735 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The information is only available after the fact

Just responding to this because I feel like it might illuminate the difference between our points of view.

I do not know the NPC's response to my character's words or actions before they are delivered, but I know they exist. I know they are already written, already decided, already determined. It is an inevitable and incontrovertible part of the genre that has always existed, in 1997 or 2007.

Even if I can't predict the response reliably, the content of said response isn't as important to my point of view as the foreknowledge that it is there, waiting for me to choose the option that reveals it. Therefore I am incapable of viewing a CRPG as anything other than a collection of options that eventually reveals the story its writers imagined and coded. Which makes it fundamentally different from the tabletop RPGs they once sought to emulate.

AlanC9 wrote...
Do you mean they'll redo the conversation if their own character did something unintended, or that they'll redo the conversation if they didn't like the NPCs' reactions?

That being said, I won't - unless I am actively pursuing a metagame save - do something like that.

As stated above for me the foreknowledge of a response's existence is more important than the content of that response in determining how I approach these games.

That's not an assumption.  The consequences of my character's actions do already exist, waiting to be triggered by the appropriate set of circumstances.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:54 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The fact of the matter is that most players will redo a conversation if they didn't like the outcome and it's not too inconvenient.

Do you mean they'll redo the conversation if their own character did something unintended, or that they'll redo the conversation if they didn't like the NPCs' reactions?

Either or. In one case it allows them to make a character informed decision, in the other it allows metagaming. It's in the approach and execution. Metagaming is always a choice and cannot be forced on you.

[the_one_54321]

AngryPants wrote...
That being said, I won't - unless I am actively pursuing a metagame save - do something like that.

It's only metagaming if you want it to be. It can instead be chosing the option that will be most like what your character would do. The difference is in seeking a specific response, or seeking the response that best indicates the tone and intent you want your character to have.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:28 .

[tmp7704]

Meltemph wrote...

When I said had to, I meant that they felt the need to. I mean, there is not much more to glean form it, unless you are suggesting almost every brick and mortar store is sending sales date/feedback back to publishers or that royalties are in place.

I mean, from a business standpoint, if I had a publisher, that also sold the same product as me, there would be no way I would be sending my sales numbers to a competing business, unless I had to.

Wait, you got me confused now. We are talking about the publisher doing reports here -- if there is one organization which knows how many units of a product were shipped to stores across the world, wouldn't it be them, and wouldn't they know it without every store etc specifically reporting that to them?

Or are you saying that EA may be witholding this info because they don't want other publishers to know it? While this could make sense, it again runs into issue that at the same time they do reveal sale numbers for their other titles, the ones which seem large enough to warrant the mention -- 4-5-10 mil unit sales all get listed. Given this, i'd rather conclude perhaps ME2 simply didn't meet this threshold, at least using the metrics utilized for these other entries.

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The fact of the matter is that most players will redo a conversation if they didn't like the outcome and it's not too inconvenient.

Do you mean they'll redo the conversation if their own character did something unintended, or that they'll redo the conversation if they didn't like the NPCs' reactions?

I know this happens (redoing conversations, regardless of impetus) but its one behavior that I, personally, cannot understand.

I'm not saying it's "wrong" or "cheating" or "stupid" - just that I don't get the fun.

Unless the choice (like old style adventure games) leads to insta-death and you HAVE TO redo a scene, I always let it ride.  If I'm curious enough about what different choices would have caused, I do another run of the game.

But I guess I also don't understand people who read the last page of a book, or (like my co-host on the podcast) people who don't watch tv shows but will read all the episode summaries as if that's the same experience....

Different strokes.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
It "matters" in the perception that if higher ups at EA or BioWare see ME doing much better than DA, they may think "Oh! ME is selling waaaay better than Origins! For DA2, lets inject some ME stuff like the voiced PC and cinematic story telling and surely then DA2 will sell as well as ME! Silent PC be damned, muaaaahahahaha! *EA suit dives into sea of golden coins a la Scrooge McDuck.*

I doubt its entirely like that, but thats certainly the perception when you see the ME style changes being grafted into DA2.

