Was this fair?

Was this fair?

Attached: 43AFE497-73A1-47AF-8313-C1239D3BBEA7.jpg (828x690, 113.1K)

yes, they should have made a better game

Did you JUST find out about this?
Lurk moar, newfag.

It would have been fair if Bethesda themselves didn’t literally sabotage critic reviews to ensure it didn’t hit the 85 mark.

yes, 84 is not an 85 or above

Yes, it didn't hit that mark so no bonus. Overrated game anyway.

Metacritic is a shitty metric to use for a bonus, but it's what they agreed to, so yes. It's totally fair.

84 is not 85 or higher.

If you wanted to keep your bonusses if you failed to meet your targets, you should've gone into corporate management instead.

It would have, if the common point of contention in the reviews weren't bugginess, and Bethesda weren't holding the bag on QA

No. Bethesda should've given them a participation trophy, you fucking Obsidian dick sucking excuse making soccer moms.

TOOOOOOODD

I thought the bonus was a royalty and not a lump sum

yes it was fucking fair, make a better game next time

Attached: 1600716470149.jpg (1200x737, 87.61K)

>make deal
>dont hold up your end
>get nothing
>wooooooow

Seriously what retard would agree to something like this. If IGN gives you a 9 or higher you get a Christmas bonus?

No because this kind of standard only leads to the massive paid review corruption we have today, tying money to review numbers will always make the money dictate what the numbers are.

Imagine being the reviewer whose score takes down the metacritic score from 85 to 84.
Must be a powerful feeling.

nailed it

I want to become a metacritic approved reviewer so I can dab on shit devs by giving their games low scores and tanking their metacritic scores.

Attached: 1484508082269.jpg (487x496, 101.7K)

Bethesda was in the wrong here

The difference between 84 and 85 should not be a million dollars

Not to mention that they made it public so people had incentive to troll and reviewbomb the game just like TLOU 2 got reviewbombed

Attached: file.png (750x750, 668.89K)

>offer big bonus for a 85, which isn't hard to get unless the game is shovelware dogshit
>workers bust their asses for the chance to get that bonus
>pay some underpaid journalist at metacritic $100 plus a free copy of new vegas to give them an 84
>demand game released at unreasonably early time
No of course it wasn't fair. You fags might choke on Todd's boot if you defend him harder

I don't think they were counting user reviews but critic reviews and those can't really be "review bombed".

They can but in a different way by paying the reviewers

This.

>Bethesda, the video game developer
>developer
>offered the makers of 'Fallout: New Vegas'
>the makers

So which is it?

Reviews are an outmoded social technology anyway. They should unironically be replaced by social media with an upvote/downvote scheme and stringent requirements for membership.

You can literally get the Rotten Tomatoes model for free, with a free upvote/downvote meter for audience score and a upvote/downvote score reserved for verified directors, writers, and casting agents. Just forbid them from voting on work from a studio they have financial ties to.

Reviews and review journalism will be dead in ten years, you can already see virtually every surviving review site pivoting to "culture news" and long-form business-side journalism for this very reason.

This

a deal is a deal, and they didn't meet the terms as written in the contract so i dont really see the issue. still love New Vegas

Probably costs way way less than 1mil to pay hundreds of journos to bomb a game. Especially back then.

Are you a dullard or just lacking context?

Literally
>Talk to Sapphire about Shadr's debt
tier

Bravo, bethesda.