Bigots lost: How Obsidian Entertainment has plans to make it to 100 years in the business.

[I'm Not Buying A Game Ever Again]

https://www.eurogamer.net/avowed-studio-plans-to-make-its-100th-birthday-by-staying-lean-and-invested

I mean, if Nintendo made it, who says others can't? You just have to believe in yourself and stay focused on your true vision.

Sure, Avowed might not be everyone's cup of tea and be under attack by a minority of angry "gamers" crying "w0ke," but in the grand scheme of things, Avowed might be just a small title in the extensive catalog they'll build in years to come.

I personally find this exciting because of the prospect of more games and appreciating in real time the evolution of the studio through each release, instead of focusing in politics (which is something people seem to enjoy more today rather than the game itself).

[Kain]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Originally posted by Traveler:

Ah yes, of course! Because we all know the real financial analysts of the gaming industry are lurking on Steam threads,

Passive-aggressive sarcasm doesn't change the facts.
No matter how much you would wish for it.
Better luck next time.

Avowed is bleeding money momentarily.
It's neither as "successful" as former Obsidian games, nor can you expect, that it will break even with the production cost in the foreseeable future. If ever - winter sales won't help much by dropping the price.

Actually, you're not making a good argument for Avowed being a failure. Obsidian had a 285 employees back then, almost all focusing on OW, Avowed began with a team of 80 and part of it was working on OW2 sequel.

[Maximizer]

Obsidian has less than 5 years left. One more trash like Avowed and it will be put down.

[tshrimp]

LOL. Calls everyone with a difference of opinion a "bigot" while it is only the Art Director that needs to be called out for his antics.

[Kain]

Originally posted by Maximizer:

Obsidian has less than 5 years left. One more trash like Avowed and it will be put down.

Doubtful. I believe that Avowed is selling well to Obsidian's standards. They also have OW2 on the horizon, with MS support their chances look very good.

[mikitan_fox]

I PLAN to live to 100 or better
Guess what happens if i insist setting myself on fire is the best way to get to 100
*Actually try and prove it*

Just because I have a PLAN to live that long doesn't mean I can be a giant idiot and do things that ruin that plan... you know like being an insane racist on twitter to the leader of DOGE about how very much i don't like whites or something non-specific like that.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by Traveler:

Ah, thank you for this masterclass in armchair economics!

See?
Again passive-aggressive sarcasm - and again: It couldn't change the facts.
Them being:
Avowed is bleeding money momentarily.
It's neither as "successful" as former Obsidian games, nor can you expect, that it will break even with the production cost in the foreseeable future. If ever - winter sales won't help much by dropping the price.

Maybe next time?

Originally posted by Kain:

Obsidian had a 285 employees back then, almost all focusing on OW, Avowed began with a team of 80 and part of it was working on OW2 sequel.

Those numbers are misleading - it's the production cost that matters (and they include the salary for the employees). The production cost for OW was a fraction of the production cost for Avowed. Let's not forget: 6 years in development. This leads to huge expenses.
On top of that the changes in employees working on the project. Etc.

Fact is: Avowed did cost way more.
Fact is: Obsidian needs way more buyers than for OW.
Fact is: Won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Success is something different.

[Kain]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Originally posted by Traveler:

Ah, thank you for this masterclass in armchair economics!

See?
Again passive-aggressive sarcasm - and again: It couldn't change the facts.
Them being:
Avowed is bleeding money momentarily.
It's neither as "successful" as former Obsidian games, nor can you expect, that it will break even with the production cost in the foreseeable future. If ever - winter sales won't help much by dropping the price.

Maybe next time?

Originally posted by Kain:

Obsidian had a 285 employees back then, almost all focusing on OW, Avowed began with a team of 80 and part of it was working on OW2 sequel.

Those numbers are misleading - it's the production cost that matters (and they include the salary for the employees). The production cost for OW was a fraction of the production cost for Avowed. Let's not forget: 6 years in development. This leads to huge expenses.
On top of that the changes in employees working on the project. Etc.

