57 réponses à ce sujet

[Chaia]

Its hard to tell how much say EA gets with BioWare games really, but by the looks of what EA Games boss Frank Gibeau says EA pushed to have the Kinect added to the 360 version of ME3 to help players that can't handle pressing more then one button at a time; and of course to sell more copys of the game (he was very specific about that part )

Modifié par Chaia, 22 juin 2011 - 08:20 .

[Rip504]

100% EA will refuse to publish and release the game until EA is satisfied.  (Edit: Ok maybe not 100%,but enough.)

My assumption is:
They own the copyright and Bioware now. If EA wanted to,they could shut down Bioware completely and reassign the Bioware team members they decide to keep. While still owning all the copyrights that were part of the deal. Compensation will be given out and this is highly unlikely,but EA has the power to do this. Meaning they have the power to "influence" the game.!.

Modifié par Rip504, 22 juin 2011 - 08:27 .

[Mister Mida]

@Eurhetemec: Wow, your first point sounds so unnecessarily harsh towards the OP that I can't help but assume that you know everything that's going on in EA. Right? Right.

@OP: I wouldn't be surprised if EA had a hand in the actual design of the game. ME2 felt sort of like a reboot considering almost everything out of ME (1) got thrown out of the window. Maybe they did that to let it cook on the fire, but we won't know for sure until after ME3.

[Phaedon]

Chaia wrote...

Its hard to tell how much say EA gets with BioWare games really, but by the looks of what EA Games boss Frank Gibeau says EA pushed to have the Kinect added to the 360 version of ME3 to help players that can't handle pressing more then one button at a time; and of course to sell more copys of the game (he was very specific about that part )

Yup. Though Microsoft may have some involvement with that.

Rip504 wrote...
My assumption is:
They own the copyright and Bioware now. 

That's not an assumption. It's a fact that Bioware is a part of EA.

Considering that EA's game designers  should all belong to a specific studio however, I find it hard to believe that some sort of higher-up in EA tells Bioware to "cut more off that" and "add more of this", specifically, at least.

Modifié par Phaedon, 22 juin 2011 - 08:29 .

[Eurhetemec]

matt-bassist wrote...

But it's true, isn't it? When you import your game, many of the things you would've experienced in ME1 are absent. For new players it sort of "resets" the clock.

I'm just not sure what you're saying here. Can you explain?

Are you saying that ME2 doesn't require you to have played ME1?

Well, no. That's not an EA decision. That's a BioWare decision. I mean, did any BioWare sequel ever require you to play the previous game? No, it's never happened. You actually get more out of having played ME1 in ME2 than in any other BioWare game. Just look at BG1/2. BG2 is a pure sequel to BG1, but absolutely doesn't require you to have played it.

It would be suicidal for a studio to require you to play one game to play another. That'd be like preventing people from watching Aliens unless they'd seen Alien and finished it, but where Alien was 30 hours long! Tons of people loved Aliens, got bored by Alien, that's the way of the world.

You don't require players to play one game to play the sequel. It's cool that BioWare is even trying this new thing were you carry decisions over games.

Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

Anyway, besides that, thanks for your insightful response. You may think I've already made up my mind, which I have to a certain degree, but I'm not beyond listening and examining other people's opinions and, more importantly, factual information. I'm certainly not "la la la la Im not listening"

The fact is, and it's hard fact, which you can check up on, is that EA allows it's sub-studios a huge amount of freedom, and they have separate departments for stuff many players think "EA" covers, like marketing. EA are not Activision - and even Activision allow Blizzard considerable freedom (but pretty much only Blizzard).

Mr.House wrote...

Say that to the many companys EA has killed and DA2.

ROFL.

You don't like the fact, you don't like the reality. I get it. You want a big, bad corporate badguy who is ruining your games. Sorry, they don't exist. If you think DA2 sucked, you know who is 100% to blame? BIOWARE. Sad if that upsets you, but it's still BioWare who made the design decisions, BioWare who set the release date, BioWare who had town guards parachuting in like the SAS.

So no. Not EA's fault. BioWare's fault.

