Game News Publisher Exploiting An Obsidian Kickstarter

[Mikko Moilanen]

Fuck publishers. It is about the time to get rid of those cretins and leeches. Sadly though they will continue to exist for long because they can use their brand and marketing machine to boost sales of shitty AAA asshole game clones.

 

[Lumpy]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. Publishers can handle cost-overruns whereas developers cannot. Let's wait and see how many of these kickstarter developers fail to deliver on their promised games. I bet you the guys who did donate, to such a failed project, will wish that there was a publisher in the background that would have given the studio the other half of the budget. I mean, if the publisher only has to take half, or less, of the risk wouldn't they be more open to riskier projects, like turn-based RPGs?

Not even that. I'd say that in the traditional publishing model, there are two types of risk - running over-budget, the sort that exists in any business, and failing to capture the interest of the market - more particular to creative industries. Now, Kickstarter pretty much removes the second kind completely - or, rather, shifts it onto the consumers. If the people don't care for old school adventure games, the project won't be funded anyway - and if they lose interest, they'll have already paid for it. So it's only budgeting risk that remains, but that's in no way a restraint on creativity or niche appeal - a turn-based RPG is just as likely to go over-budget as a mainstream FPS. Shifting this risk onto the consumers seems both detrimental and unfair, since they are completely incapable to exercise any sort of oversight - which would mean that a Kickstarter-funded project should be more likely to fail than a publisher-funded one.

 

[l3loodAngel]

1. I bet you the guys who did donate, to such a failed project, 2. will wish that there was a publisher in the background that would have given the studio the other half of the budget. 3. I mean, if the publisher only has to take half, or less, of the risk wouldn't they be more open to riskier projects, like turn-based RPGs?

1. I knew the risks that were involved. It is my fault that I donated, not the developers fault.
2. No I don't. I don't want fucking Bethesda, EA or any other shitty publisher to end up with good IP. I would rather see it burned.
3. That's that's the wet dream of any liberal economist. It's what it should be in theory, when in reality the Publisher will most likely stretch his resources too thin or won't care at all and will just say: fuck it! It's developer's fault.

 

[Lumpy]

Fuck publishers. It is about the time to get rid of those cretins and leeches. Sadly though they will continue to exist for long because they can use their brand and marketing machine to boost sales of shitty AAA asshole game clones.

What have the publishers ever done for us?

To put things into perspective: Looking Glass Studios was publisher-funded. Bethesda is self-funded.

 

[Aeschylus]

It's times like this when you wish 'gaming journalism' actually had some semblance of real journalism... if just to get to the bottom of this story and expose the publisher in question. The butthurt (and ensuing disaster control) would be priceless.

What is this 'Real Journalism' you speak of? I think I heard about that from my grandparents once...

 

[Mikko Moilanen]

It's times like this when you wish 'gaming journalism' actually had some semblance of real journalism... if just to get to the bottom of this story and expose the publisher in question. The butthurt (and ensuing disaster control) would be priceless.

What is this 'Real Journalism' you speak of? I think I heard about that from my grandparents once...

It was something else than licking asses here and there.

Edit: Or trying to photograph Britney Spear's booty and reporting with whom she was last seen and where, lolololol.

 

[Mikko Moilanen]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. Publishers can handle cost-overruns whereas developers cannot. Let's wait and see how many of these kickstarter developers fail to deliver on their promised games. I bet you the guys who did donate, to such a failed project, will wish that there was a publisher in the background that would have given the studio the other half of the budget. I mean, if the publisher only has to take half, or less, of the risk wouldn't they be more open to riskier projects, like turn-based RPGs?

Not even that. I'd say that in the traditional publishing model, there are two types of risk - running over-budget, the sort that exists in any business, and failing to capture the interest of the market - more particular to creative industries. Now, Kickstarter pretty much removes the second kind completely - or, rather, shifts it onto the consumers. If the people don't care for old school adventure games, the project won't be funded anyway - and if they lose interest, they'll have already paid for it. So it's only budgeting risk that remains, but that's in no way a restraint on creativity or niche appeal - a turn-based RPG is just as likely to go over-budget as a mainstream FPS. Shifting this risk onto the consumers seems both detrimental and unfair, since they are completely incapable to exercise any sort of oversight - which would mean that a Kickstarter-funded project should be more likely to fail than a publisher-funded one.

On the other hand if you get 2M in advance from kickstarter and still need more money I am pretty sure you could get more money invested on the project because soon you could sell copies of the game.

What is more likely to be bad with traditional publisher fucker model is that you don't ever get any money and the game only exists in your head because the great publisher plays the god card and says "not interested sorry".

Hence, we get more games and we get games what we would had not got before.


Edit: + there is no freaking publisher-leecher dictating how the game should be. The devs get more freedom, which is a good thing in theory at least.

 

[kris]

Shifting this risk onto the consumers seems both detrimental and unfair, since they are completely incapable to exercise any sort of oversight - which would mean that a Kickstarter-funded project should be more likely to fail than a publisher-funded one.