Fact is: Avowed did cost way more.
Fact is: Obsidian needs way more buyers than for OW.
Fact is: Won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Success is something different.

The fact the game is also on GP and had a healthy advanced access time, and after launch it held similar numbers to OW, seems to indicate the game is doing well, also, what exactly was the budget of OW and Avowed, you say it's much more, how much exactly and what is the source of the information?

Sales alone, plus their team seems to indicate it's doing similar or better than OWm

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by Kain:

seems to indicate the game is doing well

Just not financially.

This isn't some kind of Bachelor-show in which the most important thing would be how likeable someone/-thing is (and judging by the amount of sales this candidate won't get a rose this time) - it's the amount of revenue a product is generating, which leads to the corporate decision: "Successful or not? Your studio depends on it."

You like this game, I get this. No worries, you were pretty clear about it.
It just doesn't change the hard facts about the financial reality of this game.
Don't misplace the one for the other - someone would set up himself for failure this way.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Originally posted by Traveler:

Ah, thank you for this masterclass in armchair economics!

See?
Again passive-aggressive sarcasm - and again: It couldn't change the facts.
Them being:
Avowed is bleeding money momentarily.
It's neither as "successful" as former Obsidian games, nor can you expect, that it will break even with the production cost in the foreseeable future. If ever - winter sales won't help much by dropping the price.

Maybe next time?

Originally posted by Kain:

Obsidian had a 285 employees back then, almost all focusing on OW, Avowed began with a team of 80 and part of it was working on OW2 sequel.

Those numbers are misleading - it's the production cost that matters (and they include the salary for the employees). The production cost for OW was a fraction of the production cost for Avowed. Let's not forget: 6 years in development. This leads to huge expenses.
On top of that the changes in employees working on the project. Etc.

Fact is: Avowed did cost way more.
Fact is: Obsidian needs way more buyers than for OW.
Fact is: Won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Success is something different.

So far you haven't given any facts except nonsense.

These are the facts:
1. Microsoft’s Stated Satisfaction: Forbes reports Microsoft is "happy with Avowed sales so far." Corporate satisfaction implies the game is meeting internal financial targets, not arbitrary "Day 1 break-even" metrics. Microsoft has access to real-time data, including Game Pass engagement, pre-orders, and projected long-term revenue—factors outsiders lack.
2. Budget Comparisons:
The Outer Worlds (2019): Developed with a AA budget (estimated $60M), sold ~5M copies. A success for its scale.
Avowed (2025): A AAA title with a higher budget (industry-standard AAA RPGs range $80-150M but even that is just speculation.). Microsoft funds these projects for long-term ecosystem growth, not just unit sales.
3. Success ≠ Immediate Profit:
Most AAA games take 12-24 months to break even. Example: Cyberpunk 2077 recouped its $174M budget after 2 years (25M+ sold post-updates/discounts).
Avowed’s "bleeding money" claim lacks evidence. Microsoft’s satisfaction suggests it’s on track for projected ROI.
4. Game Pass Impact:
Microsoft prioritizes subscriber growth over pure unit sales. Example: Starfield (12M+ players via Game Pass) boosted subscriptions, adding recurring revenue. Avowed’s value includes retaining/attracting Game Pass users—a metric not reflected in "buyer counts."
5. Long-Term Sales Strategies:
Winter sales, discounts, and DLC routinely extend a game’s profitability. The Witcher 3 sold 50M+ copies over 8 years, heavily aided by discounts/updates.
Obsidian’s games (e.g., Pentiment, Grounded) often see sales spikes years after launch due to word-of-mouth and updates.
6. Obsidian’s Track Record:
Pillars of Eternity (2015): Niche CRPG, sold ~1M copies. Deemed successful for its genre/budget.
Avowed is a AAA pivot with Microsoft’s backing. Comparing it to smaller-scale titles ignores scoped ambition and publisher support.

