Publishers approached Obsidian to form Kickstarters, according to CEO

Wednesday, 19th September 2012 19:58 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart has said several publishers previously approached the developers regarding a joint campaign to Kickstart a game, and then publish it through the company.

Speaking on the studio’s Project Eternity Kickstarter page, Urquhart said once published, the game brand would have belonged to the publisher along with the majority of the profit.

“We were actually contacted by some publishers over the last few months that wanted to use us to do a Kickstarter,” he said. “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’.”

While it sounds a bit shady to say the least, Urquhart said he felt they had the best of intentions in mind, meaning it was not as nefarious as it sounds.

“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,” he said. “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.”

The Project Eternity Kickstarter page was updated today with the news that the RPG would release on Mac.

Thanks, Develop.



  1. TMRNetShark

    This is why I think kickstarter is a brilliant idea. Fund the games that will hopefully be good and not the ones that won’t. I’m more than willing to bet that Bethesda was the one that approached them too. UGH.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Giskard

    @1 So we’re hating Bethesda now?

    Must’ve missed the memo.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. TMRNetShark

    @2 Where have you been? Any fan of the original Fallout would know that Bethesda kinda ruined the series by going FPS…

    That, and they boned Obsidian (the creators of Fallout: NV… and mind you, a much better game than Fallout 3) on their royalties because they missed their metacritic score by ONE point (they got 84% while their contract stated 85% minimum).

    So even though the game sold VERY well, Bethesda was greedy and didn’t pay them.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. DaveDogg

    @3 a contract is a contract and lets not forget Bethesda spent months patching New Vegas

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Giskard

    @3 I wouldn’t pay any money either, if they did not reach the agreed upon terms.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Sini

    They would have to disclose that they’re co-publishing it with a normal publisher, at which point a lot of those kickstater moneys would have bounced back.
    and yeah, I bet it was bethesda whoring out again, they got fallout, id software, arcane studios, stalker i heard?

    #6 2 years ago
  7. TheWulf


    A contract is a contract. But that’s one fucking insidious contract, with obvious intent to benefit from an idealistic Obsidian. In fact, I’d say the reason it ended up like that was that they didn’t make a tenth of the effort to market it in the way that they’d already marketed titles like Obsidian and Fallout 3, and then went onto market Skyrim.

    Bethesda knew what they were doing. They’re not innocent lambs, they’re a business. And business is a cut-throat thing. Sometimes they’ll realise just how public of a fuck up they’ve made, and if people want to hate on them for being insidious, then they have every right to.

    I mean, yes. It’s business. I get that. But there was that one point where it was nice to think ‘Bethesda are better than that,’ but we now very well know that they’re in the same pit of bile as EA, Ubisoft, and Activision. Again, just business, but it was nice thinking that Bethesda was better than that.

    Also, it’s worth mentioning that it was actually Obsidian who had to continue patching the game, under contract, by the way. They fixed up New Vegas, and then went on to further support it by releasing mods for it. So… yeah, Obsidian were doubly screwed. But despite being screwed, they still clearly give a shit about their customers. That proves the strength of their character.

    I did have a higher opinion of Bethesda before that. Now my opinion of them sits somewhere around the EA/Activision point. I wish I hadn’t been so surprised that they’re not just another EA or Activision, to be honest. They’re just a business, we need to stop personifying them and expecting any kind of ethical conduct from them.

    Most of the time, they just won’t pony it up. Most of the time, they’ll just disappoint. Making money is more important than anything else. EA’s kind of proved that with their relapse after their new ‘customer friendly’ reform.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. Jerykk

    Having royalties tied to Metacritic scores is a pretty lousy thing to do. This industry has a long ways to go. If a movie studio tried to pull that crap, they’d get sued by unions.

    #8 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.