55 réponses à ce sujet

[Special_Agent_Goodwrench]

RainyDayLover wrote...

I hope this'll grant Bioware greater autonomy in developing their games....and we don't get another rushed game like DA2.

Likewise.

[KLUME777]

Hellbound555 wrote...

"year-round business" =DLC.

I think it either means that:

1. A game in a series will come out each year ala CoD,
2. DLC comes out for a years' length after the game is released or, most likely,
3. All of EA's games combined are released at an even space across a period of a year (1 game from different franchises released each month - 12 games in a year, every year).

[vometia]

RainyDayLover wrote...

I hope this'll grant Bioware greater autonomy in developing their games....and we don't get another rushed game like DA2.

From what I understand, that wasn't the problem with DA2.  I dislike EA's habits as much as anyone, but in this case I'm not so sure; I think Bioware could've prioritised things like e.g. more locations instead of faffing about with daft combat animations and new extra-ugly graphics...

[lobi]

When I heard this I went into a complete System Shock.
I look forward to EA/Bioware developing new Lands of Lore for us to play in.
To weave such Tangled Tales requires having the right people on the team. 
I am sure with EA as Dungeon Keeper the Syndicate will succeed.
I do not think Riccitiello will openly abuse his responsibility as Powermonger.
I am also sure EA/Bioware will continue to tell us that a good game is what is in The Eye of the Beholder.  
I will celebrate this good news by playing Peggle.

Modifié par lobi, 05 août 2011 - 09:24 .

[Chromie]

Dandynermite wrote...

OP, you are being sarcastic right? EA are the worlds most money-grabbing company in existance and will destroy Bioware and all their games in the name of profit...

I think Activision has taken that title but they're a close second. Bobby Kotick is really that bad.

lobi wrote...

When I heard this I went into a complete System Shock.
I look forward to EA/Bioware developing new Lands of Lore for us to play in.
To weave such Tangled Tales requires having the right people on the team.
I am sure with EA as Dungeon Keeper the Syndicate will succeed.
I do not think Riccitiello will openly abuse his responsibility as Powermonger.
I am also sure EA/Bioware will continue to tell us that a good game is what is in The Eye of the Beholder.
I will celebrate this good news by playing Peggle.

 I'm going to assume the OP never played those games.

Modifié par Ringo12, 05 août 2011 - 01:18 .

[Monica83]

congratulation bioware....to sell yourself to the devil ...

Westwood.... mhhhh... remember nothing?

[billy the squid]

Ringo12 wrote...

Dandynermite wrote...

OP, you are being sarcastic right? EA are the worlds most money-grabbing company in existance and will destroy Bioware and all their games in the name of profit...

I think Activision has taken that title but they're a close second. Bobby Kotick is really that bad.

I don't know given the latest game, Harry Potter and the blah, blah, blah was supposed to be less than 3 hours!, 3 hours for £40 and a cheap call of duty/ gears of war cover mechanic. EA doesn't seem to have lost its touch.

This review however made me laugh so hard and feel rather dispondent at the same time when EA's strategy for "developing" new IPs is usually to buy the company, is actually in control of BioWare.

Modifié par billy the squid, 05 août 2011 - 04:32 .

[Stanley Woo]

Bashing and off-topic comments removed.

Monica83 wrote...
Westwood.... mhhhh... remember nothing?

Yes, Westwood was merged into EALA, formerly Dreamworks Interactive, which was acquired in 2000 and still in existence today, 11 years later. I also remember EA Tiburon, which was acquired in 1998 as Tiburon Entertainment and is still in existence today, 13 years later. And, of course, EA Canada, which was acquired in 1991 as Distinctive Software and still in existence today, 20 years later. Game companies close up shop and new companies are formed all the time. Studios open and close all the time as the needs of the corporation and the market change.

Just look at what BioWare has accomplished in its short time as a part of EA already. We were acquired for our RPG expertise, our CEOs became leaders within EA's corporate structure, we became the flagship studio for a new label, and now we are a label. Things change, and it's not always for the bad.