From what I seen in all the years I followed this business I would claim otherwise on the second point. Publisher-led project are more likely to fail than a kickstarter project from a group like Obsidian. Publishers have shown themselves to not be the best in leading projects and most importantly changes things to often. Of course a dude with no experience saying he will make a game with kickstarter help, now that has a high possibility of failing. And Cleve.

Putting the risk on consumers on the other hand is a bit unfair and is one of the biggest problems with kickstarter. If a few games fail, people will be much more hesitant.

 

[tuluse]

Fuck publishers. It is about the time to get rid of those cretins and leeches. Sadly though they will continue to exist for long because they can use their brand and marketing machine to boost sales of shitty AAA asshole game clones.

What have the publishers ever done for us?

To put things into perspective: Looking Glass Studios was publisher-funded. Bethesda is self-funded.

I honestly don't see the point to traditional publishers in today's world. What do they provide to the system? Capital, marketing, and distribution.

Well Valve broke through their distribution hold in 2004.

Kickstarter has broken their hold on capital (to a degree).

The internet at large has managed to rival their marketing efforts (especially for games with < 10 million dollar marketing budget).

So what is their raison d'etre?

 

[kris]

Paradox is otherwise one of the most interesting actors now. They had to rely on publishers before (but could always pitch their games since they were unique), but after a few games they started selling them directly to customers. Publishers didn't like that, but that didn't stop them. When one of the paradoxians was asked about it he said that they made several times as much money on selling directly themselves.

So why don't more do that? My guess is that you need to reach a critical mass of your own capital first. Paradox also had the benefit of a really small team.

 

[Lumpy]

On the other hand if you get 2M in advance from kickstarter and still need more money I am pretty sure you could get more money invested on the project because soon you could sell copies of the game.

Right - and what do we call a company that invests money in the development of a game and takes a share of the revenues?

Never mind that there's no certainty that you will sell any extra copies at all. Most of the people who would buy the game no matter what have already pledged, and if the game isn't all that great, there may very well be no other interested buyers. So it's quite possible that no publisher will jump in to bail out the project, unless they were committed to it from the start.

What is more likely to be bad with traditional publisher fucker model is that you don't ever get any money and the game only exists in your head because the great publisher plays the god card and says "not interested sorry".

So long as the traditional developer fucker model is to ask "Can I has 20 million dollars for a creative project that hasn't the faintest chance of breaking even?", yes, that's true.

 

[Mikko Moilanen]

On the other hand if you get 2M in advance from kickstarter and still need more money I am pretty sure you could get more money invested on the project because soon you could sell copies of the game.

Right - and what do we call a company that invests money in the development of a game and takes a share of the revenues?

Never mind that there's no certainty that you will sell any extra copies at all. Most of the people who would buy the game no matter what have already pledged, and if the game isn't all that great, there may very well be no other interested buyers. So it's quite possible that no publisher will jump in to bail out the project, unless they were committed to it from the start.

What is more likely to be bad with traditional publisher fucker model is that you don't ever get any money and the game only exists in your head because the great publisher plays the god card and says "not interested sorry".

So long as the traditional developer fucker model is to ask "Can I has 20 million dollars for a creative project that hasn't the faintest chance of breaking even?", yes, that's true.

We can call it a "bank" too, no need for a publisher at that point. The thing is that the world is full of money just waiting to be invested on something profitable. There is no lack of money.

 

[Lumpy]

I honestly don't see the point to traditional publishers in today's world. What do they provide to the system? Capital, marketing, and distribution.

Kickstarter has broken their hold on capital (to a degree).

So what is their raison d'etre?

That's a rather silly question. Indeed, distribution is a lot easier to manage nowadays, but getting capital is as hard as ever. Don't forget that all Kickstarter projects have in common the fact that they are low budget niche games, funded by internet-savvy fans of genres ignored by mainstream publishers. It's absurd to think that you could ever have a Kickstarter funded Call of Duty, Fifa, or any game with a budget over 5 million for that matter.

Never mind how all these projects are ran by famous designers, who may be trustworthy nowadays, but certainly weren't at some point in the past - Schafer wouldn't have become a household name if he didn't spend some time on Lucas Arts' payroll in the first place.

 

[Lumpy]

We can call it a "bank" too, no need for a publisher at that point. The thing is that the world is full of money just waiting to be invested on something profitable. There is no lack of money.

Taking loans with a fixed interest rate when future revenues are highly uncertain sure is a recipe for success!

 

[Mikko Moilanen]

We can call it a "bank" too, no need for a publisher at that point. The thing is that the world is full of money just waiting to be invested on something profitable. There is no lack of money.

Taking loans with a fixed interest rate when future revenues are highly uncertain sure is a recipe for success!

Well, it depends on what kind of deal you negotiate. You could make a deal where you give some % of the profits. That would still be better than what you would had got from a publisher in the first place. And better to remember that you might not need to go on that way at all if your kickstarter funds everything. And if you have made good budget and no stupid things happen you deliver with KS what you promised. Stupid things though happen, but you of course budget them too.


