Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Interview Feargus Urquhart and Fredrik Wester on the Pillars of Eternity distribution deal

Spectacle

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
8,363
Why not just take the announcement at face value for once:
  • Obsidian wants the partnership because they think that with Paradox marketing and distribution help they can sell significantly more copies of the game, more than enough to make up for the percentage paid to Paradox.
  • Paradox wants the partnership because they think the game will sell enough that their percentage will cover their marketing and distribution costs, and then some.
  • Extra QA resources helps everyone since the game will be better and sell more. This is important for an Obsidian game, since even a single bug will make the gaming press call it "the buggiest game since SimAnt".

There, perfectly plausible motivations for all parties involved that do not involve anyone running out of money, lying to backers, dumbing down or any other kind of shady business.
 

Bilgefar

Savant
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
184
I don't know how many times I need to explain the economics here. Maybe this is why the PR is so effective -- people, especially fanboys, just don't understand the math. Infinitron responded to my last post on this topic with an irrelevant opportunity-cost analogy that got brofisted to all shit, so I must not be a good educator.

Taking on another studio's costs is a form of investment. Paradox is losing money from this, in the present. Obsidian is reducing costs on this project, and hence its remaining cash will last longer. This is fundamentally the same as writing a cheque to Obsidian (in exchange for a cut of future profits).

Let's assume you pay rent every month. $400/mo = 12*$400 = $4800/yr. Now if somebody offered you $4800 in cash, that's one thing. In this case, Paradox offered to make your rent $0/mo. Because they are paying the rent for you. You have $4800 more in your pocket, and they are -$4800 in the hole.

It's a flawed analogy, because Obsidian is getting more from the deal than just the cost of the marketing and QA (the rent money). Since Obsidian has much less expertise in marketing and QA, Paradox's marketing and QA is valued higher than Obsidian's (ie you get better marketing and QA for the same amount of money, or the same amount/quality of marketing and QA for less money).

So sure, maybe it's possible that Obsidian looked at their budget and saw that they would be $4800 in the red from paying their own rent, so they made a deal to not have to pay their rent. Or maybe, they had the $4800, but realized that Paradox was paying the same amount for rent for a much nicer place. So they made a mutually beneficial agreement where they would stay in Paradox's place for free and invest that $4800, giving Paradox a slice of the extra profit. (this analogy isn't perfect either, because the situation isn't really like paying rent at all, but it's better than yours).
 

bledcarrot

Educated
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
98
That's actually wrong- Obsidian has decided to do its own Q&A in-house and with the Beta for PoE, the Q&A done by Paradox is almost solely when it comes to localizations.

PR companies love words like "almost" and "mostly" for a good reason.

"If we don't think Pillars of Eternity is up to standard, we're going to tell these guys. And we're opinionated people, we're going to come back with tons of opinions. We have a QA team of eighteen people who're going to play the game for weeks and weeks and give their feedback."

I'm 'almost' willing to bet my life that Wester wasn't just talking about localisation.
 

dukeofwhales

Cipher
Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
423
The thing with this argument, is that when you think about it, based on the statements given by both parties, suejak has to be correct. Since:

  • QA and fulfilment is work that must be done anyway, by either Obsidian or a 3rd party.
  • If Obsidian were working alone, these costs would have had to have come out of the Kickstarter, or out of Early Access/additional stretch goals/whatever
  • But Paradox isn't being paid by Obsidian to do QA and fulfilment, because if they were they wouldn't receive a profit share, and wouldn't be in the red if the game doesn't succeed, so they're obviously investing their time and talent (and possibly fronting the costs of physical rewards, who knows)
  • And "all KS money is still going to development of the game" (according to Obsidian), but now there are lower costs (with no QA/fulfillment)
  • Paradox's involvement has effectively increased the budget for the game even though they haven't handed over a chunk of cash.

So from there the only things to debate are:
  • Did Obsidian run out of money, or did they decide they wanted extra staff to add better content (you could argue this is the same thing, but it's a budgeting/management vs quality thing I think)
  • Do Paradox have any influence on game content. Obsidian says they don't.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2013
Messages
1,258
Too much meaningless whining and over-analyzing ITT.

Obsidian is a game development studio.
Obsidian makes games.
They deal with publishers who handle everything else.
Publishers take the lion's share and control rights.

Obsidian is still a game development studio.
Obsidian makes another game.
Obsidian wants to keep the lion's share and the rights on this game.
Therefore, Obsidian doesn't deal with a publisher this time.
Obsidian still needs everything else handled.
Obsidian hires a third party to get everything else handled, at their own terms.

Take your spergin' to a place where it is valid.
 

suejak

Arbiter
Patron
Village Idiot
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
1,394
Why not just take the announcement at face value for once:
  • Obsidian wants the partnership because they think that with Paradox marketing and distribution help they can sell significantly more copies of the game, more than enough to make up for the percentage paid to Paradox.
  • Paradox wants the partnership because they think the game will sell enough that their percentage will cover their marketing and distribution costs, and then some.
  • Extra QA resources helps everyone since the game will be better and sell more. This is important for an Obsidian game, since even a single bug will make the gaming press call it "the buggiest game since SimAnt".

