Yakubs wrote on Sep 14, 2012, 18:10:
ViRGE wrote on Sep 14, 2012, 17:28:
The thing is though that publishers know how to measure risk and demand. Gamers don't, which is why they'll back just about any stupid idea if it's hyped enough.
It's not quite exploiting gamers, but it's taking advantage of their naivety. A lot can happen between now and when the game ships in 2 years.
Sorry, man, but you don't understand anything about business or economics or you wouldn't say something as ignorant as this.
A little background: publishers are big, even huge corporations, frequently a public company or just a piece of another public company.
When Obsidian, or anyone else, shows up at a publisher meeting with a game idea like this, the publisher doesn't reject it because they don't think it'll make money. They reject games like this because they don't think it'll make ENOUGH money. That's the crucial difference that you're not understanding.
Companies are analyzed based on their return on investment (among other things). There's simply no chance that Obsidian's game is going to sell 5mm+ (audience is too small) and spawn a lucrative franchise (Obsidian wants creative control, and will want to keep the license). Plus, 1.1mm is pocket change for these publishers. Activision Blizzard thinks in terms of BILLIONS, not millions.
So, all this adds up to the following incentive: big publishers want to publish big games. They'd rather fund a game for $50mm that has the chance to earn $250mm PLUS spawn a franchise than a game for $1mm that has the chance to earn $2-3mm, at best. It's simply not an efficient allocation of their funds.
You're half right. You're forgetting about return on investment. The raw numbers are one thing, but a studio that can make a game on a small budget in a limited timeframe and get a good return out of it would likely attract publisher attention.
...the problem for publishers is that there aren't many developers who are proven to work well with low-seven-figure budgets in a 12-18 month cycle, so the publisher sees a fair bit of downside risk, a modest bit of upside risk... and passes.
Unfortunately, it creates a vicious cycle - nobody can do it because nobody's succeeded at it, but nobody's succeeded at it because nobody's tried it.