+1000 to Angry Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by zolmaster
Printable View
+1000 to Angry Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by zolmaster
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/ob...-by-one-point/
This is the kind of bullshit that needs to get cut out asap.Quote:
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.
The Metacritic news comes just one day after we reported layoffs at the California-based developer -- layoffs that were said to be the result of a canceled next-gen project (codenamed "North Carolina") for an unnamed console. New Vegas lead producer Jason Fader's Facebook profile reflects the recent layoffs, also outing himself as former lead producer on the North Carolina project. His credentials also list an unnamed project known as "Vermont," but that could be Obsidian's upcoming South Park RPG (we've reached out for clarification).
Additionally, Kotaku reports that the North Carolina project was to be published by Microsoft, and was intended for the still unannounced Xbox 360 successor console. Our tipster tells us that the North Carolina project was "desperately needed" for the studio's continued survival, which matches reports that Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart "choked up" while addressing his employees about the canned project.
New Vegas was a good game, hell I thought it was better than Fallout 3 and I played a lot of Fallout 3. The game was good and afaik it sold very well, yet now because of a metacritic score, which should mean f-all, Obsidian might be in financial trouble.
People wonder why developers get so adversarial about review scores and harsh criticism, it's not because they can't accept other peoples opinions, it's because the future of their company could depend on it. So the financial well being of your company is no longer in the hands of the millions of fans who might buy your game but rather the dozen or so journalists who review it.
This isn't an isolated case either, many devs have these metacritic clauses, even internal studios owned by the publishers.
Yeah, way too many publishers/developers put stock in Metacritic and it's bullshit. So a company with a shit game who that sells 50 000 copies gets a bonus because the MC score is over 85%, but a company that sells 2mill copies doesn't because their MC score is 80%.
In my opinion, MC should be shut down entirely. It's not really even useful, as the only info you glean from it is score. Score alone is not nearly enough to tell you whether a game is worth playing or not.
Metacritic itself is not the problem, it's the weight other people put behind it that is the problem. Getting money based on a stupid score aggregation is just stupid. Imagine if that worked for movie, goodness like only a handful of movies a year would actually make money.
There have always been issues with reviews, but reviews in general carry exactly the same pitfalls as asking a stranger what he thinks of a particular movie / car / album etc
I recall reading a couple of really shocking reviews, some in local publications, where the writer admitted to hating the genre he was about to review etc
Opinions have always and will continue to be subjective, a reviewer might like a game immensely, not because it is technically brilliant or carries with it the next practically flawless control system, but because he/she/it likes repetition as an example
This reviewer will then score the game much higher than it would score if reviewed by user X or Y
People need to learn to make decisions on thier own, based not on what a reviewer says or doesn't say or what the average score is on Meta Critic, but based on Gameplay Footage, Bug Reports and Technical Discussion Boards as wellas a healthy dose of Good Old Grey Matter
Yes you will from time to time walk away buying a lemon, something that you were sure would captivate and entertain you like never before, seriously people need to start thinking for themselves again
Too often have I seen people on boards complaining about a specific feature of a game and then stating that their purchase was made after reading a specific review.
Although, if you look in the mirror in the mornings and you see the reflection shows you as being hooved with a white fur like covering all over, and you catch yourself saying BAH a lot, continue putting weight in reviews and making purchases based on what other people tell you you should be playing