So if you want to talk about EA and its acquisitions, don't forget the success stories. Thank you.

[billy the squid]

Yes, and is it believable that EA has never pushed an IP to shift direction to appeal to a broader market despite the reason that IP was purchased? They are a PLC and have obligations like all others, look at the market share Activision commands with the Call of Duty market or Blizzard's with World of WarCraft. The game market is mature as such any increase in a company's share has to come out of its competitor's, as such it is not suprising that financial and business success comes first.

Or was the release of Awakening, Origins DLC and DA2 in the space of less than 2 years actually a design decision. The constant recycling of the EA sports franchise which by and large appear to be the same game with minor additions and new players, is it innovative? Or maybe the latest 2 releases from the Harry Potter franchise, which were so blatantly a quick cash in, when they contained 3 hours of gameplay each.

As I stated, business and financial success is very different from being given the time to create a solid product with replaybility, personally I don't envy developers having to cram the huge amount of work it takes to make a game into such a short time frame. EA is not the sole perpetrator of such acts, the call of Duty franchise new map packs for £12 each or constant carbon copy sequals every year or so. Yet, it does not inspire much confidence that IP's will be given the time and support needed to develop properly, when a company's track record on this front is checkered, EA is not the evil empire, it is a business which requires a pragmatic approach, unfortunately I see certain IP's potentially suffering to achieve broader appeal.

Modifié par billy the squid, 05 août 2011 - 07:41 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Monica83 wrote...

congratulation bioware....to sell yourself to the devil ...

BioWare was bought by EA how many years ago? And people are still on this?

[Bazedragon]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

congratulation bioware....to sell yourself to the devil ...

BioWare was bought by EA how many years ago? And people are still on this?

Unfortunately, people are. Gotten more vocal after DA2, aswell.

Congratulations Bioware.. may not be adept at corporate speak, but can certainly hope that this can only lead to good for future games and projects!

[SirLysander]

vometia wrote...

Sundance31us wrote...

Intellectual Property = Their games and everything they contain.

My gripe is why people like him don't just say "games".  Even if it's arguably more correct to say "intellectual property", it just grates somehow: I think it's a combination of not actually saying what they mean as well as being just a bit too proprietary about it.

Maybe my patience with obfuscated and content-free management-speak has worn away completely, but I think I was always irritated by this sort of thing.

It depends on what their target audience is; I haven't looked at the source, but if they are talking to a business-oriented (or, legal) audience, the terms they used were the most appropriate.  If they were talking to the gaming community (and not just having the interview "also run" on a gaming news source) then no, they probably should have used the other terms.

[Bryy_Miller]

From John R.'s position, they are IPs. It's his job to make sure they keep getting IPs. I see nothing wrong with it. He's not in charge of any of these games directly, so to him, while I'm sure he isn't OMG HE DOESN'T CONSIDER THEM GAMES.... he thinks about EA in a completely different way than, say, Mike Darrah or Laidlaw.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

im proud bioware is succesfull and i dont think they have sold out...i have grown up with them and they have inspired me multiple times..no matter what anyone says i will always love bioware and the games they have made.

[bobthecrusher]

slimgrin wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

 For all the talk of wanting to offer consumers choice, its pretty evident Origin will be the only place you'll be able to get EA games pretty soon.

That would be a remarkably stupid move that no amount of exec-speak could cover up.

I'm guessing that (depending on the number of people who decide to get Battlefeild three on PC despite all this) Mass Effect 3 will only be on Origin, and probably have some ****ty online progress recording system that you have to use to launch the game.

[Weiser_Cain]

Well now that "Bioware" is just a brand name it's bound to loose any weight it carried.
R.I.P. Bioware, It was good to know you, mostly.

[Weiser_Cain]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Just look at what BioWare has accomplished in its short time as a part of EA already. We were acquired for our RPG expertise, our CEOs became leaders within EA's corporate structure, we became the flagship studio for a new label, and now we are a label. Things change, and it's not always for the bad.