Bad King wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

This is a very good documentary as it shows us a bit about EA's role in the development of BioWare's games.

This shows how little people know about how development actually works. BioWare don't come begging to EA and "sign a contract" for each game (wtf?). BioWare choose what to develop. BioWare choose how to market it.

Another example of people blaming EA for things individual companies have done is the "Physical Warfare Pack" deal - people blamed EA for that. Wrong. It was all DICE's own marketing department which made the decisions about the PWP. Similar with Steam. Not an EA vs. Steam issue, but a Crytek vs. Steam issue - many EA companies, including BioWare, just kept their games on Steam, because their deal is a BioWare - Steam deal, not an EA - Steam deal.

[Eurhetemec]

Mister Mida wrote...

@Eurhetemec: Wow, your first point sounds so unnecessarily harsh towards the OP that I can't help but assume that you know everything that's going on in EA. Right? Right.

Luckily, he's not as delicate as you, and survived. I certainly know what I'm talking about re: EA vs. EA's studios. I won't claim to know how individual game studios work, but I do know how EA works.

The OP has presented ZERO evidence for his views, and little explanation, yet has asserted his certainty. Hence the harshness.

[Mister Mida]

Eurhetemec wrote...

I won't claim to know how individual game studios work, but I do know how EA works.

Oh really? Do tell.

[The Everchosen of Chaos]

Well ultimately it's EA's decision when a game from one of their studios ships right? the way I understand it is EA owns the IP of the game right? so if they feel that Bioware is taking too long or has made a few mistakes then EA steps in to sort it out. thats why in my opinion they pushed ME 3 back to early spring 2012.
I mean you don't delay to 'polish' a game unless something has gone wrong for whatever reason. Perhaps the debacle with DA 2 influenced this decision to take more time.

EA like any company wants to make money, they are not going to release a sub-standard game that will ultimately cost them money just because of some deadline. course I have no idea what developers and their studios actually do in these kind of situations. like someone said earlier, this is all in the end speculation.
No one here works at Bioware or EA and even if there are, they are unlikely to release inner secrets and details about their trade to a bunch of fans.

Modifié par The Everchosen of Chaos, 22 juin 2011 - 08:48 .

[CuseGirl]

there's some serious industry ownage by Eurhetemec lolll...I guess most people believe in the adage of "I'm paying for it, so I control it" and it's most likely that isn't the case with these major high production video game titles. EA is obviously worried about the bottomline but they know their place well enough that if they attempt to dictate content, they won't make as much money.

And I'm not familiar with Dragon Age or it's sequel, how is it a debacle?

Modifié par CuseGirl, 22 juin 2011 - 08:53 .

[In Exile]

Phaedon wrote...
Well, EA does have a lot of say on deadlines, but I think that we can agree that the fact that EA acknowledges some sort of "sovereignity" for their studios is good.

They always refer to them as if they are idividual companies and Bioware has actually opened new studios even under EA's ownership.

With the brand? Sure.

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that Bioware pioneered many of the business practices people are attributing to EA. DLC (premium models in NWN), action-RPGs (Greg Zeschuk, I believe, refered to GTA4 as a getting closer to the ideal RPG-Action hybrid that Bioware wanted, back in 2007), cinematic content (from KoTOR onward).

[darth_lopez]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

No not really. Although the "Genesis" comic was barebones they won't just abandon players that went from ME 1 - 3.

Millions of fans would be pi***d. I'm sure they have some control, but Casey has the final say. As executive producer is has to, doesn't he?

EDIT: 

Another reason all the default decisions in ME2 result in the death of most charcters is because the new players to the series wouldn't care for them, know who they are. It was the logical choice for a default ME 2 Shepard. 

I'm pretty sure the people who are distrubuting your game and making the physical product, not the software, have more say than the developer. they can easily pull the "if you don't do what i want i'm not gonna pay to produce and distribute your game/i'm gonna fire you for insubordination!" card because 1, they own bioware and 2, they pay for the CDs the boxes, the labor for the burning what little there is, the printers, the marketing etc... With out thatstuff ME doesn't sell and now it's owned by EA so they can't just quite start a new business then start ME up again and rely on digital distrubution for sales because the IP is now owned by EA.

