed on purpose?) and perhaps an 84 is a fair score and everyone in the world is honest but it's enough of a coincidence to make me scratch my head.

I'm sure we'll never know.

 

[sakichop]

I guess anythings possible. If I remember correctly though wasn't it pretty much released broken for the consoles. I thought I remember my brother not being able to play it for about a month after release on ps3.

Don't remember the exact details though as I played on pc. That could have had something to do with it though.

 

[aries100]

Aren't the Metacritic ratings, as also mentioned in the newbit, notoriously unbalanced? And to me, it seems kind of unfair to Obsidian, and I don't understand why the went along with Bethesda's (Zenimax's) demands and signed the contract. They may have had little choice, however.

I'm afraid I'm agreeing with LuckyCarbon about his theory of conspiracies. Bethesda - or Zenimax - could have made it so that the review score on Metacritic was just below 85 (e.g 84) so that Zenimax and Bethesda didn't have to pay royalties to Obsidian. And why you ask? Maybe because Bethesda knew that Obsidian would make a far better game they did with Fallout 3? And saw this as a chance to get rid of one if the rivals in the industry? It has happened before....

As for the not paid royalities, this would certainly explained why the owners, e.g. Chris Avellone, Josh E. Sawyer etc. were not paid in 6-7 months...

 

[Moorkh]

It would seem to be possible to exert some pressure from the other, our, side, to get these scores up. I'm sure some games journos would quickly agree to add a late review or make some patch-related score adjustments to move that stat up by a point if this story were to become known more broadly...

 

[Melvil]

Sad story, and an unwise business decision for Obsidian. They need better negotiators if this is the kind of deal they are getting.

 

[joxer]

Well, life goes on, lesson is probably learned. Yet, I do believe the game deserves more than 84%.

 

[CountChocula]

Am I the only one here that thinks maybe Zenimax made sure it only got an 84?

I don't think that would even be possible, let alone worth risking the massive negative PR that erupts whenever even a single metacritic reviewer is revealed to be using a media company IP address.

And to what aim? To avoid paying an already agreed-upon bonus to a developing partner you plan to work with again in the future?

*puts on tinfoil hat*

Sad story, and an unwise business decision for Obsidian. They need better negotiators if this is the kind of deal they are getting.

I'm sure it sucks to be that close to getting the bonus, but for a small indie developer like Obsidian it's probably a lot smarter to negotiate a flat fee rather than chase after publishers for royalties based on net profits.

 

[KapitanUnterhosen]

indie studios — like Obsidian

a small indie developer like Obsidian

Vat?

Anyhow, gotta wonder about the timing of this since this old news is now getting attention only a day after obsidian got a project canceled and canned a whole team.

 

[Nerevarine]

I'm afraid I'm agreeing with LuckyCarbon about his theory of conspiracies. Bethesda - or Zenimax - could have made it so that the review score on Metacritic was just below 85 (e.g 84) so that Zenimax and Bethesda didn't have to pay royalties to Obsidian. And why you ask? Maybe because Bethesda knew that Obsidian would make a far better game they did with Fallout 3? And saw this as a chance to get rid of one if the rivals in the industry? It has happened before….

I'm sorry, but that is utter nonsense in my opinion. If Bethesda was trying to "get rid of" Obsidian, then why on Earth would they give them the opportunity to use their tech, their license, and their property to make an RPG? That is a killer advantage for Obsidian, not having to create the tech for an open-world RPG - something that isn't easy to do at all and would require a huge budget in of itself just to get the tech up and running - and to be able to use a well-known, valuable creative property, thus raising the profile and value of Obsidian - royalties or not. Obsidian was able to focus purely on the creative side of New Vegas by using all of Bethesda's assets (artwork, animations, engine, design tools, NPC and building models, the Fallout name itself, etc.), so there is nothing "unfair" about Bethesda's dealings with Obsidian. I also remember quite a bit of marketing hype/support for New Vegas as well.

If Bethesda/Zenimax was truly trying to screw over Obsidian with the royalty bonus, then they would have stipulated that New Vegas had to match or surpass the score of Fallout 3 - as it stands, 85 as a goal was lower than Fallout 3's score. It's certainly silly to use Metacritic at all and sales would have been a better bonus condition, but at least this is a bonus scenario that tries to motivate through quality rather than mass market numbers alone (although the inconsistency of reviewers and the vastly different opinions and various biases is a rather poor indicator of a game's quality if taken too literally).

Besides, it's a bonus (you know, something extra that goes on top of the agreed payment); they aren't holding out any of the base payment, pulling the rug out from under them, or inflicting a "punishment" in any way. It's a frustrating scenario for Obsidian, but Bethesda did nothing wrong or unethical here.

 

[Asdraguuhl]

I agree with Nerevarine about the conspiracy theory not making much sense. The Metacritic requirement for the bonus may be rather "unfortunate" but I suppose that Obsidian has their hands tied during negotiations and are not in a position to impose demands. Plus, I highly doubt that they would reject any opportunity to do a Fallout game.

In any case, should Obsidian take the Kickstarter route, I would most certainly back them.

 

[CountChocula]

Vat?

Well, certainly there may be smaller companies out there, but Obsidian is "indie" - they are not owned by a publisher and they don't have the means to self-distribute to retailers. The games that Obsidian develops are financed by third party publishers.

 

[KapitanUnterhosen]

Well, certainly there may be smaller companies out there, but Obsidian is "indie" - they are not owned by a publisher and they don't have the means to self-distribute to retailers. The games that Obsidian develops are financed by third party publishers.

That's the case for the majority of gamedev houses and in no way makes them independent of the commercial market. Talk about warped definitions.

