233 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Poleaxe wrote...
If you think about it, a game a year is better for us gamers. Now whether they can learn to put out quality in that time, I guess we'll find out.

I hope this was sarcasm. The only games that work as an annual release are sports games, becase the only updates they get are team rosters.

[slimgrin]

not surprising.

[Poleaxe]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Poleaxe wrote...
If you think about it, a game a year is better for us gamers. Now whether they can learn to put out quality in that time, I guess we'll find out.

I hope this was sarcasm. The only games that work as an annual release are sports games, becase the only updates they get are team rosters.

First, what you posted isn't true, but yes they advance incrementally.  A years time shouldn't be a problem for the writers. If systems advance incrementally it shouldn't be any different than sports games. The problem would come in for things like enviroments and when it's time for a new engine.  Brent Knowles touched on how long it takes to make BW's cinema-like views in his blog. Maybe they have to abandon some of that.

If combat in DA2 was exactly like DAO, would we have so many re-used areas? Would you make that trade?

But I only play a game dev on TV...

EDIT: And of course, QA probably takes a while on a complex game like DA.

Modifié par Poleaxe, 05 mai 2011 - 01:02 .

[Arken]

I think year round means that that title constantly has stuff being released ranging mostly DLC and expansions with no breaks for the developers.

[OdanUrr]

I'm a bit worried when the CEO of EA starts comparing Dragon Age with FIFA or NFS. Understandably, every year you expect a new FIFA or NFS game, but Dragon Age? While I'm all for the series not dying off I'm worried how this new offensive strategy will affect development cycles.

Oh, yes, almost forgot, could someone explain to me exactly what he means when he says, "we will transform EA from a packaged goods company to a fully integrated digital entertainment company."

Modifié par OdanUrr, 05 mai 2011 - 01:10 .

[the_one_54321]

Poleaxe wrote...
First, what you posted isn't true, but yes they advance incrementally

A $60-70 game that's 10 hours long every year? No thanks. I'll be moving on. I never bought any EA games before BioWare anyway.

[Nerdage]

Dodok wrote...

"We fully intend to make these properties into year-round businesses that lead their sectors across a range of platforms," Riccitiello said.

Does this mean a year's worth of development cycle per game or a year of updated content (dlc, expansion, etc.).

All it means is that they want to be making money on the IPs constantly, probably with addons and DLC in the case of Dragon Age (much like Origins, really), not that there will be a game each year.

[Poleaxe]

OdanUrr wrote...

I'm a bit worried when the CEO of EA starts comparing Dragon Age with FIFA or NFS. Understandably, every year you expect a new FIFA or NFS game, but Dragon Age? While I'm all for the series not dying off I'm worried how this new offensive strategy will affect development cycles.

Oh, yes, almost forgot, could someone explain to me exactly what he means when he says, "we will transform EA from a packaged goods company to a fully integrated digital entertainment company."

I assume he means digital distribution.

[RaenImrahl]

OdanUrr wrote...

Oh, yes, almost forgot, could someone explain to me exactly what he means when he says, "we will transform EA from a packaged goods company to a fully integrated digital entertainment company."

Here's my inexpert take... right now, EA follows (mostly) the traditional model of selling products to other outlets for distribution.  As direct, digitial aquisition of media becomes the norm (getting games, movies, TV, etc delivered over broadband as opposed to physically on disc, etc) EA hopes to become both producer AND vendor.  Even though they operate their own online store, I suspect right now most digital purchases are through Steam, Impulse, Amazon, and the link.

In other words, I think they want to sell directly to you.

I also think he means that they want to be direct producers of their brands across multiple media.  Look, for example, how Marvel Comics is now producing it's own movies (Iron Man, Thor, etc).

[jimmy_smith]

Well, look at the bright side.
Maybe DA will become 1 year rush game for now on.
But BW will get more fund to make DA,right?
Maybe it's not that bad.

All we can do is wait and see.

Modifié par jimmy_smith, 05 mai 2011 - 01:21 .

[the_one_54321]

RaenImrahl wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...
Oh, yes, almost forgot, could someone explain to me exactly what he means when he says, "we will transform EA from a packaged goods company to a fully integrated digital entertainment company."

Here's my inexpert take... right now, EA follows (mostly) the traditional model of selling products to other outlets for distribution.  As direct, digitial aquisition of media becomes the norm (getting games, movies, TV, etc delivered over broadband as opposed to physically on disc, etc) EA hopes to become both producer AND vendor.  Even though they operate their own online store, I suspect right now most digital purchases are through Steam, Impulse, Amazon, and the link.

In other words, I think they want to sell directly to you.

I also think he means that they want to be direct producers of their brands across multiple media.  Look, for example, how Marvel Comics is now producing it's own movies (Iron Man, Thor, etc).

Potentially true. But I'm tired of giving them the benefit of the doubt and getting burned. It's happening more and more frequently.

[Kileyan]

MyKingdomCold wrote...

Jean-Funk Van Damme wrote...

Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello says...

The first, he said, is pushing EA's stable of popular IP, including FIFA, Madden, Battlefield, Need for Speed, The Sims, Tetris, Dragon Age and other titles.

