Oh, well see, after having been burned so many times, I haven't bought their new games. Good for them if they've improved, but it is going to take a lot to make me trust a purchase from them out of the gate anymore. A couple of good releases without bugs on release doesn't quite outweight the almost full decade they spent releasing buggy games before for me.

Again, don't hate them. Love them. But I don't quite trust them, in the same way I can never quite trust my Dad to show up to appointments on time - it doesn't change the way I feel about him.

Obsidian DOESN'T svck. They make great games that are well designed. They are just prone to bugginess. Though apparently they have addressed that recently according to the other posters.

Could you find the sources proving CA taking selfies of himself at F4 boot? cannot find that over google

Edit: finally found fell on his twitter account and got it by scrolling down! thx

Sorry for the late reply, but here:

Chris' tweet confirming leaving Obsidian

https://twitter.com/ChrisAvellone/status/608274470768222209

Chris' selfie tweets from E3:

https://twitter.com/ChrisAvellone/status/611251813208035328

https://twitter.com/ChrisAvellone/status/610867880394117120

(Just for giggles) Chris' Fallout Shelter doodle:

https://twitter.com/ChrisAvellone/status/612797608528969729

As I said originally, I'm probably looking too much into this.

What does it matter? We aren't talking about getting paid ... Obsidian was paid. We are talking about a BONUS if the game is exceptionally well received as defined by an 85+ Metacritic score. That BGS's own DLC didn't meet the incentive score is hardly relevant. In fact, DLC scores seem to be a non sequitur. Has any DLC done as well on Metacritic as the base game? Not even the wildly praised Shivering Isles (86 Metacritic) managed to score as high as the Oblivion (94 Metacritic).

Comparing Fallout 3's DLC scores to New Vegas' base game score is an apples and oranges thing.