104 réponses à ce sujet

[Loerwyn]

BioWare didn't cut support for NWN, Atari did. BioWare don't have rights to the D&D games, therefore it's not upto them whether support should or should not continue.

[Bryy_Miller]

SuperFly_2000 wrote...

I don't CARE if they have a game in DEVELOPMENT.

I haven't seen ANY kind of game from them in the last 10 years with ANY kind of multiplayer component....while they have been spewing out single player games...so please go away...

Guess what? Companies have to change with the times to make money, whether you like it or not. I didn't see anyone complaining when Warner Bros. said that they would no longer make movies with female protagonists, which is, you know, an actual issue. 

[Anexity]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

SuperFly_2000 wrote...

I don't CARE if they have a game in DEVELOPMENT.

I haven't seen ANY kind of game from them in the last 10 years with ANY kind of multiplayer component....while they have been spewing out single player games...so please go away...

Guess what? Companies have to change with the times to make money, whether you like it or not. I didn't see anyone complaining when Warner Bros. said that they would no longer make movies with female protagonists, which is, you know, an actual issue. 

On that note I should point out that they have since released movies with female leads/co-leads (the "no more female leads" statement was made in 2007). So they either didn't take that to heart, it was just that guy's opinion, or they have since gone back on it. Either way it shows that there is nothing to start panicking about in reguards to the OP. Even if EA makes that statement policy, it could always change in the future. There are plenty of other things that could spell doom for Bioware or any developer, so enjoy the good games that are out. If someday in the future EA ruins Bioware or they ruin themselves, hopefully someone else will fill in the void. Like you said companies will change based on what's making them money. But if anyone can make the best out of an EA mandated change, it's Bioware.

Modifié par Anexity, 11 décembre 2010 - 01:00 .

[xavant]

All I can say is... I seen this coming a long time ago. Unfortunately!

[Loerwyn]

AwesomeName wrote...
I don't like the idea of EA interfering with the development of ME3... .

Huh? How can EA interfere with something that's theirs?

[Loerwyn]

I wasn't being sarcastic. EA can't, by definition, interfere with something that's theirs. At the end of the day, they pay the paycheques and publish the games - If something is amiss then they need to step in and do something about it.

Yes, EA may believe in allowing each studio its own "personality" and freedom, but EA do have to keep control at the end of the day.

[Ulous]

Yes but you could ask yourself why would EA buy Bioware to turn them into EA? It doesn't make sense, they would have bought Bioware with the intent of letting them be.......well.......Bioware.



I'm sure if Bioware make any future games multiplayer then they will sit down and discuss it between themselves and EA, and if after that discussion they decide to include multiplayer then i'm sure it will be for the best, and if it isn't then use your power as a consumer and put your money where your mouth is.

[Loerwyn]

Ulous wrote...
Yes but you could ask yourself why would EA buy Bioware to turn them into EA? It doesn't make sense, they would have bought Bioware with the intent of letting them be.......well.......Bioware.

Because EA wanted to have the premier RPG development studio on their roster? EA didn't, last I checked, have an RPG studio - At least not of BioWare's standards - Until EA acquired them. They're now, with Bethesda, one of the biggest RPG development countries in the world. Why do you think EA created a partnership with the two guys fired from Actisuck's Infinity Ward (Who have since formed Respawn Entertainment)? They headed the studio that created two of the best selling FPS games of all time (MW1+2). 

It does make sense. It makes every single bit of sense.

AwesomeName wrote...
I didn't realise they could only interfere if it was only a bad situation - I take it the rules in whatever agreement they have are quite complicated?

Probably not. At the end of the day, I would suspect that if EA willed it so, BioWare could make a new RPG based on sock puppets. EA have control over BioWare (Likely to be limited control over BioWare Austin - Who are making TOR - and BioWare Mythic's WAR development as they're licensed properties and not EA's own) and they call the shots. If they say ME3 development is to be stopped, then it's stopped.

Modifié par OnlyShallow89, 11 décembre 2010 - 10:36 .

[Ulous]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Because EA wanted to have the premier RPG development studio on their roster? EA didn't, last I checked, have an RPG studio - At least not of BioWare's standards - Until EA acquired them. They're now, with Bethesda, one of the biggest RPG development countries in the world. Why do you think EA created a partnership with the two guys fired from Actisuck's Infinity Ward (Who have since formed Respawn Entertainment)? They headed the studio that created two of the best selling FPS games of all time (MW1+2). 

