36 réponses à ce sujet

[Juztinb42]

I can't imagine them not having enough money to do what they wanted.  So why did they sell out?

[mousestalker]

It provides for corporate continuity if something were to happen to the founders. It also allows the founders to cash out and allow Bioware access to funds for creating and expanding.



The usual reasons founders of companies sell.

[FreezaSama]

Juztinb42 wrote...

I can't imagine them not having enough money to do what they wanted.  So why did they sell out?

I never understood the whining about "selling out". When Bioware starts making crappy games, I'll stop buying them. Anything beyond that doesn't matter. 

[Moondoggie]

They did not "sell out" Bioware was part of a collaboration of companies that was purchased by EA in 2007. Buisiness tends to work this way it;s how smaller companies survive and grow. Without EA i'd say it is unlikely that Bioware would have grown as rapidly as it has done and had the means and funding to produce great games as it has been doing. EA is a secure financial future for Bioware so it makes sense.

Just look at Bioware's expansion since 2008 opening up new studios and departments employing more staff. Growth that came out of the deal with EA.

Modifié par Moondoggie, 27 décembre 2010 - 04:21 .

[The Narrator]

FreezaSama wrote...

Juztinb42 wrote...

I can't imagine them not having enough money to do what they wanted.  So why did they sell out?

I never understood the whining about "selling out". When Bioware starts making crappy games, I'll stop buying them. Anything beyond that doesn't matter. 

or if EA starts To promote communism or good citizenship.

[Bryy_Miller]

Juztinb42 wrote...

I can't imagine them not having enough money to do what they wanted.  So why did they sell out?

I see you are using the definition of "sell out" that means: To merge with a company that you don't like.

[Mr. Sprinkles101]

Is Bioware more of a puppet company or a freelance owned company? I say its more of a freelance company although EA might be pulling strings here and there, overall Bioware is doing as they please.

[DukeOfNukes]

EA certainly seems to add their input, but ultimately their control so far has been limited to "f' it, you guys know what you're doing...hey, do you want to run Mythic too?"

[Rockworm503]

lol I love it when the term "sell out" is over used. Anytime anyone makes any kind of money their sellouts.

[Moondoggie]

Mr. Sprinkles101 wrote...

Is Bioware more of a puppet company or a freelance owned company? I say its more of a freelance company although EA might be pulling strings here and there, overall Bioware is doing as they please.

EA is a publisher Bioware is a developer. Bioware create games they have their own guys at the top of that which decide on company direction and what projects they will be working on. Those guys talk to the publisher who just sort of says "Okay so we are making these projects, This is how much money you have to make it, This is when we want it finished go do it"

EA does not tell Bioware how to make games despite what people might think whenever Bioware does something they dislike and they want to pin the blame on EA.

[Leinadi]

^--- That is also a statement based completely on assumptions. We don't know the extent of how much EA "meddles" with development or not. It would be incredibly naive to suggest that there is no danger of a publisher quenching creative urges in order to try and appeal to more people. Just look at the history of entertainment, it's chock full of instances where the directors, writers, musicians, artists have had creative freedom taken away from them because the "big-ups" wanted to make more money.



I'm not saying that is what's happening with Bioware at all, but publishers giving directions on games is clearly a possibility.

[Moondoggie]

Leinadi wrote...

^--- That is also a statement based completely on assumptions. We don't know the extent of how much EA "meddles" with development or not. It would be incredibly naive to suggest that there is no danger of a publisher quenching creative urges in order to try and appeal to more people. Just look at the history of entertainment, it's chock full of instances where the directors, writers, musicians, artists have had creative freedom taken away from them because the "big-ups" wanted to make more money.

I'm not saying that is what's happening with Bioware at all, but publishers giving directions on games is clearly a possibility.

Thast's really just a cop out statement from people, Like when Rachel Talalay messed up Tank Girl she blamed it on the studio saying "oh well they told me to do it this way" If your boss told you to jump off a bridge would you? I certainly would not. I think it's easy to blame others for your own mistake it's also easier for Bioware fanboys to blame EA when something they don't like comes out of Bioware.

And i like how you are making assumptions that i am making assumptions...Try saying that five times fast XD.

"Try to appeal to more people"  This is what every developer and publisher in the world wants. What is wrong with that? The more people who buy your game the more successful you are. I love how some people don't seem to understand that games development is a buisiness and if you are not profitable it';s a bad thing. Sure they are probably enjoying making gives but at the end of the day it's a job they have to feed their family like any other job. But like any other creative job they suffer crazy fans talking about them "selling out" and "Oh they are not appealing to their true fans anymore they wanna be mainstream!"

[Archereon]

Mr. Sprinkles101 wrote...

Is Bioware more of a puppet company or a freelance owned company? I say its more of a freelance company although EA might be pulling strings here and there, overall Bioware is doing as they please.