But ME didn't sell fantastically better than DAO. A game could sell nothing at all, and yet still have features that are worth learning from. The idea that someone said "make it more like ME" kind of ignores the fact that it does some things really well regardless of what you think of the game as a whole... and also ignores the fact that we're not making "Dragon Effect" and copying ME's style. We still retain a lot of what DAO had, and the features that are taking their cue from ME are being done in a way that we believe suits DA.

I get that perceptions are what they are-- but the whole ME vs. DA thing, as if it's a competition between the two projects, is a little strange to us. We don't think of it that way, and I don't think it's helpful. I suppose it will take DA2 coming out for people to assign any individuality to it. Prior to DAO coming out, there were a lot of things that people could only relate to by way of other games with marginally similar features-- things that they didn't really get until the pudding became manifest.

(I'm big on pudding references, I know.)

Maybe you don't know as you're not a business video games guy, but if a game like Origins is going out on 2 consoles vs. 1 (PC) isn't it expected that you'd have more sales on the consoles anyway?

More, certainly. But we're not talking about an even split, here. It sold remarkably well on consoles, and this from a game that was often cited as a PC-centric game. There are probably lots of reasons for that, so I'm not going to conjecture on why. Regardless, you can't make a straight comparison of the numbers between the games-- as some people are wont to do.

But on the flip side, isn't EA/BioWare raking in more money per copy with a PC digital download sale vs. a retail console copy with all of the middle men there (retailers, console makers)? Or with DLC sold on the PC vs. the consoles- likely having to split the money with Sony or MS in that case versus pure revenue with the PC?

I don't know. I guess that depends on whether you imagine there to be a vast, unknown digital download market. I imagine it sold well enough, though I have no idea what the profitibility is comparatively.

And I think the perception at least in some quarters is that stuff like Awakening, the DLC and now DA2 may be being rushed out in part to recoup the overall cost of the long time it took to get Origins out.

I guess. Certainly we can't spend 5 years to make a game anymore, that's for sure. Considering that we have an existing engine, we really don't have to. Hopefully we can strike a balance somewhere that will make people happy (and us less exhausted).

And conversely when you say its a tough market, its that way for the gamers though too- so its not just bringing in new gamers to DA2, but I'd imagine also retaining those that bought Origins and all the DLC and Awakening too. The barrier to exit is certainly quite low, especially with the tons of other games coming out early next year. Certainly, I only buy maybe 2-3 games a year but like with Origins I ended up spending more on Awakening plus DLC than I did for Origins at release. So even if I buy DA2, if it doesn't provide good replay value or strike a chord like Origins did with the toolset and mods, the liklihood I'd stick around for DLC and such is quite low.

I guess we'll see. I don't imagine everyone who liked DAO will be on board with the changes, and maybe we'll hit that weird spot between genres where neither the hardcore nor the casual are really satisfied. That's a possibility, though I don't think anyone out there has seen enough of the game to judge where we stand. There's probably an argument to be made about the comparitive potentials in the size of the RPG vs. the Action market, but that's a path that leads to cynicism and is best avoided. I don't really care for it much, personally. I take the "Field of Dreams" approach: If You Build It (Well), They Will Come.

And for anyone who takes that to a dirty place, shame on you.

Well, I sure hope you guys stay profitable long enough such that you can continue on with Morrigan, the Warden and Old God Baby's return from Mirror World to save the day after Hawke ends up starting World War Thedas with Flemeth knocking down sandcastles and all.

Well I'd like to think we're building towards something. Let's hope we can keep it awesome in the meantime, while we're still getting there.

Modifié par David Gaider, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:57 .

[Meltemph]

Wait, you got me confused now. We are talking about the publisher doing reports here -- if there is one organization which knows how many units of a product were shipped to stores across the world, wouldn't it be them, and wouldn't they know it without every store etc specifically reporting that to them?

Oh, I thought you were saying that you were inferring that sales and shipped were different, because they knew the amount of units actually sold by the retailers, that was shipped. So now, I am confused at what you were trying to say was more "involved".



I mean, unless there are royalties in place for the games that are sold by brick and mortars, shipped = sold as far as the publisher is concerned.

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

and also ignores the fact that we're not making "Dragon Effect" and copying ME's style.

Of course.

... it's "Mass Age".

