Who would you want to make K3? -1 reply

Please wait...

JCarter426

I'm watching you...

50 XP

2nd September 2007

0 Uploads

1,503 Posts

0 Threads

#11 12 years ago

Ha! The Bellisario metaphor is too true. :D I'm betting that the only reason this didn't happen to BioWare is because they were making K1. LA was counting on K1's reputation to sell all those copies of K2 during the Christmas rush. I wonder, what if Obsidian had made K1, and BioWare K2?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#12 12 years ago
Kouen;4181623 Having Atari as a publisher for Neverwinter Nights 2 was probably as good as it's gotten for Obsidian since Interplay's collapse, since Atari have a good understanding of hardware and software development, and know to trust the judgement of the developers.

Are we thinking about the same company here? :confused:

Atari as in Atari formerly known as the hated Infogrames? :eek:

Atari that has the LOWEST share index of any major publisher because of how crap they are? The Atari that is NOTORIOUS for abusing developers in the manner LA did to Obsidian? :uhoh:

THAT Atari? :uhm:

I can list a number of Companies they did over. And at least one thats now out of business cos of them.

The first that leaps to mind is the disaster that was Master of Orion 3; that sufferred from the same kind of problems K2 did and as a result I believe (though im not sure) that the Developers of that game are no longer trading. And the second was Civilization 3. God dont even get me started on that - the original release of Civ 3 was practically unplayable because it got rushed out because Atari FORCED it out. The third game that leaps to mind is Final Fantasy 9 - the only FF game Atari published; and funnily enough its the WORST of the FF games...Gee I wonder why?

Good gracious im completely stunned you think Atari is nothing like LucasArts? They are just as bad - in fact I believe them to be worse!

LucasArts may be nitpicky about intellectual property but they do -somewhat- support their community and developers better than Atari does. Atari's forums are awful. And the Atari support consists of "Not Our Fault. Contact the developer" or similar cops outs.

Good god I would put back a game just because it had the Atari tag on it wether it looked good or not. Even if it good decent reviews id be extremely wary of touching anying related to Atari.

Infogrames killed the reputation of Atari.

EDIT: Just realised thats more than a little off topic but jeez. I couldnt help it.

EDIT2: I completely agree with your other points btw.

Except for saying that Obsidian holds none of the blame. I dont entirely agree with that.

They accepted the contract most likely knowing up front how long they had - why did the take on such an ambitious project most likely knowing they were being too ambitious? I doubt LA would have decieved them about how much time they had to develop the game.

Had Obsidian been a little less ambitious they might have released a more complete game and gotten permission to patch up the holes remaining; or if they had been a little more stubborn about not releasing the game they might have gotten a little extra time.

Bioware being one of the leading RPG developer companies in the world today (and perhaps the most famous after Blizzard) are longer established and have a stronger position from which to bargain from. I doubt LA would have an easy time of it bullying them in terms of release dates.




Lordjedi

:(

50 XP

2nd September 2007

0 Uploads

1,981 Posts

0 Threads

#13 12 years ago

I know Obsidian wants to do K3, they said they would be happy and want to do K3. The problem with BioWare as JC said is that they have been bought by EA games. EA doesn't want to be involved in K3. LucasArts doesn't want to make K3 either. I wonder if BioWare stepped up and said they wanted to make it if LucasArts would do the same?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#14 12 years ago

Well LA and Bioware teamed up recently to begin development on the next-gen KOTOR era star wars game...

At least according to what ive heard. Its most likely gonna be a KTR MMO - which will suck most likely.




Lordjedi

:(

50 XP

2nd September 2007

0 Uploads

1,981 Posts

0 Threads

#15 12 years ago
ganoesparan06;4181930Well LA and Bioware teamed up recently to begin development on the next-gen KOTOR era star wars game... At least according to what ive heard. Its most likely gonna be a KTR MMO - which will suck most likely.

No just a Rumor. It will be an MMO mostly likely though.




Fyurii

NEKRON!!!!!!!

50 XP

4th August 2006

0 Uploads

3,477 Posts

0 Threads

#16 12 years ago

In all honesty, given the amount of post release support Obsidian has done for NWN2, I'd honestly and happily want them to make KoTORIII. More than a year past NWN2's release date, they've still been supplying updates for the game, and the toolset. If Lucas Arts had listened to the developers, KoTORII would have been a far superior game. All that lets it down is what's been cut out, and how buggy it is. Lucas Arts' disregard for its customers has left the modding community to pcik up the pieces and in a few areas, do that which Obsidian wasn't allowed to do. That is, make KoTORII a more (if not totally) completed game.