It does make sense. It makes every single bit of sense.

Sorry but you have lost me, I said it wouldn't make sense for EA to turn Bioware into EA, from what I can tell you have not really described how they have or would do this?

[Loerwyn]

EA bought BioWare, therefore they're an EA studio and part of EA. They're as "EA" as you can get.

[Tooneyman]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

EA bought BioWare, therefore they're an EA studio and part of EA. They're as "EA" as you can get.

To settle both of your debates before this goes into a bad thing. When EA bought Bioware. It became Bioware, EA.  It says it on the website and it says it in ME 2 title screen. YES IT DOES! Now back onto the subject of Multiplayer in all of EA's games. You know Sim's 3 is already out, but I'm guessing the next expansion to the Sim's might actually have a multiplayer type mode in it the question is how the heck is EA going to pull that off?

[AndarianTD]

Tooneyman wrote...

This article states that EA isn't going to be making single player games anymore.

No, not quite. What it actually says (and you quoted it) is (emphasis added):

The single-player-only model of games could have had its day, according EA Games' label president Frank Gibeau, who believes that "online is where the innovation, and the action, is at."

"..."It's not only about multiplayer, it's about being connected," he said, "I firmly believe that the way the products we have are going they, need to be connected online. Multiplayer is one form of that."

"... EA's studio heads... [are] very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you're out. I think that model is finished."

The article is actually about connected gameplay, which Gibeau himself says is a broader concept than multiplayer. It's about his apparent view that the old "fire and forget" model of gaming, in which you released a title through a retail distributor chain, made money selling a bunch of copies to people playing it privately, and then dropped it, is dying out. Even as a hard-core single player gamer, I think that's a good thing.

I don't have any hostility toward MP or online games, though I prefer SP gaming and will rarely to never play them. I obviously think there's an important role for both in the marketplace, and I hope that game companies keep making both. As I've said elsewhere, I also think that it is very difficult to create a "hybrid" design that enables both effectively (as I think anyone who's compared the game architectures of Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age already knows). You can make it work, but to get the kind of efficient design that enables a really excellent game (of either kind) you need to build your software architecture accordingly. That's the kind of thing that Dragon Age offered.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 11 décembre 2010 - 02:11 .

[Tooneyman]

AndarianTD wrote...

Tooneyman wrote...

This article states that EA isn't going to be making single player games anymore.

No, not quite. What it actually says (and you quoted it) is (emphasis added):

The single-player-only model of games could have had its day, according EA Games' label president Frank Gibeau, who believes that "online is where the innovation, and the action, is at."

"..."It's not only about multiplayer, it's about being connected," he said, "I firmly believe that the way the products we have are going they, need to be connected online. Multiplayer is one form of that."

"... EA's studio heads... [are] very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you're out. I think that model is finished."

The article is actually about connected gameplay, which Gibeau himself says is a broader concept than multiplayer. It's about his apparent view that the old "fire and forget" model of gaming, in which you released a title through a retail distributor chain, made money selling a bunch of copies to people playing it privately, and then dropped it, is dying out. Even as a hard-core single player gamer, I think that's a good thing.

I don't have any hostility toward MP or online games, though I prefer SP gaming and will rarely to never play them. I obviously think there's an important role for both in the marketplace, and I hope that game companies keep making both. As I've said elsewhere, I also think that it is very difficult to create a "hybrid" design that enables both effectively (as I think anyone who's compared the game architectures of Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age already knows). You can make it work, but to get the kind of efficient design that enables a really excellent game (of either kind) you need to build your software architecture accordingly. That's the kind of thing that Dragon Age offered.

See what your saying is true that dragon age does offer the online maps and mods thanks to its toolset, but how would it work on PC say if DA 3 has multiplayer. I mean what are they doing to set it up like questing in NWN1 and 2 or are they going to set it up where its death matches and team challenges. Plus the DA toolset is very difficult to use. The NWN engines where a heck of a lot more user friendly.