(i kid, i kid )

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

How about waiting for the game to come out before you start judging it.
Gaider and Co did great in DA:O.
Chances are they're going to to great in DA2.
What can I say Bioware's awesome games have left me an optimist.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:58 .

[the_one_54321]

AngryPants wrote...
but I know they exist. I know they are already written, already decided, already determined.

This line of reasoning isn't going to fly with him unless you can demonstrate that it's actually in the game and available to him while he's actively playing. I know because I tried that already. Hence my current line of argument.

MerinTB wrote...
I know this happens (redoing conversations, regardless of impetus) but its one behavior that I, personally, cannot understand.

I only do it when what resulted from the conversation was a mistake of tone. It does indeed happen to me once in a while that I'll make a choice intending a certain tone of response and have the actual delivery not agree with what I wanted. So I'll then go back and pick something that fits my character better than what I have first chosen.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:29 .

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...
I take the "Field of Dreams" approach, myself. If You Build It (Well), They Will Come.

So we come to these forums for reasons we can't even fathom? And pass over the money without even thinking about it, for it's money we have, and gaming we like?

the_one_54321 wrote...

This line of reasoning isn't going to fly with him unless you can demonstrate that it's actually in the game and available to him while he's actively playing. I know because I tried that already. Hence my current line of argument.

Well, in some ways its like Schroedinger's cat.  He calls my knowledge of the cat actually being in the box an assumption, I call his ability to forget that someone stuffed it in there as suspending disbelief.  It's not really compatible.

(Yeah, I know that's not precisely what the paradox is about.  If I had a better example I'd use it)

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:05 .

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
So we come to these forums for reasons we can't even fathom? And pass over the money without even thinking about it, for it's money we have, and gaming we like?

I'm sure there are worse analogies. I know gaming satisfies some need inside me I can't quite identify, and I don't think it's simple tittilation or a way to pass the time.

[PsyrenY]

David Gaider wrote...

The idea that someone said "make it more like ME" kind of ignores the fact that it does some things really well regardless of what you think of the game as a whole... and also ignores the fact that we're not making "Dragon Effect" and copying ME's style.

You know, I always preferred "Mace Effect."

...Didn't have much else to add to that.

[Lyssistr]

 

David Gaider wrote...
That's a lot of curiosity about the sales for DAO. I'm not sure what the interest is, beyond wanting to see enough sales so that the series continues.

Did it sell enough to be successful? The bar for "success" can vary, depending on the expectations for the title, but I think we're quite pleased with how well the game sold. If we weren't, you likely wouldn't be seeing another.

Did it sell better than Mass Effect? Does that matter? Mass Effect went out on two platforms, only one of which is console-- which is a pretty big deal, considering that console sales were the majority even for DAO, a game which went out with the message "it plays best on the PC" (in the media, I mean, not from us). It's not a simple matter to compare, and even then one does not necessarily inform the other. We have different expectations depending on the normal market for that genre as well as the intended release window (a game released before Christmas, say, would be expected to sell more than one released afterwards).

Was it profitable? That depends. The game took five years to make... that's a huge investment that needs to be recouped, no matter how you look at it.

But wasn't it profitable enough that you'd want to do another game just like it? Again, that depends. It depends on how much the company wants to sell, and how much of a potential market there is for the type of game we're making-- and thus how well the game reached that potential. Could the audience for a game like DAO get bigger? Could we sell to exactly the same audience and be satisfied? I don't have answers for those things, to be honest. Any evidence I have is mostly conjecture, though perhaps my perspective is a little better.

I'm certain any mention of video games and profit in the same breath elicits the same response from some corners-- "oh, you guys just want to milk this for all it's worth". That sort of thing. The idea is to make money, however, and that's what companies will do. We'll still strive creatively at the same time as we're trying to be profitable-- on a company-wide basis-- in what is a very tough market right now.

You guys don't need us to be profitable, however, and we get that. I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy if we madejust enough money to keep going. And maybe we are-- I certainly don't have insight into EA's bookkeeping. I'm just not sure what you're trying to discern by analyzing the sales (muddy as the numbers are) as if this should be a gauge of what we want from DA2-- which is a completely different project, with a shorter timeframe for development (meaning much lower costs) and very different expectations. Plus we want to do something different.