Mikouen Advanced Member

What?

145,654 XP

4th September 2005

4 Uploads

11,732 Posts

2 Threads

#17 12 years ago

LordJediEA doesn't want to be involved in K3. LucasArts doesn't want to make K3 either.[/quote]Bioware don't want to make KotOR3. It's not a case of Bioware saying "We want to make KotOR3, but mean old Mr Nasty EA won't let us! :( ".

Bioware have adamantly maintained - ever since LucasArts went to them and said "Wanna make another KotOR?" - that they want no further involvement with the series.

Of course, now that EA is in the picture, Bioware wouldn't get to make KotOR3 even if they wanted to, for two reasons:

1) LucasArts always publishes every single Star Wars game, without exception. They'll never let anyone else get their grubby paws on their franchise. 2) EA always acts as publishers for studios they own. They'll never let anyone else get their grubby paws on their subsidiaries.

This new Bioware/LucasArts project is likely the result of a contract that was already finalised before EA came into the picture, otherwise the whole thing would've been broken off by either LucasArts or EA.

Unless, of course, the thing has nothing to do with any owned intellectual property, and isn't a game. EA would hardly object to letting Bioware and LucasArts team up to develop a new game engine, for instance, because all parties involved would benefit greatly from such an endeavor.

LordjediNo just a Rumor. It will be an MMO mostly likely though.[/quote]Equally as much of a rumor, and an unlikely one because Bioware are already working on one MMORPG.

Unlike Sony, Bioware don't have an almost infinite amount of money and manpower to throw into MMO projects, and the entire Austin studio is going to be tied up for the next two years at the very least.

At this point, whether this joint project will even be a game at all is just a rumor. But as I've said many times before - if it's a game they're jointly developing, why didn't they just come out and say so? There's no reason to be secretive over the fact you're developing a game, hell, these days everyone and their cat is a games developer.

I smell a rat. I really do.

ganoesparan Atari as in Atari formerly known as the hated Infogrames?[/quote]Atari and Infogrames are two totally seperate companies, and always have been. I think you're getting confused by the fact that Infogrames owns a 51.2% stake in Atari.

Atari used to make computers, but in the mid 80s the Amiga started blowing them out of the water, only for Amiga and it's rivals to be blown out of the water by the modern PC in the early to mid 90s. They then decided to focus on their consoles and software, only for the PlayStation to come along right after the Atari Jaguar and kick the living crap out of them. In 1998, a few unsuccessful business deals and the decline of Atari products meant that after an unsuccessful merger to form JTS Corp, the Atari brand name and assets were bought out by Hasbro Interactive. Two years later, Hasbro hit bad financial straits, and Infogrames bought out the entire Hasbro Interactive arm of the company.

Thus, Atari in it's oldest form doesn't exist any longer, but it still does exist and it is still an autonomous entity - Infogrames just own half the company.

Infogrames itself is just a holding company, i.e. a company that exists solely to play the stock market. Anything else brandishing the Infogrames brand name and/or logo, isn't actually an Infogrames product, but really, a product of one of Infogrames subsidiaries; as the parent company, Infogrames has the legal right to force all subsidiaries to operate under the Infogrames brand name if they so choose.

There was once a time when Infogrames forced it's subsidiaries to operate under the Infogrames brand name, which may also add to your confusion, but Atari is not Infogrames, Infogrames is not Atari, never has been never will be.

[quote=ganoesparan]Atari that has the LOWEST share index of any major publisher because of how crap they are? The Atari that is NOTORIOUS for abusing developers in the manner LA did to Obsidian?

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but Atari have never come anywhere close to pulling the kind of stunt LucasArts have pulled.

The share index, well, that's probably because of Infogrames holding a majority share. Infogrames may have been formed with the purpose of playing the stock market, but they're not very good at it.

Only bad move I recall Atari making, in recent years, was blocking the continued creation of Premium Modules for Neverwinter Nights in a joint move with Hasbro - Hasbro started it, by the way. Atari backed down when they saw the community still wanted new modules for NWN despite NWN2 being right around the corner.