So if you want to talk about EA and its acquisitions, don't forget the success stories. Thank you.

And yet your games have become less RPG with every release. Look I'm happy in theory that you guys can pay your bills and raise you families, but as a consumer, it's not my job to care about that.

I mean is there anyone from bioware even working there? If it's just a name change and doesn't signal a shift to making games more like the one's that made bioware in the first place how can we be expected to see this and anything but a cynical move by some executive that never played a game in his life?

[Moondoggie]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

And yet your games have become less RPG with every release. Look I'm happy in theory that you guys can pay your bills and raise you families, but as a consumer, it's not my job to care about that.

I mean is there anyone from bioware even working there? If it's just a name change and doesn't signal a shift to making games more like the one's that made bioware in the first place how can we be expected to see this and anything but a cynical move by some executive that never played a game in his life?

That wasn't aimed at John Riccitiello was it? He's one of the biggest video games fans ever and knows more about the subject than most gamers.

Why exactly are you so upset? Is this some sort of thing you have against "mainstream" studios? When Bioware were bought on board by EA a lot of faith was placed in them and as has been said their bosses were given high up positions and influence within EA and also John Riccitiello who had invested already in Bioware was placed in charge of EA's corporate side at around the same time so in no way is this move any sort of doom and gloom scenerio where they fire everyone in Bioware and replace them with people who know nothing of the companies history and direction it'd just never happen when the people in charge believe in Bioware so much.

And as far as Bioware making games like Bioware used to make the game industry has moved on from that and modernised. The expectations of the much larger audience that Bioware serves is much different these days and it wouldn't be a smart decision to pander just to the hardcore RPG fans. To make their RPG's more enjoyable for a wider audience they need to be more accessible so all players can jump right in and enjoy it and not just the hardcore types who want a million stats and math equations to deal with to enjoy an RPG.

[apheix]

I would certainly consider this a good thing and I wonder if alot of the reasoning is due to The Old Republic. It probably takes some man power to keep tabs on an MMO.

Regardless of why, Congrats Bioware! Don't stop being awesome.

[In Exile]

Weiser_Cain wrote...
And yet your games have become less RPG with every release. Look I'm happy in theory that you guys can pay your bills and raise you families, but as a consumer, it's not my job to care about that.

Like Jade Empire and ME, prior to the deal with EA.

And KoTOR, while we're at it. Bioware's making the games Bioware wants to make.

Take DLC as an example. Bioware was experimenting with DLC since the early days (NWN premium modules) and with multiplayer content (NWN as a whole). 

[Chuvvy]

vometia wrote...

According to that article, John Riccitiello had this to say: "We’re focusing on building our intellectual properties/franchises into year-round business.  We are already seeing big returns on our investment in change. That’s
why this is precisely the right time to update our organization."

Er.  Right.  Well that makes it a whole lot clearer.

Sigh.  Why can't management types speak in plain English?  I suppose at least he didn't use the word "leverage", so we can be grateful for small mercies.

I think it's corporate for "A game a year." I could be wrong.

Modifié par Slidell505, 06 août 2011 - 04:40 .

[Yrkoon]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Yes, Westwood was merged into EALA, formerly Dreamworks Interactive, which was acquired in 2000 and still in existence today,

That's some really nice spin there.

EA closed Westwood's studios, and liquidated its assets, in 2003.

[Weiser_Cain]

Moondoggie wrote...

And as far as Bioware making games like Bioware used to make the game industry has moved on from that and modernised. The expectations of the much larger audience that Bioware serves is much different these days and it wouldn't be a smart decision to pander just to the hardcore RPG fans. To make their RPG's more enjoyable for a wider audience they need to be more accessible so all players can jump right in and enjoy it and not just the hardcore types who want a million stats and math equations to deal with to enjoy an RPG.

In what way has the game industry modernized apart from graphics?

