Obsidian CEO: publishers wanted to do Kickstarters with us
Part of the lure of Kickstarter for developers is that they're free from the demands of publishers, able to make whatever they want, however they want, for as long as they want, and own everything they do. Publishers, unsurprisingly, may want in on this crowd-funding lark. Obsidian Entertainment, now riding high on its own smash-hit Kickstarter, has said that several publishers had approached Obsidian to front a campaign then join up with them to publish it.
Part of the lure of Kickstarter for developers is that they're free from the demands of publishers, able to make whatever they want, however they want, for as long as they want, and own it all. Publishers, unsurprisingly, may want in on this crowd-funding lark. Obsidian Entertainment, now riding high on its own smash-hit Kickstarter Project Eternity, has said that several publishers had approached Obsidian to front a campaign then join up with them to publish it.
In the comments (via Atomic MPC) for the Project Eternity Kickstarter, CEO Feargus Urquhart wrote last night:
"We were actually contacted by some publishers over the last few months that wanted to use us to do a Kickstarter. I said to them 'So, you want us to do a Kickstarter for, using our name, we then get the Kickstarter money to make the game, you then publish the game, but we then don't get to keep the brand we make and we only get a portion of the profits.' They said, 'Yes'."
He later clarified that the idea was not quite as insidious or daft as it may first seem:
I think they were trying, honestly, to be able to do something with us and they felt that was the easiest way to do it. They would then not need to go get budget approved and deal with the challenge of that. What I don't think they did was to think about our side of it and what they were really asking.
Perhaps there is some merit to a hybrid model. Publishers are far better equipped to handle QA and localisation than most developers, and are tapped into retail. Even the mighty Valve distributes the retail versions of its games through EA Partners. Not to mention that, though publishers are supposedly evil shapeshifting lizards sent from the centre of the Earth to destroy fun, having someone external watch over a game to keep it on track can be invaluable.
Of course, publishers would need to realise that they were there to help the developer--not the other way around--and ease up on silly things like wanting to own the intellectual property.
Anyway, Obsidian. The Project Eternity campaign is still roaring away, hitting the $1.6 million stretch goal to fund a Mac edition and expand the campaign. Pledging at least $25 will get you a digital copy of the old-school RPG when it's finished.
-
Shacknews
replyAlice O'Connor posted a new article, Obsidian CEO: publishers wanted to do Kickstarters with us.
Part of the lure of Kickstarter for developers is that they're free from the demands of publishers, able to make whatever they want, however they want, for as long as they want, and own everything they do. Publishers, unsurprisingly, may want in on this crowd-funding lark. Obsidian Entertainment, now riding high on its own smash-hit Kickstarter, has said that several publishers had approached Obsidian to front a campaign then join up with them to publish it.-
Ugh, fuck that shit. I hope that kickstarter won't allow any big publishers to get on the site.
-
On a side note, Obsidian said that Project Eternity would be DRM free and available on GOG.
-
A cynical reader might take these CEO comments as an embellishment to boost Obsidian's profile while they have an active kickstarter and accuse a company of playing Kickstarter project contributors like a fiddle. Or maybe it was just an innocent and honest response to a contributor's question. I dunno.
-
If publishers can't justify funding for projects that aren't 100% guaranteed hits, that's their problem to mitigate risk and cultivate new IP. Turning to Kickstarter to do an end-around on approvals illustrates how broken and bloated the legacy megapublishers are, and how their risk-averseness has been stifling the variety of the titles they publish. They should be punished for this, and I think that Urquhart calling them out on this is a fair maneuver.
-
-
It has questionable ethics; the publisher wants most of the profits, despite providing no services beyond distribution and maybe testing. They're trying to get paid as much as possible to provide a service that makes them look like the hero, while performing as little actual work as possible, and then they want to own first right of refusal on the IP. There's nothing modern about this; it's classic shameless commerce.
-
-
Problem is, the unnamed publisher in Urquhart's dialogue DID feel that they deserved the majority of the project's revenue, despite having far less financial risk due to the Kickstarter funding. They're looking for a free lunch, and are trying to sucker developers into what is ultimately a scam.
-
-
-
The whole premise of Kickstarter is to allow individuals or companies the chance to produce something they were unable to do without assistance. Developers need kickstarter because of the way the publishers interact with the studios, approval process, and funding.
The publishers could easily start a new studio or fund a game on any topic they wish. That is why they shouldn't be on Kickstarter. They are going to dilute and confuse what kickstarter is supposed to be about. It might turn in to a glorified marketing tool like facebook. -
They would be punished for being too greedy and not making it more fair and interesting for the developer. Some of these guys seem so used to their old/current positions of power... they don't even realize the offer they are making is complete shit. For that they should be punished by loosing out on great games like this one with an already proven fan base.
-
-
-
-
It's that way in the old model because publishers want to own the IP and be able to turn them into franchises, even if it means ripping a project away from a developer and shuffling it off to another one when they're not happy with its progress. It's rare that these publishers would let a developer retain IP ownership without a convoluted contract; the Activision - Bungie publishing contract that was disclosed via legal discovery is an example of this. I don't think EA is even interested in their "EA Partners" program, as Crytek seems to be the only remaining customer.
Kickstarter and online distribution like Steam, GOG, and Sony's relatively open approach with PSN has traditional publishers afraid of industry irrelevance.