Oh, and releasing games for the N-Gage. That's just plain stupid no matter who's doing it. :clueless:

In all honesty, as far as publishers go these days, Atari are pretty much the Second Coming, but heh, against the likes of EA, that's not a very hard title to attain.

It's true that they don't offer technical support, but then, technical support is not the publisher's job. They're right in telling you to contact the developer, to be honest, because any answers they tried to give you wouldn't be that helpful. The reason you're not getting any technical support from Atari, is pretty much the same reason a window cleaner and a computer technician can't fix your car - you're asking the wrong people.

It's really not their job to offer up community forums, either. They have genuine work to do around the office, they simply don't have time to administrate and moderate a large community site and forum. That's what we have FileFront for. =p

[quote=ganoesparan]They accepted the contract most likely knowing up front how long they had - why did the take on such an ambitious project most likely knowing they were being too ambitious?

That's a void point, because LucasArts brought the release date forward. They changed the deal.

You ever see The Transporter? Y'know, the movie with Jason Statham driving that seriously hawt BMW?

Well, it's like he said at the start. The deal was for three people and a package of a certain weight, so he'd customised the car specifically for that loadout. But the bank robbers changed the deal and brought a fourth person. They changed the deal and were probably going to get caught for it.

(Of course, in the movie Guy #1 shot Guy #4, thus setting the deal back to normal so that they didn't get caught, but that's irrelevant to my example. =p )

KotOR2 was never intended to go gold in time for Christmas 2005, Obsidian were supposed to have more time. But then, out of the blue, LucasArts turned around and said "Okay, we're releasing in time for the Christmas rush!", and gave Obsidian very little notice, which is why they had to desperately rush to cobble together an abbreviated ending.

The problem isn't that Jason Statham was too ambitious, the problem was that the bank robbers had changed the deal.

In the KotOR2 matter, LucasArts are the bank robbers. In more ways than one. ;)

[quote=ganoesparan]Bioware being one of the leading RPG developer companies in the world today (and perhaps the most famous after Blizzard) are longer established and have a stronger position from which to bargain from.

Hehehe. Obsidian was founded in 1995, as a small division within Interplay, which then subsequently became a full-fledged subsidiary - Black Isle Studios - in 1996. In December 2003, Interplay laid off the entire Black Isle Studios staff and dissolved the studio in order to cut costs due to money troubles, at which point Black Isle Studios - and all of it's members - regrouped independently to form Obsidian Entertainment.

Obsidian's history is just as long and prestigious as Bioware. If there's any difference in time between the founding of the two studios, then it's two or three months at the most.

As far as bargaining went during the KotOR/2 development periods, Obsidian and Bioware both had one thing in common - neither of them had any bargaining chips.

In the end, the fact that KotOR2's development was cut short, whereas KotOR's wasn't, comes down to one factor: dumb luck. Had KotOR not been finished by the time the 2003 Christmas rush period started, LucasArts would've forced Bioware to release it there and then, finished or not, just as they did with Obsidian.

Like I said, LucasArts don't care about games. They care about money: how much money they can make, and how soon they can make it.


I don't know how, and I don't know why, but this is totally Sheep's fault.



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#18 12 years ago

Kouen;4182526Atari and Infogrames are two totally seperate companies, and always have been. I think you're getting confused by the fact that Infogrames owns a 51.2% stake in Atari.

Atari used to make computers, but in the mid 80s the Amiga started blowing them out of the water, only for Amiga and it's rivals to be blown out of the water by the modern PC in the early to mid 90s. They then decided to focus on their consoles and software, only for the PlayStation to come along right after the Atari Jaguar and kick the living crap out of them. In 1998, a few unsuccessful business deals and the decline of Atari products meant that after an unsuccessful merger to form JTS Corp, the Atari brand name and assets were bought out by Hasbro Interactive. Two years later, Hasbro hit bad financial straits, and Infogrames bought out the entire Hasbro Interactive arm of the company.

Thus, Atari in it's oldest form doesn't exist any longer, but it still does exist and it is still an autonomous entity - Infogrames just own half the company.

Infogrames itself is just a holding company, i.e. a company that exists solely to play the stock market. Anything else brandishing the Infogrames brand name and/or logo, isn't actually an Infogrames product, but really, a product of one of Infogrames subsidiaries; as the parent company, Infogrames has the legal right to force all subsidiaries to operate under the Infogrames brand name if they so choose.

