Fallout: New Vegas Bonuses Linked To Metacritic Scores

It has emerged that staff at Obsidian would only get a bonus from Bethesda for Fallout: New Vegas if the title got at least an 85 Metacritic rating.

The title has a Metacritic rating of 84.


Chris Avellone, of Obsidian, tweeted the above statement after he was asked about the lay offs that hit the developer yesterday.  The lay offs were rumoured to be in regards to a cancelled next gen project for Microsoft’s new console.

Back in November 2010, Bethesda had announced that Fallout: New Vegas had generated $300 million in sales, just a month after release.

Source: Twitter



  1. I think it’s a good idea, if journalists were involved the same level of vetting which Gearbox reviewers were. You really need to read: http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/3/14/2861998/gearbox-borderlands-testing?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter to understand.

    • Excellent read, thanks!

    • Thanks for that link!

      Players reported that they were running into too many clusters of enemies while moving through the Gully, offering feedback like, “this isn’t fun, this is boring.”

      Gearbox, as a result, tripled the number of Skags in the area.

      I love Gearbox. :D

  2. seems kind of harsh, to me anyway, a game that garnered that many sales, and the publisher denies obsidian a bonus because of 1 percentage point on metacritic?

    • To be perfectly fair, with the number of bugs, many gamebreaking and many still unfixed, I’m still astounded it got a Metacritic score that high.

  3. harsh when they gave them that terrible engine to use.

  4. That’s unfair when there are no consistant and reliable standards reviewers are held up to.
    Until there is standardisation and a set of “review guidelines” that reviewers must follow the process is flawed as any numpty who can string together half a sentence (and in the case of some sites even that’s not a requirement) can write reviews.
    Reliable reviewers nowadays are very rare indeed.

  5. Very harsh indeed. That seems good sales figures, I thought companies only cared about sales and not customer satisfaction these days (reviews)

    • It’s not even customer satisfaction though – It’s just someone who in the first week of release (maybe before) is being as judgemental as they can about the title & trying to look for flaws as well as successes, whiklst trying to remain non-biased.

      I think it’s a little harsh to base a bonus on such an obtuse outcome. Now if they had done it based upon sales of the product…

      • Yeah your completely right actually, its not customer satisfaction at all. That sounded sarcastic but I assure you it wasnt :P
        Basing it on sales would be fine, nobody can have any gripe with that.

  6. That is unfair Bethesade, you don’t use user reviews as a bonus clause as there will be fanboys of a certain series who will mark it down for no reason. Plus, it’s just 1%, it’s not going to bankrupt them if they give them the bonus. Plus, who’s engine did they use that was known to be buggy? ;)

    They should have used the average score from proffessional reviewers.

    • That’s what they did do – The metacritic that they are referring to is based upon critic scores, as in professional reviews. 84 on PC, 84 on Xbox, but actually only 82 on PS3.

      I feel its unfair as it is – To base it on user reviews would be nothing more than torture!

  7. Wow. Metacritic is influential at that level internally….

    • That’s what I thought. They’re really going to base staff bonuses off Metacritic? Seems a bit odd but then again, the deal was for a score of 85 and the game didn’t make it.

Comments are now closed for this post.