1169 réponses à ce sujet

[Genshie]

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP. That extra 5 million could make a huge difference. See we are just going in circles nothing you say can honestly fully defend multiplayer as not being a waste of funds that could be used on to improve the singleplayer experience. I don't see why you people want co-op/multiplayer so badly anyway out of a franchise that has its main product ending. As a new project/story for the ME franchise this would be fine. It makes little to no sense to add multiplayer to the final installment of a trilogy that has never had it before. I recall games that had multiplayer implemented in the middle of the series but never at the end for good and obvious reasons.

Modifié par Genshie, 06 octobre 2011 - 06:45 .

[1136342t54_]

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP. That extra 5 million could make a huge difference. See we are just going in circles nothing you say can honestly fully defend multiplayer as not being a waste of funds that could be used on to improve the singleplayer experience. I don't see why you people want co-op/multiplayer so badly anyway out of a franchise that has its main product ending. As a new project/story for the ME franchise this would be fine. It makes little to no sense to add multiplayer to the final installment of a trilogy that has never had it before. I recall games that had multiplayer implemented in the middle of the series but never at the end for good and obvious reasons.

Your not understanding though. Those funds would never have been used for SP at all only for DLC in the future. You would lose NOTHING from SP by adding MP.

Edit: Don't claim that I want MP because I never even said that. That is your assumption. I'm just tired of people like you complaining about funds being wasted when its highly likely it would have never been used for SP anyway so who cares? Mass Effect 3 SP won't change in anyway with or without MP.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 06 octobre 2011 - 06:50 .

[Genshie]

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP. That extra 5 million could make a huge difference. See we are just going in circles nothing you say can honestly fully defend multiplayer as not being a waste of funds that could be used on to improve the singleplayer experience. I don't see why you people want co-op/multiplayer so badly anyway out of a franchise that has its main product ending. As a new project/story for the ME franchise this would be fine. It makes little to no sense to add multiplayer to the final installment of a trilogy that has never had it before. I recall games that had multiplayer implemented in the middle of the series but never at the end for good and obvious reasons.

Your not understanding though. Those funds would never have been used for SP at all only for DLC in the future. You would lose NOTHING from SP by adding MP.

Then you just said what I said several times already. Adding it on is fine in my book as a later future dlc/expansion/project/whatever. As such they would have almost an infinite amount of time to do everything they want for it.

Modifié par Genshie, 06 octobre 2011 - 06:51 .

[1136342t54_]

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP. That extra 5 million could make a huge difference. See we are just going in circles nothing you say can honestly fully defend multiplayer as not being a waste of funds that could be used on to improve the singleplayer experience. I don't see why you people want co-op/multiplayer so badly anyway out of a franchise that has its main product ending. As a new project/story for the ME franchise this would be fine. It makes little to no sense to add multiplayer to the final installment of a trilogy that has never had it before. I recall games that had multiplayer implemented in the middle of the series but never at the end for good and obvious reasons.

Your not understanding though. Those funds would never have been used for SP at all only for DLC in the future. You would lose NOTHING from SP by adding MP.

Then you just said what I said several times already. Adding it on is fine in my book as a later future dlc/expansion/project/whatever.

I'm saying that if it is added the funds that would be used would never come from the SP at all. Its likely it is never a part of the main Mass Effect 3 budget and was added in with extra funding. Any money used for MP wouldn't be taken away from SP but at the same time they would have never give it to SP at all. Hell I seriously doubt future DLC would suffer since money from sales should be able to make up for it easily. So basically nothing would suffer.

Edit: It can be added as DLC and it wouldn't mess with the ME story. In fact people would still complain about it affecting story DLC.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 06 octobre 2011 - 06:53 .

[littlezack]

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP.

In the hypothetical situation you're talking about, the five million wouldn't exist if there was no multiplayer. They'd put it towards some other product or something. This is simple math. This is addition and subtraction.

They have a budget.

If multiplayer is in, they add to the budget to accomodate it.

If multiplayer is out, they don't add the money.

You cannot just throw an endless supply of money at a videogame because, believe it or not, the quality of the game is actually not the only thing you have to take in consideration. Ideally, you want to spend less money making a game and get more money back selling it. The game can sell in the billions, but if it cost more money to produce than the money it gets back from sales, it was a waste of time and a failure. If they throw in an extra five million dollars for multiplayer, that's five million dollars that would not have been part of the budget otherwise.

Modifié par littlezack, 06 octobre 2011 - 06:55 .

[1136342t54_]

littlezack wrote...

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP.

In the hypothetical situation you're talking about, the five million wouldn't exist if there was no multiplayer. They'd put it towards some other product or something. This is simple math. This is addition and subtraction.

They have a budget.

If multiplayer is in, they add to the budget to accomodate it.

If multiplayer is out, they don't add the money.

You cannot just throw an endless supply of money at a videogame because, believe it or not, the quality of the game is actually not the only thing you have to take in consideration. Ideally, you want to spend less money making a game and get more money back selling it. If they throw in an extra five million dollars for multiplayer, that's five million dollars that would not have been part of the budget otherwise.