As for your second point, I had to think about how to go at it. Their old games already did all the math for you(well ok Thac0 was counter-intuitive).... No wait how about this?
Let's say you make your fortune in chess, you have a loyal fanbase that just can't wait for the next set.  Now say you want people that don't like chess to play, so you make all the pieces look and move the same, because not everybody wants to memorize a handful of pieces and their moves. Can you see  how maybe the old fans will just see the changes as,,, checkers?
Which is fine, if they want to make checkers ok, but I'm here for chess. And we're getting off topic.
Continuing with the bad analogies, lets say you went to mc donalds but all the had was taco bell, see they changed the name because more people like mcdonalds than taco bell, but the gut were still taco bell... I'm just going to stop and hope you can see where I was going with that.

[Bryy_Miller]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

Moondoggie wrote...

And as far as Bioware making games like Bioware used to make the game industry has moved on from that and modernised. The expectations of the much larger audience that Bioware serves is much different these days and it wouldn't be a smart decision to pander just to the hardcore RPG fans. To make their RPG's more enjoyable for a wider audience they need to be more accessible so all players can jump right in and enjoy it and not just the hardcore types who want a million stats and math equations to deal with to enjoy an RPG.

In what way has the game industry modernized apart from graphics?

Well... in the same way every industry on Earth modernizes ith current trends and progression.

[Moondoggie]

Weiser_Cain wrote...


In what way has the game industry modernized apart from graphics?

In many ways. What the gamer wants and expects from a game is very different to what a gamer wanted in the 80's and in the 90's and even 10 years ago. As more games are made people constantly are giving feedback in games and what people expect from a game changes over time and the games industry has to move with these changes. Looking at RPG's if you play an RPG 10 years apart you can see how the industry changed and i'm not talking just about graphics i'm talking about the overall design of the game. You can see the changes they made were for the overall game experience and fun factor.

The modern gamer wants a completely different experience in a game from 10 years ago so the game industry is modernising in all areas and of course modernsing as a buisiness too no buisiness can have the exact same stratagy and principles forever and expect to survive you need to change with your consumers.

Weiser_Cain wrote...

As for your second point, I had to think about how to go at it. Their old games already did all the math for you(well ok Thac0 was counter-intuitive).... No wait how about this?
Let's say you make your fortune in chess, you have a loyal fanbase that just can't wait for the next set.  Now say you want people that don't like chess to play, so you make all the pieces look and move the same, because not everybody wants to memorize a handful of pieces and their moves. Can you see  how maybe the old fans will just see the changes as,,, checkers?
Which is fine, if they want to make checkers ok, but I'm here for chess. And we're getting off topic.
Continuing with the bad analogies, lets say you went to mc donalds but all the had was taco bell, see they changed the name because more people like mcdonalds than taco bell, but the gut were still taco bell... I'm just going to stop and hope you can see where I was going with that.

What you are missing in this is let's go with your chess analagy for a moment sure okay i'm a buisiness that makes chess games. I have a loyal fanbase which is fine but now i want to expand my fanbase so i have people outside of my loyal fanbase play the games and they say "Well it's okay but i think it would be more fun if it was a bit less complicated.  So i change the rules and make it slightly less complicated and a whole new fanbase can now relate to the game.

Moving on a have yet another new fanbase play the games. They say "It's okay but itd be better if you made the game more fast paced and exciting"  I decide to move with the needs of my audience to expand my horizons. It works and the games are more successfull than ever.

Around this time some parts of my original loyal fanbase are upset and say "These games are too different from what they originally were and they are dumbed down. Change it back to how it was!"   The other half of that loyal fanbase feels that modernising the games is a good thing and the other side should not be stuck in the past so now the loyal fanbase is split in two.

Now say you are me. Should you change the games back completely to how it was to serve 1/4 of your fanbase just because they were there are the begining? Or do you carry on as a modern games developer and keep 3/4 of your audience happy without any risk of alienating them?

Modifié par Moondoggie, 08 août 2011 - 10:29 .