I guess it must be a little baffling to be on the outside looking in, trying to figure out how the gears work, but you're looking at a pretty small part of the picture. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

 I'm not trying to be confrontational on what you say, however I work in a financial institution and in the past I worked in private equity. EA's role is pretty much a private equity investor investing in the video game industry, I doubt they manage their assets that differently to other private equity firms.

 I'm not saying merging with EA was bad, probably it was a necessity. Most likely along with the rest of the world you were facing short-term liquidity problems while the rest of your finances were ok and so you had to sell equity to EA or set up a more complex merge deal in order to get liquidity.

 Yes you are right that assessing DAO's investment in meaningful terms is complex (part of it won't even give returns in DAO sales, it will carry over in the franchise) but I'm pretty sure you guys have worked the numbers out, unless your cio/cfo is playing Bioware games instead of working (I wouldn't blame him if he did).


 If enhancing rpg elements is a "vitamin" and making a game faster & without them is the "aspirin", its only the aspirin that people in the industry care about. In short EA doesn't care much about reviving crpgs (which after all was DA's selling point, at least initially).

 In the private equity world, if the interest p.a. they get from company X is below their set margin, it's always best to liquidate X. This puts further pressure for constant *p.a.* (that's the key, very few investors invest for long term purposes) returns, so release cycles are likely to get shorter and games a little more stereotyped.
 
 Of course, as you said, the idea is to make money for shareholders as in any for-profit company, however in many cases companies which sell their equity to investors (EA in our case), are taking a route that's good for their short position but is damaging their long position (in our case that would be a quick unpolished & "thin" release which may sell but damages the company's reputation or alienate their fanbase and therefore future sales). When they reach that bad long position, they get liquidated. It's also called company raiding, I'm pretty sure I'm not saying something new with this.

 So yes you may say that milking a product is a naive suggestion based on our naive perception but considering this just how a major part of the investments&finance industry works, I'm inclined to believe that this milking-fear is not without basis. 

 I have no idea how this is going to work out for you guys, I never worked on that particular industry (video games) and now I'm not even on private equity but I wish you the best.

TLDR: shorter development cycles, more tight profit margins, less focus on "reviving crpgs/return to roots" and the rest of changes (e.g. more focus on consoles) are not about being profitable broadly speaking, they are about have dev teams under a more tight control (the investors, EA in this case).  

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...
I'm sure there are worse analogies. I know gaming satisfies some need inside me I can't quite identify, and I don't think it's simple tittilation or a way to pass the time.

Oh I wasn't making any point.  I just can't allow a legitimate opportunity to reference James Earl Jones' speech in that movie to go to waste.

On second thought though, I should have said  "Oh my God.  You're from the sixties." and shooed you away by spraying you with insecticide.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:11 .

[SirOccam]

David Gaider wrote...
I take the "Field of Dreams" approach: If You Build It (Well), They Will Come.

And for anyone who takes that to a dirty place, shame on you.

It's hardly fair if you mention taking it to a dirty place...of course that's going to send minds racing.

And now I can't stop thinking about "taking it to a dirty place" euphemistically. My mind is now in the meta-gutter. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Modifié par SirOccam, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:08 .

[tmp7704]

Meltemph wrote...

Oh, I thought you were saying that you were inferring that sales and shipped were different, because they knew the amount of units actually sold by the retailers, that was shipped. So now, I am confused at what you were trying to say was more "involved".

Ahh okay let me see if i can clear this up.

The context was, that "units shipped" are considered pretty much "units sold" by the publisher and as such "units sold" aren't particularly important in the publisher's eyes.

But then, using the reasoning outlined in these few recent posts, i'm presuming that the titles which get mention in the publisher's reports are ones which actually sold that high to the customers. Although granted, for the publisher to have this knowledge would require the individual retailers to send some sort of feedback to the publisher about how high the sales actually were. Whether they actually collect such info i have no idea. I'd imagine this is something they're interested in though, in just so they can plan better which titles may warrant a sequel which actually gets high enough order numbers from the retailers.