There was once a time when Infogrames forced it's subsidiaries to operate under the Infogrames brand name, which may also add to your confusion, but Atari is not Infogrames, Infogrames is not Atari, never has been never will be.

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but Atari have never come anywhere close to pulling the kind of stunt LucasArts have pulled.

The share index, well, that's probably because of Infogrames holding a majority share. Infogrames may have been formed with the purpose of playing the stock market, but they're not very good at it.

Only bad move I recall Atari making, in recent years, was blocking the continued creation of Premium Modules for Neverwinter Nights in a joint move with Hasbro - Hasbro started it, by the way. Atari backed down when they saw the community still wanted new modules for NWN despite NWN2 being right around the corner.

Oh, and releasing games for the N-Gage. That's just plain stupid no matter who's doing it. :clueless:

In all honesty, as far as publishers go these days, Atari are pretty much the Second Coming, but heh, against the likes of EA, that's not a very hard title to attain.

It's true that they don't offer technical support, but then, technical support is not the publisher's job. They're right in telling you to contact the developer, to be honest, because any answers they tried to give you wouldn't be that helpful. The reason you're not getting any technical support from Atari, is pretty much the same reason a window cleaner and a computer technician can't fix your car - you're asking the wrong people.

It's really not their job to offer up community forums, either. They have genuine work to do around the office, they simply don't have time to administrate and moderate a large community site and forum. That's what we have FileFront for. =p

You obviously havent read what I typed.

I specifically named a number of examples where Infogrames/Atari screwed over developers but obviously thats gone over ur head. I could name more but I wont bother.

Infogrames published games previously - wether it was a subsidiary of their company or not is irrelevant - it was published under their name therefore its their company who is responsible. Infogrames more or less bought over Atari which was a wonderful company who made computers (Yes I do know! I had one!) that a run of bad luck. After the take over Infogrames changed all of their games that they published over to Atari - everything became "supported" by Atari. Atari became their game publishing arm. But ultimately its STILL Infogrames. They are still an awful publisher. We must live on different planets if you completely missed the balls ups Infogrames/Atari have made.

Thank you for agreeing with my point about the share index - Infogrames are crap. I do know what im talking about.

The reason Infogrames went after Atari was because they hoped to cash in on the good name of Atari cos their own name was pretty much mud to the gaming community - they have since ruined the Atari name also with their hideous practicies.

Im really honestly completely surprised you dont know about their attempts to screw over Firaxis which caused Firaxis to abandon them and switch to 2K as their publisher, and about the disaster that was Master of Orion 3 (which they pushed out too early much like KOTOR2 was...). I really dont understand how a mod/admin of a gaming forum completely missed that.

If they dont have any responsbility to support their games theres no point in even having any means to contact them really.

LA definately has more respect from me than Atari... The only other publisher that rates almost as badly as LA for me is Koch Media/Deep Silver *shudders*...

I was also aware that Obsidian used to be Black Isle Studios which frankly was a small time RPG company that pretty much died off. The survivors more or less became Obsidian. At the time of K1 Bioware was a smaller unknown company - it wasnt really until Jade Empire was released that they became really "famous" and could begin to cash in on the power of their name.

I think that now they are in a much stronger financial position (aside from the fact they have EA backing them - which i admit ive heard some horror stories about EA but none as bad as what ive seen of Atari/Infogrames) and have a much stronger brand name. If they decided to do K3 which they wont - they would probably be able to be a bit more stubborn about it if LA suddenly decided to change the release date.

Obsidian should have stuck to their guns. What could LA do? Sue them? No they couldnt cause as you said it was LA who was in breach of contract not Obsidian.

Take the project off them? Then LA would still be left with an unfinished project that they couldnt release without a developer to finish it off. Which is really only shooting themselves in the foot. And due to conflicting intellectual property I dont think they would be able to release it at all without Obsidian. But im not sure on that point.

Fine them? Again they cant do that because it was LA in breach of the contract not Obsidian. Obsidian had a much stronger legal position in that.

All LA could have done (if they didnt want to been widely seen as complete idiots) is refuse to work with Obsidian in future - which frankly after the money Obsidian could have made off of K2 is no skin off their nose. Obsidian would just move on to work with a more reasonable publisher.

I think Obsidian could have stood up to LA and won in this instance if what you have told me is accurate. Granted as I said before on this point im not 100% sure. But it remains more or less the same - Obsidian knew what they were getting into when the contract was signed. They could have done something about it.