There, perfectly plausible motivations for all parties involved that do not involve anyone running out of money, lying to backers, dumbing down or any other kind of shady business.
Why would Paradox marketing and distribution sell more copies?

Obsidian "ran out of money" by any normal Codex definition, and they lied to backers by taking on a publisher and insisting "they are not funding the project in any way." Does any of this matter? Honestly, I don't think so, but Codex is too dumb and blind to get upset at their favourite developer.

It's a flawed analogy, because Obsidian is getting more from the deal than just the cost of the marketing and QA (the rent money).
The analogy was intended to help Infinitron, Roguey, and other nubs understand the concept of cost-reduction = budget-expansion. It wasn't intended to perfectly summarize the particular nature of this issue.

In any case, your example still involves investment and a debt to Paradox with the expectation of repayment later. They're like shareholders/investors now, and is anybody saying that shareholders/investors don't have opinions on product development?
 

Korron

Cipher
Patron
Joined
Apr 27, 2013
Messages
288
Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Nah it's cool guys. The paradox deal is all about obsidian estimating they'll make more $$$ that way, not about design changes. If obsidian screws up it'll be because Feargus wants to make $$$ (e.g.world of tanks clone), and incorporates his Muzyka-ess change of heart into the design of PE. $10 for that healing potion y'all..... Seriously though give me an old-school box or I'll shit on your doorstep Obsidian.
 

Hormalakh

Magister
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
1,503
from the things i read, this is more a push from Brandon Adler than Urquhart - i think both parties are sort-of right. brandon was shitting his pants thinking that customer service and other things cost obsidian way too much money to implement (costs of overhead) whereas there are other companies who already do this.

i would argue that ultimately they didn't think it was cost-effective to do it themselves with the costs involved. they partnered with paradox to help them with this. building the structure that paradox has, takes too much time and money and doing this for just one game (as opposed to making many games from their own IP) doesn't sound fiscally responsible.

the one issue i do have with all the whining is that using the word "publisher" just has this weird ass stigma associated with it as if a single word explains both a companies mission as well as their values. stop it with the "publishers are ALL EVIL because they are publishers." certain publishers are evil, yes. blah blah blah. but there are some developers who are just as shitty, IMO in their evilness.
 

agris

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
6,762
Taking on another studio's costs is a form of investment. Paradox is losing money from this, in the present. Obsidian is reducing costs on this project, and hence its remaining cash will last longer. This is fundamentally the same as writing a cheque to Obsidian (in exchange for a cut of future profits).
Fact.

Let's assume you pay rent every month. $400/mo = 12*$400 = $4800/yr. Now if somebody offered you $4800 in cash, that's one thing. In this case, Paradox offered to make your rent $0/mo. Because they are paying the rent for you. You have $4800 more in your pocket, and they are -$4800 in the hole.
Fact.

In any case, your example still involves investment and a debt to Paradox with the expectation of repayment later. They're like shareholders/investors now, and is anybody saying that shareholders/investors don't have opinions on product development?
Fact.

But what you're missing is that Obsidian isn't contractually obligated to listen to that opinion.

Brandon Adler said:
Obsidian is still controlling how this content is released. Our partnership with Paradox doesn't change that.
Brandon Adler said:
Paradox will not have any direct control over any aspect of Eternity's development. They have some smart dudes over there and we have asked for their feedback on some of the areas of the game. Just because they suggest something doesn't mean that we have to implement it, but we would definitely talk about it internally. Same as if we saw good backer suggestions.

It's like being a minority share-holder, using your analogy. And we don't know if these shares are transferable. But Paradox doesn't have the leverage of cash trickling in to force OE to do anything, based on Adler's statements. Rather it appears that Paradox are betting on PoE being successful. It's closer to a hedge, really, with the sunk cost of marketing and distribution (if you want to be pedantic about it, and it's pretty clear you do). Obsidian absolutely wants to defer costs and operate efficiently (which doesn't include publishing company-like personnel levels working in PR, marketing, distribution logistics, etc).

Brandon Adler said:
Well, if we took on all of the publisher responsibilities then we would become a publisher. That isn't something that Obsidian wants to do. We want to make games, not worry about warehouses, distribution channels, and packaging.

I'm just not sure what your point is suejak, are you trying to educate people that deferred/mitigated cost is equivalent to investment? Ok, that's true. Are you trying to say that Paradox is going to have an undue influence on development, more so than well-reasoned and articulate backer (or even non-backer) feedback? Certainly they will have a direct line to Obsidian's ears, but it doesn't appear there's any legal mechanism to make OE listen to them. The studio is retaining creative control, and Paradox has no cash leverage- Paradox is betting on PoE's success, and they obviously think it'll be successful.


source: my eyes
 
Last edited:

suejak

Arbiter
Patron
Village Idiot
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
1,394
Yes, Obsidian has said that Paradox has no legal control over content. If you're satisfied with that claim, I can't convince you otherwise.

My goal was to point out double-standards and PR BS. People's sudden allergy to "they ran out of money" claims and buying Josh Sawyer's line about Paradox "not funding the game" were my only problems. This is a stellar example of a risky business move made publicly palatable by solid obfuscatory PR.
 