-
-
damn that's sketchy. hope if any developer is greedy enough to play both sides they get a nice crowdsourced lawsuit.
-
I hope Obsidian just laughed in their face at that proposal
-
I understand there are differances between video games & books, but there are corolations.
Seth Godin did a kickstarter campaign earlier this year for his new book: http://kck.st/KvkY4h
at one point he made this announcement: Icarus publisher announced...
"Good News! Penguin/Porftolio, the company that published all of my traditional books from Purple Cow up to Linchpin, has signed on to be the publisher of The Icarus Project.
"Thanks to the success you guys have brought to this project, the announcement is being featured in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal, as it represents a significant shift in the power of publishing. To quote the Journal, "...could well become an industry template because it eliminates much of the uncertainty for booksellers and publishers deciding which titles to bet on.""
Well worth the read, both for his post & the conversation in the comments:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/297519465/the-icarus-deception-why-make-art-new-from-seth-go/posts/253569
Here is some of Seth's explanation from the comment:
Publishing is not printing, they're very different. Printing is easy, anyone can do it. Publishing is the act of taking a significant financial risk to bring an idea to the world, particularly strangers.
Publishers and bookstores take risks all the time. The problem is, as their business struggles, is that they don't know where to take those risks, and tend to default to TV shows and proven sequels, certainly nothing that feels really risky.
Was there going to be a problem with me finding someone who would 'publish' my book the old way without Kickstarter? Of course not. But to get bookstores to carry it in real bulk, to get the publisher to put his imprint on the line--how to motivate that and turn their enthusiasm into a self-fulfilling prophecy?
I am not a defender of publishers, but I suspect that it's a little more complex then presented. -
[deleted]
-
How would Kickstarter have any say in this? Don't they just hold the funds and disburse them once your goal is met and time is up?
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
They don't hold any funds. No one is charged until the project is over if it is successful. You could potentially see a project that meets its goal days before it's over but then people withdraw or reduce their donation and it doesn't get funded.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
In Obsidian's case I wouldn't expect that. And if they did I'm pretty sure it would be for something like retail distribution of the game only; no say in the creative process.
As for other projects... I would contact Kickstarter with a complaint requesting that the charge be reversed. If enough people raise a stink about a bait-and-switch like that, I'd imagine we could get something done. -
[deleted]
-
-
-
Devil advocate argument: What if a publisher using Kickstarter is the only way you'll ever see a certain game.
For example, as of now, we'll probably never see a Mirror's Edge 2. But would you support a publisher-initiated Kickstarter for it, just to show that there is a market for it?
-
-
PC Gamer totally called this few months ago:
http://chattypics.com/files/kickstarter_z9z5snmj66.jpg -
There has been at least one game on Kickstarter that there intent was to use kickstarter funds to attract a publisher. That was the TAKEDOWN crowd sourced tactical shooter.
-
I think all these Kickstarter successes are going to be very good for the developers and the industry in general. Now that this a proven way to approach game funding, developers have an option. Publishers need to get off their asses and actually work to support developers and treat them well... otherwise more and more developers will look into alternatives like this. Kickstarter is basically competition for Publishers... and competition is a good thing, it breeds improvement. If they are smart, Publishers should be able to find ways to adapt and survive in this system... otherwise they could end up going the way of Record Companies in the music industry... which didn't go so well for them. If they are too greedy... they could go down hard.
-
-
-
-
If you have a game ready to launch it shouldn't be difficult to negotiate a contract with an existing publisher, there's no reason they need to be involved from day 1.
The middle man is an anachronism, his days are numbered.-
over broad statements like this don't help.
In some cases publishers (traditional, or how the position evolves) will be involved from day one, either as a internal member of the team, or external.
The idea that all middle men are dying off is also missing what a middle man is. Is steam a middle man? Is Apple? Is Walmart? Best Buy? Gamestop?
What about an outside marketing agency that just helps get the game creator & potential consumers together ... would they be middle men or not? I think the answer is it depends & stating one way or another will be wrong in some cases.-
A traditional publisher is more like a senior partner & investor than a middle man, though they do fulfill those duties as well (distributors). Publishers aren't even taking the biggest cut of the pie, that is left to B&M stores, which are clearly middlemen.
But yeah, publishers have & expect too much power. It will be good to have deals negotiated that have developers in more equal standing. Of course, I don't see (m)any entirely crowdsource funded games happening that aren't more indie.-
Unless something major has changed, B&M stores take *very little* of the cut. I know when I worked at Gamestop, we made maybe a few bucks on each $50 game sold. Not even close to "the biggest cut of the pie".
-
This, I thought publishers took the biggest chunk
-
-
b&m make shit, like $2-3 per $60 game. they do make a shitload on used but that's a grey market.
publishers typically take the most, then developers, then b&m-
If the B & M stores make more than 0$ per copy sold they make more than most dev studios.
-
-
-
-
-
Of course getting games into physical stores is nowhere near as important as it was 10 or so years ago. Between Steam, XBLA, GOG and others, it's perfectly possible to release a profitable title without pressing discs or having to deal with distributors.
-
-
Is that a fucking joke?
-
It's just the latest example of another befuddled industry facing their own technological singularity and having no idea what the hell is going or how to react to it.
-
-