[tmp7704]

SirOccam wrote...
It's hardly fair if you mention taking it to a dirty place...of course that's going to send minds racing.

And now I can't stop thinking about "taking it to a dirty place" euphemistically. My mind is now in the meta-gutter. Thanks. Thanks a lot.

Hey, at least there was no mention of greased nugs...

well, carry on.

[Meltemph]

But when you are dealing with entertainment, is very similar to something like fashion or even TV. The markets taste is always changing and if a company does not adjust to the changes that the market is seeing, ends up being killed by the companies that find what that change is.



If EA is guilty of anything, it is trying to find the largest penetration in the market. And sense the idea of quality plays a large part in what people of this market like, it only makes sense that they also have quality in mind when making the product.



Which means that it is Bioware's job is to fulfill the desires of the most amount of people. Obviously there is always that "niche" market that some companies live in, but the room for niche is ridiculously small. Whatever market they decide to go with is irrelevant to the consumer though. It is the consumers job to find the product they are looking for, it is the producers job to find the consumer that wants their product.



It is not the job for the consumer to find the producer to to fill the desire of a certain product, that would be an investor.

[upsettingshorts]

Meltemph wrote...
If EA is guilty of anything, it is trying to find the largest penetration in the market. And sense the idea of quality plays a large part in what people of this market like, it only makes sense that they also have quality in mind when making the product.

EA certainly has its fingers in enough pies.  Is it demanding that Madden secure a greater portion of the female market?  Is the upcoming Medal of Honor trying to cut into CRPG players?  

They certainly aren't relying solely on Bioware to maintain their bottom line are they?

Anyway I'm not sure how on topic or enlightening this line of discussion is.  We have a fraction of the data we'd need to form any kind of useful conclusion.  At best we're simply going to explain why people who panic about what few DA:2 features have been revealed to them point at Electronic Arts' oversight or Bioware's financial model as some kind of explanation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:18 .

[Meltemph]

The context was, that "units shipped" are considered pretty much "units sold" by the publisher and as such "units sold" aren't particularly important in the publisher's eyes.

No, what I am saying is that shipped IS sold, by the publishers standard, unless you are saying they are not getting paid for it, and they are just "renting the shelf". You need to differentiate the 2 things of

amount sold by the store
vs
sold by the publisher.

When a publisher talk about amounts sold or shipped, they are saying the same thing, unless you are saying royalties are involved.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:16 .

[Brockololly]

tmp7704 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

and also ignores the fact that we're not making "Dragon Effect" and copying ME's style.

Of course.

... it's "Mass Age".

(i kid, i kid )

My preference is God of Dragon Effect May Cry 2, but there you go.

[Meltemph]

Is it demanding that Madden secure a greater portion of the female market? Is the upcoming Medal of Honor trying to cut into CRPG players?

They certainly aren't relying solely on Bioware to maintain their bottom line are they?

That is my point. EA is trying to have a very large foot in every market they can. How EA does that, I have no idea.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:20 .

[Lyssistr]

Meltemph wrote...

If EA is guilty of anything, it is trying to find the largest penetration in the market. And sense the idea of quality plays a large part in what people of this market like, it only makes sense that they also have quality in mind when making the product.

Investors can do allot more silly mistakes than bad market research

[David Gaider]

Meltemph wrote...
Which means that it is Bioware's job is to fulfill the desires of the most amount of people. Obviously there is always that "niche" market that some companies live in, but the room for niche is ridiculously small. Whatever market they decide to go with is irrelevant to the consumer though. It is the consumers job to find the product they are looking for, it is the producers job to find the consumer that wants their product.

It is not the job for the consumer to find the producer to to fill the desire of a certain product, that would be an investor.

Careful. You make complete sense, and I agree, but this line of thinking will inevitably lead to those accusations of us abandoning the DAO faithful for a prettier girlfriendbigger market. And then the long, tearful messages on the answering machine will start again. And who needs to go through that a second time?

I kid, I kid. She's not that pretty.

Okay, I still kid, I don't really think we're doing that. But, man, you guys are possessive. I half expect BioWare to wake up and find you watching us with those crazy eyes, fondling the pillow.

BioWare: "Umm... what are you doing?"

Fans: "Nothing. Go back to sleep."