Except that situation is reversed. In this case the people doing the work are making the offer, I will do X for Y dollars, and giving themselves the responsibility of living up to their end of the agreement. That's not how it works in the developer/publisher arrangement. The publisher is working with an allotted budget and a pay by the hour case. They pay the developer to work, and then they tell them "okay you're done working and I'm done paying". Working for free, in this case, is not at all comparable to the mechanic example. You don't have one guy spending a few extra hours on his current project. You have dozens of people spending months of their own time unpaid, that you're demanding of them since they have absolutely no obligation to continue after being told to stop.

If you do not think you can finsh the job in said amount of time then you shouldnt take the job. I have no idea what you guys are defending these guys. They put out a crap product they get what ever they deserve. How many copies of MW3 you think Activision would have sold if the game ran as bad as New Vegas?

Greg

As I told the other guy if you can not finish the job and put out a quailty product in the said amount of time. Then you should have taken the job plain and simple.

Greg

You're comparing apples and oranges now.

Who says they were told they only have a year and a half? The way it's phrased they originally had more time and then moved the date up. What aren't you understanding?

No I am not I am proving a point, do you honestly think MW3 would have sold the 15+ million copies if the game ran as bad as New Vegas? The would would have spread like wild fire, just as it did with New Vegas. New Vegas was selling for $20 around the 2~4 month mark because they couldnt give them away.

Greg

Justifying people losing their jobs because the games do not appeal to you...watch out guys, we've got a badass over here.

You do realize that they sign a contract if Bethesda gives them X amount of time to finish the game. Then by law they have X amount of time. New Vegas was a rush job to make a quick buck plain and simple and now Obsidian is paying for it!

Greg

Justifying crappy games is why we have day 1 DLC and patches. If you like the way games are today, then by all mean keep buying them. Your the developers best friend.

Greg

Some of the people who work at Obsidian are the same people who worked on the original Fallout's(the ones before 3). Bethesda was allowing the original creators of Fallout to see what they would do differently in a Fallout game on Bethesda's engine. It wasn't a cash grab for them, it was a chance to educate Bethesda. I personally really hope it worked, but the things I have been hearing about Skyrim has me doubting.

"Justifying crappy games is why we have day one DLC and patches."...In what strange fantasy does that make sense?

What aren't you understanding here? All of the technical problems New Vegas had are Bethesda's fault. It seems that you are too much of a fanatic to hear anything bad said about them. The story, dialogue, writing, characters, lore and intelligence that is in New Vegas is completely down to Obsidian.

Its not just Obsidian or Bethesda, look at what a sorry game ME3 is, day one DLC, its no longer a RPG and the ending was horried. I will never buy another Bioware game unless its in the bargin bin.

Greg

P.S. Bioware also ruined Dragon Age!

I haven't played ME3 yet, so don't spoil it for me.

Bioware isn't under discussion here and neither is Call of Duty.

Sure it is when you are compairing another developer to them.

Nobody has denied that New Vegas ran badly at launch, or that bugginess is a bad thing, or that it hurts sales. None of that is the point. What people are arguing are that those bugs are not Obsidian's fault or responsibility. You don't order something at a restaurant, get it, and then complain that you didn't receive something you didn't order. Bethesda didn't order proper QA, and didn't get it. Obsidian was not obligated to provide them with free labor to improve the product any more than the chef is obligated to bankrupt himself flying a private jet to Japan to acquire the freshest wagyu beef just so your particular burger can be extra-special.
As has been said, games don't work like that. Frequently they're not even announced until well into development, and it's rare for a company to give a release date more than a few months ahead, while it's not at all rare for those dates to get pushed back. Making a game is a long and complicated process whose length can't be adequately predicted, and developers are not given a set amount of time like that. The publisher decides when the project is done. New Vegas shipped the way it did because Bethesda told them "ship it the way it is". If New Vegas was a rush job for a quick buck, then it was Bethesda's rush job for Bethesda's quick buck (Obsidian didn't get any money from the sales), and yes, now Obsidian is paying for it. It's not complicated. To expect Obsidian to offer up QA is, frankly, insane. Many games enter a beta phase because the company lacks the manpower to properly test it even when they ARE paid to do so.

And it should be noted, even if the developers did sign into bizarre contracts like that, it's not like every employee adds their signature. Those are decisions made by executives, who naturally, are rarely the ones who lose their jobs. It's the people below who have to produce within bad parameters who then have to suffer for it.

This, a million times this.

Ok ill bend on this if it is Bethesdas fault for New Vegas then shame on them. But surly you can not blame Dungen Siege 3 on Behtesda. I bought it on a Steam sale and I played it for 15 minutes and gave up. It felt like I was playing a 90's RPG. The camara movement was horrable.

Greg

DS 3 is a 90s arcade action game. You'll like it only if you like Tenchi wo Kurau or Cadillac and Dinosaurs. Obsidian is always old school like that. What killed it was that it took the franchise but went completely something else which pissed DS fans.

What about Alpha Protocol? Thats another horrable game made by Obsidian.

Greg

Bethesda had nothing to do with Dungeon Siege 3, so they're not responsible for any of its faults. I haven't played it, don't know much about it, and know nothing about how the developer/publisher relationship went for that particular game, so I can't really say anything in its defense/against it.

The trouble with that publisher/developer dynamic is that the publisher has the power to change the game almost any way they want, but no requirements on how much to wield it. The in-house development process tends to be kept very quiet, and people rarely have any idea who exactly does what. Some can just say "hey here's the project, make it for me" and then sit back to let the developer work, while others will meddle constantly and potentially damage the process. They can say "add an annoying cartoon sidekick so the game appeals more to kids", or "leave out this content so it can be sold separately as DLC", and since the developer is being paid to make the game for them, they pretty much have to do as they say. Since the players rarely know who's primarily responsible for specific gameplay factors, they tend to just shift all the blame to one party if they like the other one more.

Well I dont know what else to say other then Obsidian needs their own IP if it isnt already too late.

Greg

Not "horrable" by any means, Flawed, yes, but not "horrable". There's a publisher related story related to AP's developement process too, if you wish to do some digging. Obsidian has always had bad luck when it comes to publishers, not that they're faultless themselves but they've always recieved publisher aid in enhancing their faults rather than fixing 'em (it seems).

Is it really your mission here to justify Obsidian's bad luck and layoffs through you not liking their games? An honest question.

No not at all, but if their games were good and sold well. They wouldnt be laying off now would they?

Greg

My mistake then. I got the impression that this was some kind "Justice is done" case for you seeing how you keep pushing how horrible you think everything they do is.

I found it a bit strange that after the quite large success of New Vegas, they almost immediately got into trouble - as if the good game and good sales didn't help them at all.

If you base your argument on how well games sold, I don't think you need to discuss anymore. Just look at the sales figures, EA is the best developers ever, according to your logic. End of discussion, by your standard.

That would actually be some facebook game, by that logic.