Honestly, there will come a time when EA executives make a decision that Bioware doesn't like, and they'll have to comply.  Fact is, executives have the final say in how Bioware is run and on gameplay decisions, and the Lead Designer either has to make it happen, or explain to them why their plan isn't feasible.

[Rockworm503]

lol how many bosses do you know ask their employees to jump off bridges? That is such a turn about that it isn't even funny if a boss tells you to do something you do it or you expect to get fired. Maybe the studio's to blame for Tank Girl or maybe not I don't know and who knows how much EA is involved with Bioware's business? (I don't even want to think about Tank Girl) But if the people giving you your paycheck wants you to do something you do it if you want to keep getting that paycheck.

[Archereon]

Rockworm503 wrote...

lol how many bosses do you know ask their employees to jump off bridges? That is such a turn about that it isn't even funny if a boss tells you to do something you do it or you expect to get fired. Maybe the studio's to blame for Tank Girl or maybe not I don't know and who knows how much EA is involved with Bioware's business? (I don't even want to think about Tank Girl) But if the people giving you your paycheck wants you to do something you do it if you want to keep getting that paycheck.

If EA thinks that its time to convert Bioware into the next Madden football franchise, its perfectly within their rights to do that, seeing as they own Bioware.  We the consumers would not like that for the most part, but if it makes business sense to do so, there's no reason for EA not to do that.  Which is a big problem for people like me who like niche games like CRPGs rather than mainstream games like shooters.

[B3taMaxxx]

The people who create these threads, did they just learn about the acquisition?

[Leinadi]

Thast's really just a cop out statement from people, Like when Rachel Talalay messed up Tank Girl she blamed it on the studio saying "oh well they told me to do it this way" If your boss told you to jump off a bridge would you? I certainly would not. I think it's easy to blame others for your own mistake it's also easier for Bioware fanboys to blame EA when something they don't like comes out of Bioware.

I'm not exactly a Bioware fanboy first and foremost. And who's talking about jumping off bridges? Like someone says, if there is a "threat" to you getting a paycheck and you may not have a stable economy without it, then who doesn't do what the boss asks?

And i like how you are making assumptions that i am making assumptions...Try saying that five times fast XD.

I'm not making assumptions because I don't know how EA business practice works. I never said that they for a fact meddle with Bioware's development, in fact I made a point that I *didn't* know. You however, specifically said that EA doesn't tell Bioware how to make games which is an assumption on your part. And I said that is naive thinking considering how the rest of the entertainment/artistic world works, the possibility of EA "meddling" is definitely there. Hell, if you buy out another company, then you generally want tighter control of that company.

"Try to appeal to more people" This is what every developer and publisher in the world wants. What is wrong with that? The more people who buy your game the more successful you are. I love how some people don't seem to understand that games development is a buisiness and if you are not profitable it';s a bad thing. Sure they are probably enjoying making gives but at the end of the day it's a job they have to feed their family like any other job. But like any other creative job they suffer crazy fans talking about them "selling out" and "Oh they are not appealing to their true fans anymore they wanna be mainstream!"

Trying to appeal to more people is also a sliding scale. Without getting into a whole "games are art" debate, art isn't all-inclusive. Pandering to more and more people also typically means the creative vision gets lost. I don't want to make music that everyone likes for example. I know an indie gaming developer who does a game he wants to play himself (and pouring a lot of money into it) even knowing that very few people would play it compared to if he had designed it to be more inclusive. Why? I guess the creative flame is burning in him.
Sure it's a business, moviemaking is also a business, writing books is also a business. But the problem for many customers is when business takes over and the creativity is lost and the final product is bland and too "produced".

I think it's far too early to say whether EA will have that effect on Bioware at all actually, but again, it's not exactly hard to imagine given how things typically work?
Sure they have the rights to do what they want as a business, but the consumers (us) also have the right to complain if we feel the end result is bad.

Modifié par Leinadi, 27 décembre 2010 - 05:24 .

[Moondoggie]

Let's put this another way perhaps jumping off bridges was a bad way to put it. Say you are the CEO of a big company that runs a bunch of little companies would you rarther do everyones job for them or just sign for things they need to run smoothly? If things are going well there is no need to interfere.



Unfortunately it'll always be the case that when things go well fans will praise Bioware and when things go bad fans will blame EA "Oh i bet EA changed that policy and made the game suck!"



And i don't buy into all that indie kid bullcrap where you just create things for the hell of it having a stuck up philosophy is why some people never sell anything. When you make a game or write a book or make a song you aren't doing it just for yourself you are sharing a part of you with everyone and when everyone gets involved the product will change, Creating for an audience does not mean creative vision is lost it just means the creativity is less selfish accepting that not everyones taste is like your own.



And anyway we are not discussing whatever bedroom developers there are out there making small unknown games we are talking a large popular developer.





Oh and art is all inclusive unless you never want anyone to experience it ever and i don;t know any artists who never want anyone to experience their art.