Edit: And if everything else fails you make a "pre-order" campaign xD

 

[tuluse]

I honestly don't see the point to traditional publishers in today's world. What do they provide to the system? Capital, marketing, and distribution.

Kickstarter has broken their hold on capital (to a degree).

So what is their raison d'etre?

That's a rather silly question. Indeed, distribution is a lot easier to manage nowadays, but getting capital is as hard as ever. Don't forget that all Kickstarter projects have in common the fact that they are low budget niche games, funded by internet-savvy fans of genres ignored by mainstream publishers. It's absurd to think that you could ever have a Kickstarter funded Call of Duty, Fifa, or any game with a budget over 5 million for that matter.

Never mind how all these projects are ran by famous designers, who may be trustworthy nowadays, but certainly weren't at some point in the past - Schafer wouldn't have become a household name if he didn't spend some time on Lucas Arts' payroll in the first place.

Ok, so they have two purposes: pay for big projects that are hard to fund otherwise, and fund new developers that can't get fans to pay for their costs because they don't have any.

Really though, I don't find these purposes compelling, and I think there has to be a more efficient way for the system to work.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

So this is an interesting scenario.
I wonder who it was. Really.

 

[Jaesun]

We will never know.

 

[Mikko Moilanen]

I honestly don't see the point to traditional publishers in today's world. What do they provide to the system? Capital, marketing, and distribution.

Kickstarter has broken their hold on capital (to a degree).

So what is their raison d'etre?

That's a rather silly question. Indeed, distribution is a lot easier to manage nowadays, but getting capital is as hard as ever. Don't forget that all Kickstarter projects have in common the fact that they are low budget niche games, funded by internet-savvy fans of genres ignored by mainstream publishers. It's absurd to think that you could ever have a Kickstarter funded Call of Duty, Fifa, or any game with a budget over 5 million for that matter.

Never mind how all these projects are ran by famous designers, who may be trustworthy nowadays, but certainly weren't at some point in the past - Schafer wouldn't have become a household name if he didn't spend some time on Lucas Arts' payroll in the first place.

Ok, so they have two purposes: pay for big projects that are hard to fund otherwise, and fund new developers that can't get fans to pay for their costs because they don't have any.

Really though, I don't find these purposes compelling, and I think there has to be a more efficient way for the system to work.

I just wonder could COD5 or whatever break 10M kickstarter. We have only seen not so mainstream games doing KS. What if big time mainstream sequel does KS? Would we then need publishers only for those games who can't get KS xD And more, would we need those games :D

 

[Lumpy]

Ok, so they have two purposes: pay for big projects that are hard to fund otherwise, and fund new developers that can't get fans to pay for their costs because they don't have any.

Really though, I don't find these purposes compelling, and I think there has to be a more efficient way for the system to work.

How can you not find those purposes compelling?

 

[Aeschylus]

We will never know.

Unless Feargus gets drunk and logs into twitter... :: grabs some scotch and a funnel and drives down to Irvine ::

 

[Stinger]

Fucking disgusting. It doesn't matter who these publishers were because this is just yet another story about the flagrant abuse that goes on in this system and they're all guilty. I hope one day Obsidian and other talented developers can break out from this system and make all their games on their own terms.

But at least we know that many have made a start.

 

[Jaesun]

We will never know.

Unless Feargus gets drunk and logs into twitter... :: grabs some scotch and a funnel and drives down to Irvine ::

 

[tuluse]

Ok, so they have two purposes: pay for big projects that are hard to fund otherwise, and fund new developers that can't get fans to pay for their costs because they don't have any.

Really though, I don't find these purposes compelling, and I think there has to be a more efficient way for the system to work.

How can you not find those purposes compelling?

I didn't explain myself well. I don't see why *only* publishers can accomplish those purposes. Right now the way the system works is that middlemen instead of artists or fans choose what gets made, and middle men get the lionshare of the profits.

There is definitely room for publishers, but not in their current system. There *has* to be a better way. Where fans and artists decide what gets made, and artists are entitled to the sweat of their brow.

In the new world, upcoming devs would work with established devs. Which is the Valve business model. When/if they got fans of their own they could launch a a company of their own, or stay at one that values them and promotes their creativity.

Developer houses would have to build up to the point where they had the capital to do their own big projects.


I understand why publishers exist now, but I don't like it and I see a better way.

 

[Mastermind]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. Publishers can handle cost-overruns whereas developers cannot. Let's wait and see how many of these kickstarter developers fail to deliver on their promised games. I bet you the guys who did donate, to such a failed project, will wish that there was a publisher in the background that would have given the studio the other half of the budget. I mean, if the publisher only has to take half, or less, of the risk wouldn't they be more open to riskier projects, like turn-based RPGs?

Because having a publisher guarantees the game will get the funding needed to finsh it.

*loads up VTM Bloodlines, computer explodes*