BobtheTree

Savant
Joined
Nov 22, 2011
Messages
389
This partnership is unacceptable. I want my backer envelope personally licked and sealed by MCA, Cain and Sawyer.
 

Monty

Arcane
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
1,582
Location
Grognardia
So... Obsidian doesn't have it's own QA team?
They do:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65...rtnership-faq-for-backers/page-8#entry1431638

QA responsibilities will be split between both companies. Obsidian has a dedicated QA lead for the project and will be hiring some additional QA in the coming months. Paradox will also be providing a slew of testers for the game.

We are running the QA process on our side (including full control over the issue database). The main changes are that Paradox will handle the QA for things like localization and compatibility testing - things that Obsidian would have to outsource anyways.

We are used to working with testing groups from around the world, so I don't expect that there will be many extra inefficiencies. Although, time delays always cause some inefficiencies.

So the 'localisation and compatibility testing' was going to be outsourced anyway, but now Obsidian don't have to pay for it upfront and Paradox gets a share of revenues instead.
 

Destroid

Arcane
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
16,628
Location
Australia
Ah, sounds like they only have one permanent QA lead and contract testers on a per project basis.
 

bledcarrot

Educated
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
98
not sure if this has been posted somehwere. there are like 5 threads on this shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fignwDZy-SI&feature=youtu.be&t=2m18s

7V0acnq.gif
 

Grell4

Novice
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
7
Location
Australia
Disappointing news, I despise what Paradox has become:

Steam only, Nickle and diming DLC which offer no depth only gimmicky breadth unlike their old expansions which would actually improve the core game. Paradox devs are the biggest trolls on their forum and the place is pretty much a cesspit. Stockholm syndrome fanboys spamming the 'shutup and take my money' meme. Constant unembrassed posts like "yeah the dlc sucks I am not going to play it I just want to give PI my money'. Somehow PI has managed to con the imbeciles into thinking they are a hipster indie dev yet the still pull out EA like money grubbing maneavours.... how much would CK2 cost now with all the DLC? $200? and France and Germany still are completely untouched by any of these.

Moreover PI has absolute rubbish QA, every post release patch and DLC of EU4 has made the game considerably worse and is riddled with obvious and glaring bugs. And since when have PI been some great marketing gurus?? Never, that ugly red indian ad popup for CoP makes we want to punch the screen.
 

suejak

Arbiter
Patron
Village Idiot
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
1,394
Ugh, dumb post. Sons of Abraham was 100% a depth-focused expansion (DLC); the Paradox forums are full of fucking historians, a stark contrast to this place (a true cesspool); the entire CK2 package is currently on sale for something like $30-50; Catholicism was given extra depth exactly one expansion ago, including (usually French or German) antipopes AND antikings, not to mention the Old Gods expansion that introduced Karlings and Pagans into France in one of the most overpowered starts in the game (Nantes); and while the bugs are inexcusable, virtually every complex game in history has had bugs (look at Obsidian, Troika, and Black Isle games), as the only guaranteed ways of squashing them are lots and lots of QA testing or keeping a narrow and "cinematic" critical path.
 

Grell4

Novice
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
7
Location
Australia
SoA is ridiculously shallow for a so-called depth expansion, the Paradox forums are also full of fucking apologist fanboys, the entire CK2 package is NOT on sale anywhere for $30-50 .. care to link this? Oh yeah you cant you pulled it out of your arse. Catholicsm has always been dull and shallow if not buggy, SoA didnt do much to raise it out of tedium.

I guess there are apologist fanboys with cognative dissonance here too. Your point is some other games have had bugs too so Paradox gets a free pass?

"QA testing and a narrow and 'cinematic' critical path"...

"'cinematic' critical path" ... and you have the gall to call my post dumb

Ugh, dumb post. Sons of Abraham was 100% a depth-focused expansion (DLC); the Paradox forums are full of fucking historians, a stark contrast to this place (a true cesspool); the entire CK2 package is currently on sale for something like $30-50; Catholicism was given extra depth exactly one expansion ago, including (usually French or German) antipopes AND antikings, not to mention the Old Gods expansion that introduced Karlings and Pagans into France in one of the most overpowered starts in the game (Nantes); and while the bugs are inexcusable, virtually every complex game in history has had bugs (look at Obsidian, Troika, and Black Isle games), as the only guaranteed ways of squashing them are lots and lots of QA testing or keeping a narrow and "cinematic" critical path.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
Their forums are not full of fucking historians. Historians seldom fuck.

But seriously, they are a big company nowadays, and their forums show the full spectrum, from knowledgeable and smart people, to retarded fanboys, and everything between.

I hate their current DLC policy, though it didn't affect HoI3 too badly. I hate that they are now Steam exclusive, and don't give me that "you just need Steam to install the game, you can then move the game elsewhere and uninstall Steam"-crap.

But but, apparently PoE will still come through GoG or some other non-Steam service, at least for backers, so I'm content with that. If they go do Steam exclusive in the future, fuck it, not going to get any more of my money.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom