Layoffs Hit Obsidian

[zenith16]

Reports: Layoffs Hit Obsidian

News
on Mar 14, 2012 at 03:17 PM
2,819 Views

25
Reports surfaced this morning saying developer Obsidian suffered layoffs upwards of 30 people this week. In addition to staff reductions, the studio also canceled an unannounced next-gen title.
... More

source: GI


Unfortunately not surprised.

Man I really wish they were bought off by bioware. (I still want that suggest/cancelled alpha"omega" protocol) If it just had the right people in charge from the start. ahhhhh well.

 

[Soapy]

Rumor: Obsidian’s Cancelled Project Was For The Next Xbox, Published By Microsoft

Can't wait for the assets to start leaking out.

 

[Harriet Tubman]

So unfortunate. Obsidian gets a bad rap for some of their games, but I really do enjoy their stuff. While Alpha Protocol had reaaaaaly rough gameplay, the RPG elements, story, characters....heck, everything else were good. I enjoyed New Vegas more than F3, and KOTOR 2 had the potential to be better than 1. They really do have the best "idea guys" in the gaming world, but just can't seem to perfect everything else.

 

[Wolfwood]

That's really rough, I hope the best for those guys. I wonder how this will ultimately effect the South Park game. Perhaps it'll be pushed back? Or maybe some things will be cut to make up for the lack of man power on the team.

Just read on Joystiq that Obsidian missed getting royalties on New Vegas because they scored an 84 on Metacritic and not an 85.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/obsidian-missed-fallout-new-vegas-metacritic-bonus-by-one-point/

 

[jacobed]

I believe its been said that the South Park game remains unaffected. The people who were laid off were the ones working on the alleged game that Microsoft canceled.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I read something on Twitter from a game writer/journalist that there was something coming out about publishers purposely sending review copies to, what they expect, to be harsh reviewers.

All in an effort to hit a low mark on metacritic, to avoid paying bonuses.

It sounds...pretty ****ing insidious.

 

[jacobed]

It's stupid, if they'd make an actual good game, they wouldn't have to worry about that

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Eh, I think it's beyond stupid to put so much focus on reviews in and of itself.

I've always found attaching bonuses and incentives to review scores to just be something some cigar chomping suit thought would be "genius".

 

[Soapy]

Placing such importance on review scores is pretty stupid. I don't even think it's debatable that review scores aren't very important. If the next Call of Duty got like a 34 or something on Metacritic, do you think that would impact sales in any appreciable way? Probably not.

 

[Matt]

Obsidian needs to get bought by EA. I know that it is blasphemous to say that the evil empire that is EA needs to buy a developer, but the fact is, Obsidian needs a consistent publisher who backs their developers and gives them both the time and resources they need. EA is just that. How many of Obsidian's games have gotten trashed for being glitchy due to the publisher rushing them (KOTOR 2, Dungeon Siege 3, New Vegas, Alpha Protocol, the list goes on). Basically every review for every Obsidian game is the same. "Great concept, average execution due to the publisher rushing development." EA doesn't do that. They have more than enough money and flagship games to release that they can accept studios delaying games if it means a better end product. Obsidian needs EA.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Placing such importance on review scores is pretty stupid. I don't even think it's debatable that review scores aren't very important. If the next Call of Duty got like a 34 or something on Metacritic, do you think that would impact sales in any appreciable way? Probably not.

Its been proven that gamers are less and less likely to purchase poorly reviewed games. If CoD started to really dip in quality, sales would most definitely slump.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Obsidian needs to get bought by EA. I know that it is blasphemous to say that the evil empire that is EA needs to buy a developer, but the fact is, Obsidian needs a consistent publisher who backs their developers and gives them both the time and resources they need. EA is just that. How many of Obsidian's games have gotten trashed for being glitchy due to the publisher rushing them (KOTOR 2, Dungeon Siege 3, New Vegas, Alpha Protocol, the list goes on). Basically every review for every Obsidian game is the same. "Great concept, average execution due to the publisher rushing development." EA doesn't do that. They have more than enough money and flagship games to release that they can accept studios delaying games if it means a better end product. Obsidian needs EA.

I think that would be a great thing, if it could happen.

 

[Soapy]

If EA bought Obsidian, it would be a matter of days before they were renamed "Bioware Irvine" or something, diluting Bioware even further. No thanks.

What really needs to happen is that a publisher needs to buy them and then completely gut the studio. Take everyone of real value and assign them to other studios who would benefit from their strengths and scatter everyone else to the wind. I think this is something that Bethesda should seriously consider. Of the big RPG studios, they would stand to gain the most from something like that as some of their larger weaknesses happen to Obsidian's strengths.

 

[Matt]

If EA bought Obsidian, it would be a matter of days before they were renamed "Bioware Irvine" or something, diluting Bioware even further. No thanks.

What really needs to happen is that a publisher needs to buy them and then completely gut the studio. Take everyone of real value and assign them to other studios who would benefit from their strengths and scatter everyone else to the wind. I think this is something that Bethesda should seriously consider. Of the big RPG studios, they would stand to gain the most from something like that as some of their larger weaknesses happen to Obsidian's strengths.

Obsidian is the polar opposite of Bethesda. Obsidian excels at telling stories and creating characters which is one of Bethesda's key weaknesses, IMO. But I feel like your suggestion will only result in talented people getting pushed onto projects that they have no connection to. Obsidian as a studio works really well together. They create so many great concepts that would be great games if the team had the support of a major studio. If you give Obsidian a budget from EA and the kind of support EA gives their studios, Obsidian would knock it out of the park. Rather than see the team broken down and split up, I'd like to see what they can do as a cohesive, properly funded unit.

 

[Soapy]

I'm just not convinced that simply throwing more money at them would help them make better games though. I can only see that enabling them to make the same busted games they've always made, except maybe a little prettier.

To me it seems like there's a fundamental kink in the chain that needs to be sorted out somewhere between their greatest assets, the writers and idea men, and the rest of the studio that tries to make it happen.

You know, they would probably be better off if they downsized a little and focused on making smaller games. I honestly think that's the best, smartest way they could go.

 

[Harriet Tubman]

Obsidian with a publisher who respects them would be the best dev team around. Its common knowledge that both Sega and Lucasarts destroyed Alpha Protocol and KOTOR 2 by forcing those games to come out sooner than Obsidian wanted. Rumor has it that Bethesda hurt New Vegas by withholding assets used in patches for F3, so that the GOTY edition of F3 was the better of the two games (excluding DLC). I mean, look at the issues New Vegas had. These bugs were the same exact ones that F3 had, so its shocking that they wouldn't have been polished by the time NV came out, seeing as THEY ALREADY WERE VIA PATCHES.

Lets look at their games post patches. KOTOR 2, while obviously still not finished, is a pretty great game. Alpha Protocol has the best RPG elements in any game of this generation. I'd even say that NwN2 is a more enjoyable experience than 1. They really do make some good games, and I agree with Matt, giving them money would make them a beast in the gaming community. I wouldn't want EA to take them over, but if they did acquire them and put their top guys into 38 Studios, that really would be a great team.

Either way, any gamer who says "oh well" to this situation is moronic. This should show everyone why Metacritic is an evil group as far as gaming is concerned. This isn't the first time a developer has had layoffs (or even closed down) due to Metacritic reviews. Giving numbers to reviews is just a silly thing anyways, but thats another argument. That said, Obsidian's contract with Bethesda for NV is a horrible contract, and they really should/could have done a better job at getting a better deal. At the end of the day, you really can only blame them for that contract.

 

[zenith16]

hmmm ok reading all of this I'm in agreement with both matt and Harriet. this way obsidian get's to keep their name and finally have the time to finish their work and possibly get out of the long rut they been in. looking at how well thing's are working out for 38 Studios it only makes sense. I know I was saying bought out by Bioware, and in away that was cause their almost very similar in their work minus ones more successful and one had better leaders at the helm of the company's. I was also of the thought they still be able to keep their name. butt with EA this even more likely to happen. so I'd be all for it if it were to happen. though I suggest they keep a strict eye on those dev leads that helped screw up those projects if their still at obsidian. the publisher may have rushed them but the leads of the project of Alpha protocol was just as much to blame as was found out. and they need to tell them they'll let them know when the damn games ready to be put out and be afraid to tell them the truth when it's not ready. but seriously obsidian most good with idea's more then they are with games development , the need to be bought by some one that can flesh out the latter with games while they stick with the idea's area of gaming.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

Obsidian with a publisher who respects them would be the best dev team around. Its common knowledge that both Sega and Lucasarts destroyed Alpha Protocol and KOTOR 2 by forcing those games to come out sooner than Obsidian wanted. Rumor has it that Bethesda hurt New Vegas by withholding assets used in patches for F3, so that the GOTY edition of F3 was the better of the two games (excluding DLC). I mean, look at the issues New Vegas had. These bugs were the same exact ones that F3 had, so its shocking that they wouldn't have been polished by the time NV came out, seeing as THEY ALREADY WERE VIA PATCHES.

Lets look at their games post patches. KOTOR 2, while obviously still not finished, is a pretty great game. Alpha Protocol has the best RPG elements in any game of this generation. I'd even say that NwN2 is a more enjoyable experience than 1. They really do make some good games, and I agree with Matt, giving them money would make them a beast in the gaming community. I wouldn't want EA to take them over, but if they did acquire them and put their top guys into 38 Studios, that really would be a great team.

Either way, any gamer who says "oh well" to this situation is moronic. This should show everyone why Metacritic is an evil group as far as gaming is concerned. This isn't the first time a developer has had layoffs (or even closed down) due to Metacritic reviews. Giving numbers to reviews is just a silly thing anyways, but thats another argument. That said, Obsidian's contract with Bethesda for NV is a horrible contract, and they really should/could have done a better job at getting a better deal. At the end of the day, you really can only blame them for that contract.

I tend to agree with Soapy on this one.They're good at writing, which is great if they're a book publisher or something like that, but games...

And what you said about the Bethesda rumor...i wouldn't put much stock in that. A lot of the problem with NV weren't even present on FO3...for example tons of bugs caused by their revised karma/ reputation system and of course the weapon mods. As you know these things weren't even present on FO 3. And there's more, like having a very poor Spawning points,lack of enemies to fight etc. Like i said, they're GREAT at writing storylines and creating characters, but on other areas...not so great.

As far as bad contracts because of the bonus clause, i might be wrong but i thought that kind of contract is common. Like for example if you run a restaurant, and you tell your manager he'll be eligible for bonus if a certain quota is met.

But getting back on topic...i'd do what Soapy had said earlier.

To me it seems like there's a fundamental kink in the chain that needs to be sorted out somewhere between their greatest assets, the writers and idea men, and the rest of the studio that tries to make it happen.

You know, they would probably be better off if they downsized a little and focused on making smaller games. I honestly think that's the best, smartest way they could go.

 

[zenith16]

or have someone that knows how to organize and delegate better to what should be different departments on the latter part of your posted qoute paladin.

 

[zenith16]

Invisible Walls


Episode 202 - We kick off the new show with in-depth Mass Effect 3, a disc-free Xbox, Amazing...

​

Posted 13 hours ago

why is this here it's cause obsidian talked about here and some of the stuff we've been saying is also mentioned. for example somebody(Dev lead wise) at obsidian has has no head for Business and they get them selves in their own trouble another reason they should be bought so they consintrait on what their good at. Business isn't it.

 

[Wolfwood]

Everyone made some excellent points here. I tend to agree, though, that throwing money at them may not be the best solution. There's no doubt that they have some serious talent working at the studio. Despite the flaws prevalent in many of their games, I still find them to be entirely enjoyable. I think if you gave them tons of money and an extended development time, though, some of those flaws would still follow them. There's just something or someone that isn't working at that studio.

A bigger studio needs to buy them up and sort out their management issues, cause ultimately the flaws in their games are the result of someone hire up giving it a pass. And while there may have been extenuating circumstances for why their games had flaws, someone in the studio should have made better decisions with regards to how to adjust the game to meet those circumstances.

 

[Harriet Tubman]

And what you said about the Bethesda rumor...i wouldn't put much stock in that. A lot of the problem with NV weren't even present on FO3...for example tons of bugs caused by their revised karma/ reputation system and of course the weapon mods. As you know these things weren't even present on FO 3. And there's more, like having a very poor Spawning points,lack of enemies to fight etc. Like i said, they're GREAT at writing storylines and creating characters, but on other areas...not so great.

Slow framerate, crashing, freezing? These were things that weren't present in FO3 at launch? Man, I'd LOVE to have played the version you played.

As far as bad contracts because of the bonus clause, i might be wrong but i thought that kind of contract is common. Like for example if you run a restaurant, and you tell your manager he'll be eligible for bonus if a certain quota is met.

A young development team, sure. Obsidian has been around for 10 years (and when taking into account the fact that Obsidian was initially just BI guys, they have been around for closer to 20 years). Developers like that don't get crappy contracts due to Metacritic reviews. If we were talking sales, I'd agree, but we aren't. We are talking review scores.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

Slow framerate, crashing, freezing? These were things that weren't present in FO3 at launch? Man, I'd LOVE to have played the version you played.



A young development team, sure. Obsidian has been around for 10 years (and when taking into account the fact that Obsidian was initially just BI guys, they have been around for closer to 20 years). Developers like that don't get crappy contracts due to Metacritic reviews. If we were talking sales, I'd agree, but we aren't. We are talking review scores.

Well, guess what, those issues are also present on Skyrim. Which you can expect with a game this size, which is understandable if you understand the many things that have to be loaded on any given cell etc. Most people expected that. I played FO3 on the XBOX and rarely has those issues.

What i'm trying to say on my earlier post is that the things that may have prevented F:NV to get the GOTY were the bugs that exclusively NV. Things like their revised karma/ rep system , which if it bugged, affects certain NPCs which then in turn affects quests, which then broke those quests for example. FO3 also has bugged quests, but not to the extent of NV because of ...the example i stated .

Then there is also their revised armor ratings, revised weapons damage, companion systems etc. These were all Obsidian idea. And not to mention the bonehead idea of actually ending the game. Have they not learned from the fans outcry before the broken steel DLC? as a matter of fact, the VERY FIRST mod for NV was the one that allows you to keep playing AFTER the main quest. That should be an indicator of what the fans really wants.

Let's also not forget one of the major complaint about NV ( aside from ending the game)...which is the lacks of enemies. There you are with your heavily modded guns and armors...and there's NO ONE to shoot! it reminds me of the old saying about plays or movies...if you introduced a gun on the 2nd act, you better make sure somebody get shot on the 3rd act! This one fact really took out the fun from the game IMO. So, in my opinion all these things that ultimately caused them not to win the GOTY ( i didn't even know they didn't until you mentioend it btw)

Believe it or not, people can get over frame rate issues and occasional crashing/freezing as long as they can reboot and continue playing, but if there is a broken quest,forked weapons etc that can't be fixed with rebooting your console...well... and those framerate issues etc are also present in MANY other games and not exclusively Bethesda.

As far as their contract with beth,i still say is normal for Beth to have anybody working for them,regardless of experience, to have the same standards as them. be it in terms of sale or critics.Nobody holding a gun to Obsidian head and force them to sign. They obviously thought they can met those standards and they failed, so...

Ps. I may sounded like i hate FO:NV, but i really didn't. i freakin' LOVE the game!

 

[Harriet Tubman]

Well, guess what, those issues are also present on Skyrim.

I have never had any issues with framerate drops/freezing/crashing with Skyrim on my PC, and even if I did, its the first game to come out using the new engine, which would be more acceptable than NV with those issues. I know there were issues on consoles, which just goes to show that 8 year old consoles are starting to limit what developers can do.

What i'm trying to say on my earlier post is that the things that may have prevented F:NV to get the GOTY

Plenty of organizations gave NV their GOTY award. Heck, I could make a new site right now and say that NV was my GOTY of 2010. Until there is a legitimate organization that votes on gaming, anyone can do this, allowing developers/publishers to slap a GOTY sticker on their cover of an "updated" release.

Let's also not forget one of the major complaint about NV ( aside from ending the game)...which is the lacks of enemies. There you are with your heavily modded guns and armors...and there's NO ONE to shoot! it reminds me of the old saying about plays or movies...if you introduced a gun on the 2nd act, you better make sure somebody get shot on the 3rd act! This one fact really took out the fun from the game IMO. So, in my opinion all these things that ultimately caused them not to win the GOTY ( i didn't even know they didn't until you mentioend it btw)

That is such a silly excuse. Obsidian was very adamant pre release that if you stick on the roads, you won't be attacked. Its a genius idea that allows low level players to continue the story without getting dominated. FO3 was horrible in this regard, throwing super mutant after super mutant your way when you were trying to get to the other side of DC. Bethesda chose to have a more action oriented game, whereas Obsidian chose to make more of a true RPG and highlight the story elements. Neither way is "wrong".

As far as their contract with beth,i still say is normal for Beth to have anybody working for them,regardless of experience, to have the same standards as them. be it in terms of sale or critics.Nobody holding a gun to Obsidian head and force them to sign. They obviously thought they can met those standards and they failed, so...

Sorry, but if you don't see why that contract is atrocious, then I really don't know what to say. Obsidian should have worked for a better deal with Bethesda. Its a slap in the face compared to other contracts out there for veterans of the community like Obsidian. Metacritic is really starting to hurt the industry.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

have never had any issues with framerate drops/freezing/crashing with Skyrim on my PC, and even if I did, its the first game to come out using the new engine, which would be more acceptable than NV with those issues. I know there were issues on consoles, which just goes to show that 8 year old consoles are starting to limit what developers can do.

I play FO3 and NV...and Skyrim on PC too, and i know that there are framerate/freeze issues with Skyrim. Just read the forums on nexus and bethsoft. And if you remember the last two patches were specifically there to adress these issues.To be more specific, the are around dragonsreach and the mountainous regions if i remember correctly.

That is such a silly excuse. Obsidian was very adamant pre release that if you stick on the roads, you won't be attacked. Its a genius idea that allows low level players to continue the story without getting dominated. FO3 was horrible in this regard, throwing super mutant after super mutant your way when you were trying to get to the other side of DC. Bethesda chose to have a more action oriented game, whereas Obsidian chose to make more of a true RPG and highlight the story elements. Neither way is "wrong".

It doesn't really matter that Obsidian planned this pre-release. Ultimately...people wants things to shoot. that's why you leveled up your character, why you try so hard to get the weapons upgrades..it's nice to have all this great storylines, but if that's all you want, you'd do better to just read a book. The lack of enemies means lack of combat, means lack of replayabilty.You said you play on the PC...then you must know that quite a few of the most popular mods are the ones that...guess what...adds more to the combat options ( more enemies, more spawning points)

Heck, even on PC skyrim, these are the most popular mods! regardless of what we personally thought or personal prefferences, the masses has spoken...they want more things to shoot,kill, maim on top of the storylines.

Sorry, but if you don't see why that contract is atrocious, then I really don't know what to say. Obsidian should have worked for a better deal with Bethesda. Its a slap in the face compared to other contracts out there for veterans of the community like Obsidian. Metacritic is really starting to hurt the industry.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter. i think. I see that kind of contract everywhere so i regard that as 'normal'...