[Pwnsaur]

Moondoggie wrote...

Let's put this another way perhaps jumping off bridges was a bad way to put it. Say you are the CEO of a big company that runs a bunch of little companies would you rarther do everyones job for them or just sign for things they need to run smoothly? If things are going well there is no need to interfere.

Have you heard of MTV? That channel was completely successful and well liked, it was also very creative and original. It has been BUTCHERED into a 24/7 worship stupidity channel. More people watch it, it makes MORE money, but is it a better channel? HELL NO.

Unfortunately it'll always be the case that when things go well fans will praise Bioware and when things go bad fans will blame EA "Oh i bet EA changed that policy and made the game suck!"

No one will always do this, or always do that. Broad moronic statements sensationalize the argument to create literary distractions. I can pick out these types of tactics in my sleep.. Please.. Say something relevant.

And i don't buy into all that indie kid bullcrap where you just create things for the hell of it having a stuck up philosophy is why some people never sell anything. When you make a game or write a book or make a song you aren't doing it just for yourself you are sharing a part of you with everyone and when everyone gets involved the product will change, Creating for an audience does not mean creative vision is lost it just means the creativity is less selfish accepting that not everyones taste is like your own.

OK. I am a musician, and a writer. When I write songs, I DO actually write it for myself. In fact, THAT is the only way to produce real art. When you start to compromise your own creativity to appeal to more people, that is EXACTLY what kills creative vision. You are literally completely backwards on this. It's not a 'stuck up philosophy' to create art that is 100% true to yourself acknowledging that some people will not get it. Your last statement is...utterly prepostrous.. It actually numbs my brain momentarily at it's staggering amount of misguided self assuredness. Sorry to break it to you, but a very, VERY small percentage of people are truly gifted artists. The more people who get involved with someone with a unique idea, the more diluted it becomes. The reason being, everyone has input, but only a few or one has a truly special idea. I should give examples here...but dude.. this is the downfall of every creative venture in our society....c'mon..

And anyway we are not discussing whatever bedroom developers there are out there making small unknown games we are talking a large popular developer.

OK? Same Issues..

Oh and art is all inclusive unless you never want anyone to experience it ever and i don;t know any artists who never want anyone to experience their art.

Art is all inclusive? ALL inclusive? Before we tackle that fallacy, we need to address your logic. If we don't recognize that art is ALL inclusive, than we don't want ANYONE to experience it? ALL and ANYONE? Do you know what inclusive means? ...  My brain is hurting  ...    Okay, well.....to put it simply... art is NOT all inclusive.. Different art appeals to different people, nothing subjective can ever be 'ALL INCLUSIVE.' It cannot happen. Unless.....Mind Control?? EA!!! YOU EVIL BASTARDS!!

Modifié par Pwnsaur, 28 décembre 2010 - 06:26 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Pwnsaur wrote...
OK. I am a musician, and a writer. When I write songs, I DO actually write it for myself. In fact, THAT is the only way to produce real art. When you start to compromise your own creativity to appeal to more people, that is EXACTLY what kills creative vision. You are literally completely backwards on this. It's not a 'stuck up philosophy' to create art that is 100% true to yourself acknowledging that some people will not get it. Your last statement is...utterly prepostrous.. It actually numbs my brain momentarily at it's staggering amount of misguided self assuredness. Sorry to break it to you, but a very, VERY small percentage of people are truly gifted artists. The more people who get involved with someone with a unique idea, the more diluted it becomes. The reason being, everyone has input, but only a few or one has a truly special idea. I should give examples here...but dude.. this is the downfall of every creative venture in our society....c'mon..

That's an incredibly naive way of looking at things. Do you also complain that we're "raping the planet" and that we should "just stop"?

[Pwnsaur]

How is it naive? I'd love an explanation of how seeing art as being the purest form of self-expression is naive. Being an artist myself, I would love to hear it.

The funny thing is this... Any really groundbreaking artistic development, whether it was Elvis, Citizen Kane or Van Gogh, was repeatedly rejected for being different. The artists refused to compromise their vision despite constant pressure to do so. Well.... They stayed true to what they believed in and.... well... you can see what happened.

Of course we're 'raping the planet.' How else do you explain polluting, destroying, and overpopulating on a massive scale as anything but? Seems like you have a problem with reality... which is fine. Americans usually have this in common actually...haha...

Modifié par Pwnsaur, 28 décembre 2010 - 08:08 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

because "don't ask, don't tell!"

[Andariel696]

Juztinb42 wrote...

I can't imagine them not having enough money to do what they wanted.  So why did they sell out?

hmm...for a little bit more money?  (It'll never be enough, you know)

[B3taMaxxx]

Andariel696 wrote...

Juztinb42 wrote...

I can't imagine them not having enough money to do what they wanted.  So why did they sell out?

hmm...for a little bit more money?  (It'll never be enough, you know)

  ...................................................a, because one is a *developer* and the other a *publisher*