If you think the Owners of bioware and subsequently people who pay for their stuff do not have substantial say in how the game is made you're very wrong.

In any case what degree of control they excersize is another story and a good question. Is it why ME 2 wasn't as good RPG wise as ME 1? because the Publisher wanted a game aside from BF that could compete with COD think about it All the comments of making ME compete/on par with "world class shooters" in terms of mechanics and action.


I woudlnt' worry about it too much though it could be good or bad or terrible or awesome depending on how well they work together. and how closely they know what the community likes.

[matt-bassist]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

@Eurhetemec: Wow, your first point sounds so unnecessarily harsh towards the OP that I can't help but assume that you know everything that's going on in EA. Right? Right.

Luckily, he's not as delicate as you, and survived. I certainly know what I'm talking about re: EA vs. EA's studios. I won't claim to know how individual game studios work, but I do know how EA works.

The OP has presented ZERO evidence for his views, and little explanation, yet has asserted his certainty. Hence the harshness.

You know I was friendly to your first response, despite your aggressive and harsh tone. Now you're just being a douchebag. I'm being open-minded about all this, maybe you should try the same.

Modifié par matt-bassist, 22 juin 2011 - 09:34 .

[Whatever42]

Just because EA has power doesn't mean it flogs it.

My boss can make me do many things but since I understand my job better than my boss or her boss or his boss, they let me do my work. Now, they most certainly do align my efforts with corporate strategic objectives and department tactical objectives. As Phaedon said, integrating with Kinect may have been an EA decision. Developing for the PS3 might have been an EA decision. Deciding whether they use a cooldown or ammo was most certainly not an EA decision. Sorry, but high level management types just don't make those kinds of decisions.

[theelementslayer]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Just because EA has power doesn't mean it flogs it.

My boss can make me do many things but since I understand my job better than my boss or her boss or his boss, they let me do my work. Now, they most certainly do align my efforts with corporate strategic objectives and department tactical objectives. As Phaedon said, integrating with Kinect may have been an EA decision. Developing for the PS3 might have been an EA decision. Deciding whether they use a cooldown or ammo was most certainly not an EA decision. Sorry, but high level management types just don't make those kinds of decisions.

^that. I work for a guy doing modelling. He tells me the thing he wants to see, or what he wants to be able to do with it. However how I go about creating it and making it work is totally up to me. High level doesnt want to bore themselves with something they know less about then the devs.

[Imperator Augustus]

I highly doubt that EA itself exercises much control over studios like Bioware. Bioware is essentially a semi-autonomous studio that has retained most of previous control over itself. EA may control some aspects of marketing and funding, but Bioware is still in control.

Granted, I understand your frustration with ME2 seemingly sweeping under the rug major decisions made in ME1. I too wish they had made more of a presence, but at the same time its important for each installment to stand alone so that it can be judged on its own merits. ME2 felt so detached from ME1 because Shepard essentially disappeared for two years and life went on without him. He needed to make new choices so both games can bring us a conclusion in ME3.

[Gatt9]

Eurhetemec wrote...
The fact is, and it's hard fact, which you can check up on, is that EA allows it's sub-studios a huge amount of freedom, and they have separate departments for stuff many players think "EA" covers, like marketing. EA are not Activision - and even Activision allow Blizzard considerable freedom (but pretty much only Blizzard).

Actually,  you're 100% wrong.

EA holds ultimate power over all of it's studios.  It forbade Will Wright to make The Sims,  and he did it secretly and presented them with the nearly finished version,  which they grudgingly agreed to release.  EA decided in the early 00's that it was going to be an "Online only" company having seen Ultima Online's success,  and mandated that Westwood make the MMO "Earth and Beyond",  then folded them when it failed.  They also mandated Motor City Online at that time too.  At about the same time they folded Origin and ousted Lord British and Roberts.

EA holds their subsidiaries in a very tight grip.