[The Elite Elite]

Oh boy, people really need to read the article linked in the OP, rather than just read the thread title. (As does the person who wrote the article there at IGN) As a few other people in this thread who actually did read the article pointed out, nowhere in there was it said that the days of single player only games are over. Multiplayer and co-op are just two ways for online to be used for games. There's also the online services model. The same model we've had for the past few games now. ME1, ME2, and DA:O all had that model, and I don't think any of you hated it or thought it made those games worse.

[Loerwyn]

Think Mirror's Edge. That is what he's talking about. Online leaderboards, DLC - Not necessarily multiplayer.

[Bryy_Miller]

Tooneyman wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

Tooneyman wrote...

This article states that EA isn't going to be making single player games anymore.

No, not quite. What it actually says (and you quoted it) is (emphasis added):

The single-player-only model of games could have had its day, according EA Games' label president Frank Gibeau, who believes that "online is where the innovation, and the action, is at."

"..."It's not only about multiplayer, it's about being connected," he said, "I firmly believe that the way the products we have are going they, need to be connected online. Multiplayer is one form of that."

"... EA's studio heads... [are] very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you're out. I think that model is finished."

The article is actually about connected gameplay, which Gibeau himself says is a broader concept than multiplayer. It's about his apparent view that the old "fire and forget" model of gaming, in which you released a title through a retail distributor chain, made money selling a bunch of copies to people playing it privately, and then dropped it, is dying out. Even as a hard-core single player gamer, I think that's a good thing.

I don't have any hostility toward MP or online games, though I prefer SP gaming and will rarely to never play them. I obviously think there's an important role for both in the marketplace, and I hope that game companies keep making both. As I've said elsewhere, I also think that it is very difficult to create a "hybrid" design that enables both effectively (as I think anyone who's compared the game architectures of Neverwinter Nights and Dragon Age already knows). You can make it work, but to get the kind of efficient design that enables a really excellent game (of either kind) you need to build your software architecture accordingly. That's the kind of thing that Dragon Age offered.

See what your saying is true that dragon age does offer the online maps and mods thanks to its toolset, but how would it work on PC say if DA 3 has multiplayer. I mean what are they doing to set it up like questing in NWN1 and 2 or are they going to set it up where its death matches and team challenges. Plus the DA toolset is very difficult to use. The NWN engines where a heck of a lot more user friendly.

Wait, so you just changed your entire argument from "every game will be MP only" to "but it just doesn't seem possible for some games to have MP features"? I understand people dislike EA (and for some very valid reasons), but now you're just trying to justify that dislike.

[hong]

Just to reinforce the point that Frank Gibeau was talking about maintaining an ongoing relationship with the customer, rather than just "multiplayer":

http://www.develop-o...s-leap-of-faith

Taking into consideration what you’ve been saying about the importance of dev autonomy and, elsewhere, the need to add multiplayer to games, what if the Visceral team told you that multiplayer isn’t something that should be added to Dead Space? It’s not something completely unforeseeable, considering its genre.
Well, it’s not only about multiplayer, it’s about being connected. I firmly believe that the way the products we have are going they, need to be connected online. Multiplayer is one form of that.

Yes but, how would you respond if Visceral told you that Dead Space isn’t the type of game that should have multiplayer? It sounds like EA insists on some game elements, and I am wondering how that affects dev autonomy.
(PR manager: It’s more about educating the developers. Not on the creative side, but on the way people play games. Social media has really changed the way consumers look at entertainment. Everything’s more interconnected and 24-7 these days.)

Gibeau: So I don’t go up to every game team and ask – what is your deathmatch mode? [laughs] I look at how to make games a broader idea with online services.

Modifié par hong, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:17 .

[Bryy_Miller]

I must say, the idea of a London MP map for ME3 tickles me so.

[Loerwyn]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I must say, the idea of a London MP map for ME3 tickles me so.

"There's a bloody Geth in the subway! Get the bugger now!"

[Addai]

The guy is not talking about making all games multiplayer, but about being "connected." Dare I say that is what we are all doing here. *glances delicately around the room*

Modifié par Addai67, 13 décembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[Tooneyman]

Addai67 wrote...

The guy is not talking about making all games multiplayer, but about being "connected." Dare I say that is what we are all doing here. *glances delicately around the room*

Trys to avoid eye contact.

[HoonDing]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I must say, the idea of a London MP map for ME3 tickles me so.

*gets horrible Hellgate London flashback*

Modifié par virumor, 13 décembre 2010 - 08:40 .