1 réponse à ce sujet

[Ronin2006]

I personally find a lot of the business decisions behind this game to be mind-boggling stupid and shortsighted.  I honestly believe that if they wanted to make a profit from this series, and in the long term, then they are really going about it the wrong way.  If I was a shareholder in a company that is moving in the direction that EA/Bioware is heading, then I would sell my shares ASAP because companies that follow this kind of business strategy tend not to last.

I understand also that many of the business strategies used for this game will probably yield a healthy immediate profit, but some of the hallmarks of a long-term successful business will be lost.  In order to survive in the long-term, a business needs to build a solid foundation from a strong reputation with loyal customers, and I honestly believe that these two factors are at risk with the current business strategy.  (Note: I am not familiar enough with the dealings between EA/Bioware to know who exactly I should blame for some of these business decisions, so instead they are grouped together.  I realise that most of you disappointed with DA 2 blame EA for the direction of the series, but I personally am not certain that it is all EA's doing despite there being some pretty damning evidence in support of this)

With this in mind these are some of things that I just don't understand from a busness/profit-making perspective:

• Mike Laidlaw dismissing some of the concerns of disillusioned DA O fans.  Honestly, no business wants to alienate it's core/existing customers.  Some of the things that have been stated are not going to endear him to people who have been loyal customers of Bioware.  (this is regardless of whether he is right or not, the fact is a lot of the DA O fans felt that he has criticised them personally by failing to really acknowledge their concerns and complaints in interviews)
  
  
  
• The use of DLC at launch for an arguably incomplete game.  Many people (myself included) felt as though a big part of the "core" game was missing and that it was designed in part to sell more DLC.  (Consider the ending to this game, and the flagrant pimping of the Exiled Prince DLC)  Look, I understand the need for DLC and how it can turn in a healthy profit.  But the best way to entice people to buy the 'extras' is to make the core product as good as possible and as complete as possible.  DA O felt like a "complete" game, and because I enjoyed it so much I went on to buy Awakenings and some DLC.  If the "core" game isn't as complete, it doesn't always mean people will buy the DLC for the "full experience," instead they will feel like you didn't give them value for money and will instead be more frugal when approaching your products in the future.  This game is being sold as a full retail game, and the features should reflect a full gaming experience.
  
  
  
• Short development cycle.  I am assuming that EA wanted to capitalise on the success of DA O, and wanted to sell DA 2 while the first game was still in the minds of gamers around the world.  This is fine, but there can be no doubt that this has compromised the final product to some extent (the respawning enemies and level re-use shows this more than anything).  Now, if you were to compromise the product so as to capitalise on market interest, you need to be confident that the market is one where interest will diminish quickly over time so that time will be of the essence in releasing the next product.  Unfortunately, as far as videogames are concerned, this theory doesn't appear to hold true.  Look at the hype of games like Skyrim, or looking further back, Ocarina of Time.  I remember when I was a child and Ocarina of Time seemed to take forever to be released, and each setback seemed to only add to the hype (it was meant to be a N64 release game but ended up being released far later).  Nintendo seemed to use the long development time to their advantage in hyping the game, telling consumers that they were only making the game the greatest experience possible.  Ultimately, the extra time spent developing the game turned what could of been an average game to a general consesus contender for GOAT, and extremely profitable.  (Whether you personally like Ocarina of Time isn't really the issue)
  
  
  
• Trying to appeal to the masses.  I believe that they were thinking that if they make the game as accessible as possible, then you open up the biggest potential fanbase.  While at a basic business/marketing perspective this makes sense , it would be pretty naive to think of the gaming market in such a simple manner.  People who play videogames come from a diverse range of ages and backgrounds, and they don't all share the same interests.  The biggest pool of people in the videogame market would indeed appear to come from the COD or FPS audience, but this is not who should be targetted for a game that is a successor to DA O.  One of the reasons for the success of DA O was the concept of product differentiation.  (Where a product is deliberately different from it's competitors and in doing so is able to capture a unique and particular market segment.  Think of it as a bit of a 'niche' product)  DA O successfully brought in a number of fans who most likely weren't looking for a simple COD type of experience, and it would make a lot of sense for the sequel to do likewise.  At the end of the day, the customers who want another COD will buy the next COD, and if they get desperate, they'll buy Battlefield or one of those franchises.  Not something called "Dragon Age."  I myself play a bit of COD with my mates, and a lot of games in other genres, but when I pick up something by a company called Bioware that's called "Dragon Age" I expect something that is as far removed as possible from this type of game.  (Note:  If you want to tell me they weren't trying to get the larger COD audience, perhaps you should read this:  http://www.nowgamer....-dutys-audience)
  
  
  
• "If you push a button, something awesome has to happen."  - This has been mentioned so many times, so I don't really want to say too much on it.  But it does seem as though they wanted to produce a more simple action-oriented experience in the combat.  Unfortunately, if the action only requires the simple press of a button, it is generally insulting to the intelligence of the customer, and if they catch on to that feeling, it is generally pretty bad for the company.
  
  
  
• DRM (or whatever that weird verification thing was).  Now this only really applies to the PC gamers, but honestly, nothing in my mind could be more shortsighted from a commercial perspective.  The people who are really inconvenienced and effectively taxed and treated like criminals for this game are ultimately the legitimate paying customers.  The fact is, that if I *really* wanted to pirate this game, I would, and I wouldn't encounter any of the stupid DRM.  So why should I, having decided to buy a legitimate copy of the game in good faith, be treated like a suspected criminal?  Have more faith in your customers!

Anyway, that's all I can think of for now.  I know there were many other gripes I had from the business perspective, and if I can think of them I'll add them to this post later.

Modifié par Ronin2006, 01 avril 2011 - 01:28 .

[Stanley Woo]

Please don't resurrect old threads. THank you.

End of line.