"We fully intend to make these properties into year-round businesses that lead their sectors across a range of platforms," Riccitiello said.

Basically, it's not BioWare's fault -- it's EA.

so wll we see Dragon Age 25?

No, but we might see Dragon Age: Vietnam

[Wye]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Rebecca Black likes DA2 wrote...
No we won't.  Because, as the numbers for DA2 show, people will simply stop buying them.

People will keep buying them, just that within 5 years, DA5 will look more like "Grand Theft Auto with Swords" than DA:O, and it will be an entirely different crowd of players buying the game.

....What's wrong with Grand Theft Auto?!

[the_one_54321]

Wye wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Rebecca Black likes DA2 wrote...
No we won't.  Because, as the numbers for DA2 show, people will simply stop buying them.

People will keep buying them, just that within 5 years, DA5 will look more like "Grand Theft Auto with Swords" than DA:O, and it will be an entirely different crowd of players buying the game.

....What's wrong with Grand Theft Auto?!

Nothing, but I don't always want to play Grand Theft Auto. What happens when I want to play Dragon Age but there is no Dragon Age? Instead there is only Grand Theft Dragon.

[lobi]

Ya know, I think skin cancer is bad but, life as a beach bum is looking pretty appealing right now.

[TEWR]

do we get to hijack the dragons that people ride?! Do we get to run over the apostitutes and get money?!

[Kileyan]

Wye wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Rebecca Black likes DA2 wrote...
No we won't.  Because, as the numbers for DA2 show, people will simply stop buying them.

People will keep buying them, just that within 5 years, DA5 will look more like "Grand Theft Auto with Swords" than DA:O, and it will be an entirely different crowd of players buying the game.

....What's wrong with Grand Theft Auto?!

Not that I want Grand Theft Auto with swords, but I admit I would love for Bioware to branch out, tackle a more open world style game and prove you can do a good story at the same time. Everytime this is brought up, a Bioware employee emphatically says that they do not do open world games, they do story driven games. I'd like them to prove to themselves and us, that you can do both.

For the fans ready to jump me, I mean put together a team, go on this tangent and take a chance. I don't mean change their focus totally and abandon their current formula!

[Wye]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Wye wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Rebecca Black likes DA2 wrote...
No we won't.  Because, as the numbers for DA2 show, people will simply stop buying them.

People will keep buying them, just that within 5 years, DA5 will look more like "Grand Theft Auto with Swords" than DA:O, and it will be an entirely different crowd of players buying the game.

....What's wrong with Grand Theft Auto?!

Nothing, but I don't always want to play Grand Theft Auto. What happens when I want to play Dragon Age but there is no Dragon Age? Instead there is only Grand Theft Dragon.

Oh. Nvm...

[the_one_54321]

Kileyan wrote...
For the fans ready to jump me, I mean put together a team, go on this tangent and take a chance. I don't mean change their focus totally and abandon their current formula!

Too late. I am already coming for your head.

[Persephone]

nerdage wrote...

Dodok wrote...

"We fully intend to make these properties into year-round businesses that lead their sectors across a range of platforms," Riccitiello said.

Does this mean a year's worth of development cycle per game or a year of updated content (dlc, expansion, etc.).

All it means is that they want to be making money on the IPs constantly, probably with addons and DLC in the case of Dragon Age (much like Origins, really), not that there will be a game each year.

That's what I concluded as well. I hope it's true.

[devSin]

Persephone wrote...

That's what I concluded as well. I hope it's true.

But how's this anything new? That's the same they did with Origins and with ME2?

You can't turn them into year-long businesses if they already are year-long businesses.

Personally, I think he was just trying to use up his air-time.

Modifié par devSin, 05 mai 2011 - 01:51 .

[Tommyspa]

Is this actually proof of a yearly dragon age or just it will be worked on with more consistency? It says the sims and battlefield also, neither of those games are yearly releases, as far as full games anyhow, not counting expansions or DLCs. He also says something about talent acquisition as well, could this be a good thing? yay! optimism!

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In a lot of cases, developers will just continue on with the next project once the previous one is completed with little off time (likely during DLC production).

We already saw that in Dragon Age 2 as development started almost immediately (if not before) Origins was launched.

So really, it's nothing all that informative. I am worried about lumping in Dragon Age with other franchises that have a "yearly update" like Madden and FIFA though... hopefully, he's just talking about random franchises that EA plans to continue. He probably is.

At least we know Dragon Age isn't being dumped.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 mai 2011 - 01:52 .

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You mean the IP that was touted as a franchise before the first game even came out is a franchise? I am shocked.

The term 'year-round businesses' doesn't bode well.

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Poleaxe wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with EA if they didn't force companies to rush games left and right. They're in it for the money and I can understand that. They're a business.

The fact that they feel they need to shove games into the populus' hands every year (at most) to make a profit makes them arrogant, incompetent, pretentious fools.

If you think about it, a game a year is better for us gamers. Now whether they can learn to put out quality in that time, I guess we'll find out.

And I have a bridge in Ohio to sell you.