Which is *really* obvious if you compare ME to ME2 or DAO to DA2,  as well as read the articles on the departures from Bioware around that time.

EA's subsidiaries haven't had any freedom in over a decade.  Google's your friend,  there's alot of information about EA.

[CannonO]

matt-bassist wrote...

Shepard Lives wrote...

This is going to get so ugly.

I dont think so. As long as everyone keeps their cool and approaches this from a mature and level-headed angle...

You are on the internet. This statement is a FAIL.

That said, I am sure EA pushes and pulls on what crows this will appeal to (i.e. more shooter fans, more high level sci fi fans), how it is marketed, and what the release deal is with DLC and such. Creatively, they probably stand back and only look over things for assurance. 

[AlanC9]

Eurhetemec wrote...
You actually get more out of having played ME1 in ME2 than in any other BioWare game. Just look at BG1/2. BG2 is a pure sequel to BG1, but absolutely doesn't require you to have played it.

If anything, playing BG1 first just makes BG2's start annoying. Since BG2 doesn't respect any of the choices you make in BG1, it works better if you play BG2 first so you know what the canon choices are in BG1

[matt-bassist]

Ha thats so true. BG2 killed off my entire party from BG1. Dynaheir, Kahlid AND Ajantis. Minsc, Jaheria and Edwin all died in my BG1 game.

[Sakanade]

Gatt9 wrote...

Eurhetemec wrote...
The fact is, and it's hard fact, which you can check up on, is that EA allows it's sub-studios a huge amount of freedom, and they have separate departments for stuff many players think "EA" covers, like marketing. EA are not Activision - and even Activision allow Blizzard considerable freedom (but pretty much only Blizzard).

Actually,  you're 100% wrong.

EA holds ultimate power over all of it's studios.  It forbade Will Wright to make The Sims,  and he did it secretly and presented them with the nearly finished version,  which they grudgingly agreed to release.  EA decided in the early 00's that it was going to be an "Online only" company having seen Ultima Online's success,  and mandated that Westwood make the MMO "Earth and Beyond",  then folded them when it failed.  They also mandated Motor City Online at that time too.  At about the same time they folded Origin and ousted Lord British and Roberts.

EA holds their subsidiaries in a very tight grip.

Which is *really* obvious if you compare ME to ME2 or DAO to DA2,  as well as read the articles on the departures from Bioware around that time.

EA's subsidiaries haven't had any freedom in over a decade.  Google's your friend,  there's alot of information about EA.

This man speaks the truth.

But shh, don't speak it too loud or you will get banned like the last poor sod who said EA was bad.

[Il Divo]

Sakanade wrote...

But shh, don't speak it too loud or you will get banned like the last poor sod who said EA was bad.

I'm pretty certain that if you hit up the DA2 boards, you'll find many a fan ripping EA apart. Unlike what some here might think, EA doesn't care enough to start banning them all. 

[mulder1199]

IMO, ea's biggest influence was the port over to the PS3, they want to maximize profits....

[Phaedon]

Sakanade wrote...
This man speaks the truth.

But shh, don't speak it too loud or you will get banned like the last poor sod who said EA was bad.

Poor sod? V_ware?

I find it a bit funny that we are talking about The Sims.

You know, the game that was released 11 years ago? Where did Eurhetemec say that their current policy applied to them even 2 years ago? 

@Eurhetemec That's right. A lot of companies (including ones like BioWare and Rockstar) offer little to no freedom over their sub-studios. They just assign projects to them.

[SalsaDMA]

Not to mention that 'someone' higher up in the chain than the lead of a game told how DA2 should be made, which made the lead of DA:O say something along the lines of "Find someone else than me to do that, cause I won't do it..." which meant he instead got put on some random project that never got anywhere...

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Not to mention that 'someone' higher up in the chain than the lead of a game told how DA2 should be made, which made the lead of DA:O say something along the lines of "Find someone else than me to do that, cause I won't do it..." which meant he instead got put on some random project that never got anywhere...

I thought Brent Knowles left Bioware altogether?