 

[Irian]

Well, missing the bonus by one point sucks, but hey, it's a business. What do you expect Bethesda to do? Say "Oh my, because you're such nice guys, we'll simply throw some money around, we don't want it anyway." Yeah, sure. Like any of you would do that if he was responsible for a big company. It's unfortunate for Obisidian, sure, but on the other hand… I only missed the lottery millions by some numbers, anyone wants to give my some millions anyway?
And for the conspiracy theories... Come one, get a life. Some people only seem to be happy if they can fit anything into a some laughable theory, don't know why...

 

[Grimlorn]

Check this out guys.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/57290-layoff-hits-obsidian/page__st__120__p__1166380#entry1166380

"Excuse me if this has already been mentioned, but I thought it was important enough that I should try to see it brought to someone's attention.
Presumably, quite a lot of financial trouble has hit Obsidian due to them not receiving their bonus for Fallout: New Vegas over the Metacritic score - one point of difference, an 84 instead of an 85. However, I noticed something while I was reading through those reviews.

One of the Metacritic reviews for Fallout: New Vegas, by a German reviewer from a website known as Gamestar, is actually not for Fallout: New Vegas. It is for the Honest Hearts DLC, which he gives a 72%, rated as 'Gut' (Good). That review (as well as the overview where you can check the score) are available here:
http://www.gamestar….arts/46936.html
http://www.gamestar….36,2323023.html

It's in German, but the URL and a simple google translate both make it abundantly clear that this is a review for the Honest Hearts DLC. Now, this is where things get interesting.

This same reviewer also reviewed Fallout: New Vegas itself. The kicker? He gave it an 88%, 'Sehr Gut' (Very Good). The New Vegas review (and overview with score) is available here:
http://www.gamestar….egas/44882.html
http://www.gamestar….82,2318592.html

Now, obviously, this is something of a screw up on Metacritic's part. Not only have they posted an incorrect review, but an incorrect review with a considerably lower score. I don't know if this is something that Obsidian's staff are already aware of, or if it is too late to change things now, or even if this would have been enough to tip you over the edge into a score of 85 at all - but I thought it was worth bringing it to your attention.
I have a great respect for Obsidian as a company, and consider you to have some of the finest writers in the current videogame RPG climate (in fact, I consider working as a writer at Obsidian a possible career goal of mine) and I would hate to see you suffering as a company because of a simple misunderstanding or mistranslation.

If this isn't the correct place for this, or if I should instead be emailing it to somebody or whathaveyou, please let me know. I just wanted to bring this to your attention in the hopes that, just maybe, it'll push your score over the edge and earn you that bonus from Bethesda."

Let the RAGE flow through you.

 

[CountChocula]

That's the case for the majority of gamedev houses and in no way makes them independent of the commercial market. Talk about warped definitions.

It's not warped, this is simply what "indie" means, "independent."

If you cannot self-distribute to retailers then you must work with a third party publisher.

And in the case of the comment I was responding to, many independent developers have had a hard time with deals that provide for back end royalties based on net revenues.

 

[Acleacius]

A pathetic contract from bethesda. First place Obsidian had less than half the resources and half the development time of Fallout 3.

 

[KapitanUnterhosen]

It's not warped, this is simply what "indie" means, "independent."

Indie is short for independent, at least we agree on that.

If you cannot self-distribute to retailers then you must work with a third party publisher.

So they're indies because they're completely dependent on the publisher/retailer/mainstream commercial system?

 

[Nerevarine]

A pathetic contract from bethesda. First place Obsidian had less than half the resources and half the development time of Fallout 3.

Wrong. They already had all of the resources necessary to make Fallout: New Vegas in the first place, by using Bethesda's assets which were created for Fallout 3. They didn't need to create or overhaul the engine and they were able to reuse the majority of the models, animations, and art assets used in Fallout 3.

As for time? They were essentially making a professional mod for the creation of New Vegas. Because they already had the tools and assets at their disposal provided by Bethesda, all Obsidian needed to worry about was creating new content. They didn't need the same amount of time as Bethesda needed to make Fallout 3 because Bethesda was creating everything essentially from scratch, making a massive amount of tweaks to the Gamebryo engine, creating all of the new models and artwork, new animations, modified development tools, etc. Obsidian was making a sequel using these tools; why would they need 3-4 years for that? It reminds me of how quickly Fallout 2 followed Fallout 1 - it was using the same base created for Fallout 1, and therefor it didn't require the same amount of development time. That's just simple efficiency when creating a sequel.

Judging by the quality of the content in New Vegas, I'd say it doesn't feel unfinished or rushed at all - it just had the usual technical issues that come with every Obsidian game, and these were also fixed within a reasonable time frame with good post release support. Obsidian also had the time to make several pieces of quality DLC. I'd say the partnership worked out well for Obsidian, and they missed out on an incentive based bonus that both sides agreed upon; they were not cheated out of base pay.

 

[CountChocula]

So they're indies because they're completely dependent on the publisher/retailer/mainstream commercial system?

;-)

Anyone who wants to sell a game in to retail channels is going to need to work with a publisher who can make it happen.

If you are not owned by one of these major publishers, congratulations, you are independent.

What's interesting is that relatively small devs have been self-distributing digitally for PC and iOS for the past few years. Perhaps a new model will emerge as digital distribution becomes commonplace for Xbox and PS platforms as well.

Certainly many developers of mobile or social games like Zynga and Rovio, etc., have become prominent players.

Of course, the cost of developing a triple-A RPG release with lots of voiced content is not going to come down. However, if companies like Obsidian were able to self-distribute to consoles, perhaps they might consider adopting some new model for financing their production budgets.