Granted most of the blame lies with LA cos it was really shit the way they treated Obsidian and I think Obsidian are nutters for wanting to work with them again. But I dont think Obsidian are entirely blameless.




Mikouen Advanced Member

What?

145,654 XP

4th September 2005

4 Uploads

11,732 Posts

2 Threads

#19 12 years ago

Which of the Infogrames subsidiaries made the screw-ups is important. By your logic, you could say that all Sega games are crap, just because Sega own Visual Concepts, who were responsible for the extremely poor NFL 2k5.

You totally got the whole story wrong up there, by the way.

Master Of Orion 3 didn't suck because it was rushed, it sucked because it was poorly developed from the ground up. The release for that game was delayed several times because of poor development work and game-breaking bugs. The problem with MOO3, is that it's just not a good game. No amount of intervention from the publisher would have changed that.

Civilization 3 was never forced into any release date. Also, I'd hardly call a few bugs and glitches "virtually unplayable" - I had that game on it's release date, and compared to recent offerings from developers right across the board, it was like a complete blessing.

But on a slightly unrelated note, if the publisher were indeed switched (according to all sources I've found, it was 2k Games all along), and the game was subsequently forced into a premature release, wouldn't that then be the fault of the new developer, not the old one? "Oh, yeah, so ABC Publications aren't the publisher any more, EFG Games ditched them and went to XYZ instead. But XYZ forced the game out before it was finished, that's totally ABC's fault!" Doesn't make sense, does it?

Another thing to note is that Civ3 was patched extremely quickly, and since patches need to be authorised by the publisher, if the publisher was so incompetent as to force a release, then they wouldn't be competent enough to promptly authorise quick-fire patching. Civ3's initial hiccups only existed because the test environments set up by Firaxis were not reflective of the end user environment, thanks in no small part to the fact that a new operating system was released to the market shortly before Civ3's release, and ensuring full compatibility before the game went gold would have meant pushing the release date back yet again - something Firaxis could not afford to do, so they let the game go gold and then patched the living crap out of it at the first possible opportunity.

Final Fantasy IX is one franchise that wasn't touched by Atari at all, since Infogrames didn't even own Atari when FFIX was released. In fact, Infogrames had less influence over Final Fantasy IX than your average publisher has, as they only handled distribution - Square-Enix do just about everything in-house if possible. It's always been that way. The only reason they used Infogrames for European distribution is because they had to for legal reasons. Infogrames never touched anything else aside from making sure copies of the game reached the retailers.

(As for calling Final Fantasy IX the worst of the series... You have played the entire FF series, right? FFVIII and IX are the only "new" FF games that even come close to comparing to the SNES classics, the rest are all vastly inferior, no matter how over-hyped they were. But that's another topic, for another time, and another place.)

As for your comment about Deep Silver, if tech support is your beef with publishers, cross them off your hitlist. They still give in-depth tech support for all titles under their banner, unlike LucasArts, whose idea of tech support is "Copy the troubleshooting section from the readme, and let the community answer any other questions!".

ganoesparanI was also aware that Obsidian used to be Black Isle Studios which frankly was a small time RPG company that pretty much died off. The survivors more or less became Obsidian.[/quote]....you're really not aware of Obsidian's history at all, are you?

The creators of Fallout and Icewind Dale, and co-creators of the Baldur's Gate series - three of the most critically-acclaimed RPG series ever released - and also the creators of Planescape Torment which I must say is masterfully executed. Far from being a "small RPG company", and Black Isle Studios never "died off" - what happened, as mentioned previously, is that the entire studio's staff was fired when Interplay - due to financial difficulties - was forced to dissolve most of it's assets in 2002.

Rather than go their seperate ways, the staff from Black Isle Studios chose to reform as an independent studio.

BioWare similarly are far from being unknowns - they've been in the industry since 1996, and all of their titles are more critically acclaimed than the majority of today's offerings combined.

KotOR is actually the least acclaimed of BioWare's titles, believe it or not, only gaining so much of it's prestige and fame due to it's franchise association.

On the topic of bad publishers, though, now that EA own BioWare, expect them to act as publisher for all BioWare titles. EA's history is... 'less than golden', to put it politely...