Calling Avowed a failure before its first fiscal year is premature. Microsoft’s public stance, industry-standard ROI timelines, and Game Pass economics contradict the claim. Success for AAA games is measured in years, not weeks—especially under a subscription-driven model.

[Kain]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Originally posted by Kain:

seems to indicate the game is doing well

Just not financially.

This isn't some kind of Bachelor-show in which the most important thing would be how likeable someone/-thing is (and judging by the amount of sales this candidate won't get a rose this time) - it's the amount of revenue a product is generating, which leads to the corporate decision: "Successful or not? Your studio depends on it."

You like this game, I get this. No worries, you were pretty clear about it.
It just doesn't change the hard facts about the financial reality of this game.
Don't misplace the one for the other - someone would set up himself for failure this way.

No, nope, my feelings towards the game are irrelevant. Peaks in Advanced time and later in release alone proves the game did AT LEAST as well as OW. Also, the game began with a much smaller team, less than half of OW, if you factor in the game is on GP which also definitely netted Obsidian quite a bit of cash, the odds suggest the game is already on the profit phase. With critical reception that is good as well, you could say the chances of the game being a failure to Obsidian are minimal.

[BOT Cecil]

Unlike Dragon Age The Wokeguard this game's dialog is fleshed out properly. So I was able to laugh at a lesbian who fell in love with a hooker and tell my ghey companion to get lost. Then I befriended him again only to tell him to get over it.

[Kain]

Originally posted by BOT Cecil:

Unlike Dragon Age The Wokeguard this game's dialog is fleshed out properly. So I was able to laugh at a lesbian who fell in love with a hooker and tell my ghey companion to get lost. Then I befriended him again only to tell him to get over it.

Lmao

[Dragon Master]

Me: Oh?
*Sees link is to Eurogamer*
Me: Ah. So a big load of dung is being pushed. No thanks.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by Traveler:

So far you haven't given any facts except nonsense.

Call it nonsense as much as you want - you know that it isn't.
That's like the five stages of grief - you're in the denial phase still.
And that's fine.

If you would now look at what you used as argumentation (with a neutral stance) you would see, how much denial is in it.

1. What Microsoft states in the hot buyers-phase isn't important. That's called marketing. Wait for the financial report next Q.

2. You forgot to mention how many copies Avowed sold up until now. And how many it would need to break even.

3. Cyberpunk is a bad examples due to less sales in the beginning stages. Due to being a buggy mess at launch. As soon as those problems were fixed it skyrocketed (like it would have done at start if it wouldn't have been a buggy mess to begin with).
The most sales per day you get at the initial stage.
Looking at Avowed now...you see the problem, right?

4. GP impact is non-existent. 1$ trial phase after which it's cancelled. Or an already established GP contract (12$ per month or something along the line) which doesn't bring further revenue for Microsoft since the people don't spend further money on top of what they're already spending.
It's a stillbirth financially.

5. Long term - only viable through sales. Which cuts the profit and thus would need even more people to buy this game.
A game which is forgettable.
A game people already played for free/1$ - don't need to play it in the future when more and more games are released in the meantime.
Avowed is no GTA.

6. Again forgetting: PoE had a fraction of the production cost - 1 million sold copies led to a huge revenue.
1 million sold copies of Avowed wouldn't even break even the production costs.
If you don't want to see the difference - okay, your choice.
Others are seeing it, though.
(And I bet you, as well - reason being: Lashing out due to being in the denial phase.)

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by Kain:

proves the game did AT LEAST as well as OW.

1. You spend 100$ and get 200$ in return.
You have a revenue of 100$
2. You spend 1k$ and get 200$ in return - you've lost 800$.

Is 2 as successful as 1?
It earns 100$ - in that regard - yes, it's as successful.
Losing 800$ in the process, though... nope, it isn't as successful.