Nocoolnamejim, I think that everything you said is true. This is a make/break moment for Obsidian, at least for those consumers still willing to give them a shot. I really do hope that it works out, even though their track record is not encouraging. I haven't played a good party-based RPG since DA: Origins, and I refuse to do the Diablo 3 grind or the MMO thing.
Anyhow, is Eternity their first IP? It seem that in the past, Obsidian has always made sequels for other people's products (NWN2, KotOR2, Dungeon Siege 3, etc.). If this is the first game that Obsidian has created entirely from scratch, this could be quite interesting since they will have full creative control. However, I always have to wonder about projects that are funded by, essentially, hand-outs from potential customers.
My sentiments exactly. In my book, Obsidian is right up there with Bethesda regarding buggy game releases. I was never able to finish Neverwinter Nights 2 due to a game-stopping bug. Don't get me wrong: I would love a great RPG about now, and I'm all for the kickstart model. However, people should definitely take a look at Obsidian's less-than-stellar track record (NWN2, Fallout: New Vegas, KotOR 2) and read some reviews before being so quick to throw money at them.
There really needs to be a Baldur's Gate 3. Why rehash a game that's over 10 years old, unless you are going to really overhaul it and add new quests, characters, graphics, etc.?
PS3 owners should really be thankful for not getting DLC. If the core game has problems keeping up with Skyrim's current content without degenerating into freezes, stuttering, etc., do you think that adding more DLC content will likely fix or worsen these problems? Take a wild guess.
The lesson from all of this: Don't run out and buy or preorder Bethesda's next TES game. Maybe they will take the hint and actually release a finished version that has gone through some quality-assurance testing.
Game developers are operating from the premise that gamers are impulsive buyers and don't think much about the implications of buying a product before putting their money down. To a great extent, this is true. Otherwise, it would be impossible for Bethesda to sell a broken game (Skyrim for PS3), or EA to repackage and sell the same sports games every year (Madden, NCAA, or take your pick), or for Blizzard to require constant internet connection for a single-player game with outdated gameplay (Diablo 3). None of this will change until people stop rushing out to buy the latest mediocrity released by whatever company.
I don't see everything going digital until everyone has internet access. Otherwise, developers would lose a percentage of sales to customers who own consoles but do not have internet access. Game publishers will keep stringing customers out with paid DLC, online passes, and other such foolishness until a high enough percentage of people are connected to the internet to allow them (publishers) to write off the few people who don't have a connection. I personally don't think that we have quite reached the point where consoles will require internet connections. We are simply at the point where not having one will be increasingly inconvenient and discouraged.
If the PS4 requires some kind of online DRM or keeps me from playing or selling used game disks, it will be time for me to find another pastime. This is the same sort of mess that chased me out of PC gaming, and I will drop console gaming just as quickly. PS4 games would have to be awfully cheap and awfully good for me to put up with this kind of corporate assault on consumers. If they are just going to keep selling games for $60 minus the disk and manual, but with the added nuisance of killing resale value and requiring an internet connection, then I'm done.
the_hunger's comments