Okay, well, the thought of EA getting their hands on an MMORPG is almost enough to make me appreciate Sony Online Entertainment. :clueless:

If Obsidian had stuck to their guns, they would have been fired, and LucasArts would've found someone else, forced them into a premature release, and unlike Obsidian, whichever hapless studio LucasArts decided to prey on wouldn't have been able to salvage the game half as well as Obsidian managed to. KotOR2 may be half-assed due to it's unfinished state, but I'll take half-assed over quarter-assed any day.

Intellectual property isn't really a factor, with this being Star Wars then by default LucasArts own all of it. Obsidian only retain ownership over the actual resources themselves - models, maps, etc. Designs, storyline, et al is all under the firm possession of LucasArts.

Had LucasArts fired Obsidian, the only thing they would have really been unable to use, would be the physical resources created by Obsidian, and they probably would have lost usage of Odyssey Engine as well. As I understand it, BioWare allowing Obsidian usage of Odyssey was a "favor for some old friends" - the engine was never available for licensing.

It wasn't actually a breach of contract on the part of LucasArts, as the developer is not responsible for planning release dates, unless the game is published in-house. Just as a publisher for a novel is solely responsible for advertising, publicity, release dates and distribution, so is a publisher for a game.

Should the publisher turn around and say a game is going to be released two weeks from now, finished or not, all the developers can try to do is negotiate with them. If the publisher won't compromise, the developers have three choices:

1) Comply. 2) Strike. 3) Quit.

Options two and three really aren't viable for most studios, given how much financial loss goes into each title they develop. All games are released at a net loss, they need to finish their projects and start shifting units just to break even, never mind make a profit.

If Obsidian had quit, gotten themselves fired, or taken industrial strike action, then they wouldn't have been an independent studio for much longer, if ya catch my drift.

They needed KotOR2 in order to stay afloat. Obsidian don't have the manpower or finances to maintain multiple projects, so they had no fall-back plan. Even if they did have a second project running, it would have to make an exceptional amount of money for Obsidian to break even, make a profit, and then recoup the losses from the ditched KotOR2.

LucasArts essentially had a gun to their head.

ganoesparanThank you for agreeing with my point about the share index

Hey, when you're right, you're right.

That's the real problem with being subsidised - if your parent company hits a rough spot, then they take you down with them.

Just as Black Isle was dragged down with Interplay's financial troubles, Atari are being dragged down by the incompetence and lack of industry knowledge exhibited by Infogrames.

[quote=JCarter426]I wonder, what if Obsidian had made K1, and BioWare K2?

If that were the case, then no doubt everyone would be flaming the hell out of BioWare, and hailing Obsidian as the champions of mankind. :uhm:

Allegiance is such a fickle thing....


I don't know how, and I don't know why, but this is totally Sheep's fault.



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#20 12 years ago

Again Kouen you havent actually properly read what ive typed.

Oh well. I give up.

Atari sucks. So does Infogrames. *much hate for them*

LA gets a *certain* amount of lee-way with me but I agree that they arent the -best- publisher in the world but they arent the worst either. That accolade I still insist belongs to Atari/Infogrames.

Without Bioware allowing Obsidian to modify the game engine to create K2 the game wouldnt have gone ahead - cos without the engine ud have to throw everything out and start again. And being a big company LA only sees the bottom line - they wouldnt have risked such a financial loss caused by shifting developers at such a late stage. And trust me the financial loss and the damage to their already less that sterling reputation would have not been worth forcing Obsidian to comply.

I still firmly believe that contrary to what you are saying Obsidian DID have other viable options they could have pursued - but they too saw only the bottom line and thus gave in.

I definately believe that Obsidian would have been fine and continued to produce quality games because I do indeed know their history - its just I either havent communicated my point properly or you havent read what ive said properly.

As to Bioware doing K2 and Obsidian doing K1 - I agree that it would be Bioware being flamed but I disagree for the reasons. Bioware owes a large part of its success to K1 - without it they probably wouldnt have had the resources to go do JE and thus would have done K2 instead at that time. They would have remained somewhat small time and it would have been a disaster. They would have ended up in the exact position Obsidian found themselves in.

And Obsidian would have been in the position that Bioware is now in. One of the biggest RPG studios in the world. They would have had the success of K1, gone on to produce their own JE equivalent and then onto Neverwinter Nights 2. And i'd be saying the same thing about them that ive already said about Bioware.

Brand power means a lot.