This so This.

[Genshie]

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP. That extra 5 million could make a huge difference. See we are just going in circles nothing you say can honestly fully defend multiplayer as not being a waste of funds that could be used on to improve the singleplayer experience. I don't see why you people want co-op/multiplayer so badly anyway out of a franchise that has its main product ending. As a new project/story for the ME franchise this would be fine. It makes little to no sense to add multiplayer to the final installment of a trilogy that has never had it before. I recall games that had multiplayer implemented in the middle of the series but never at the end for good and obvious reasons.

Your not understanding though. Those funds would never have been used for SP at all only for DLC in the future. You would lose NOTHING from SP by adding MP.

Then you just said what I said several times already. Adding it on is fine in my book as a later future dlc/expansion/project/whatever.

I'm saying that if it is added the funds that would be used would never come from the SP at all. Its likely it is never a part of the main Mass Effect 3 budget and was added in with extra funding. Any money used for MP wouldn't be taken away from SP but at the same time they would have never give it to SP at all. Hell I seriously doubt future DLC would suffer since money from sales should be able to make up for it easily. So basically nothing would suffer.

Edit: It can be added as DLC and it wouldn't mess with the ME story. In fact people would still complain about it affecting story DLC.

I don't see how it would effect the story since ME3 is the end to Shepard's story. The DLC probably wouldn't be from Shepard's perspective or story at all.

Modifié par Genshie, 06 octobre 2011 - 06:57 .

[1136342t54_]

Genshie wrote...
I don't see how it would effect the story since ME3 is the end to Shepard's story. The Dlc probably wouldn't be from Shepard's perspective or story at all.

Story DLC can be put in before the end of ME3 something similar to Bringing down the sky.

[GreenSoda]

I so hope it's not mp.

If it is and I play the sp-campaign, any shortcomings (bugs, story weakness, generell shortness) I'll encouter will make me think they're there because they wasted resources on the mp/coop.

[Genshie]

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...
I don't see how it would effect the story since ME3 is the end to Shepard's story. The Dlc probably wouldn't be from Shepard's perspective or story at all.

Story DLC can be put in before the end of ME3 something similar to Bringing down the sky.

Before wouldn't make any sense story wise unless it is from another characters' perspective. Technically the final bit of ME2 was Arrival. Shepard is in chains right now. (If you have read the recent clips of the comic featuring Vega) Speaking of which kind offtopic but I would love to have control of Shepard being taken down to Earth in chains walking down to his/her trial while people yelled at him/her for the events of Arrival. (That just make the experience that more realistic to me)

Modifié par Genshie, 06 octobre 2011 - 07:03 .

[111987]

GreenSoda wrote...

I so hope it's not mp.

If it is and I play the sp-campaign, any shortcomings (bugs, story weakness, generell shortness) I'll encouter will make me think they're there because they wasted resources on the mp/coop.

Yeah, because ME1 and ME2 weren't buggy at all...

[Illusive]

Speaking of reveals, didn't they say something was going to be announced on Bioware pulse thursday?

[1136342t54_]

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...
I don't see how it would effect the story since ME3 is the end to Shepard's story. The Dlc probably wouldn't be from Shepard's perspective or story at all.

Story DLC can be put in before the end of ME3 something similar to Bringing down the sky.

Before wouldn't make any sense story wise unless it is from another characters' perspective. Technically the final bit of ME2 was Arrival. Shepard is in chains right now. (If you have read the recent clips of the comic featuring Vega) Speaking of which kind offtopic but I would love to have control of Shepard being taken down to Earth in chains walking down to his/her trial while people yelled at him/her for the events of Arrival. (That just make the experience that more realistic to me)

I am not trying to explain this in a perfectly logical way. This is BSN. If MP is made DLC people will complain about it affecting some other DLC in some way.

Also I hope we do have some control of Shepard but I think Bioware may allow that.

[Drone223]

A Mod or the OP should proberly change the title of this post since its about the "multiplayer rumor"

[azerSheppard]

Heres me hoping the new feature is running the game in 60 fps, i love what Carmack did in RAGE, why bother with 25-30 fps?

[H1natachan]

Perhaps this so called killer reveal is Blasto the Hanar spectre in his own mini game, unlocked upon completing M.E.3

[Reptillius]

H1natachan wrote...

Perhaps this so called killer reveal is Blasto the Hanar spectre in his own mini game, unlocked upon completing M.E.3

Or maybe it's all 17 hours of the Elcor version of Hamlet.

[whywhywhywhy]

littlezack wrote...
No, they couldn't.

yes they could have. 

littlezack wrote...
It's safe to assume that ME3 is being made on a budget - there's only so much money going to certain things. There's only so much money they can spend on voice-acting, graphics, testing, whatever. It's planned out, more or less.

I agree, mostly.  But if a budget is increased because changes can be made.   For instance a delay is a budget increase for obvious reasons, if the delay was given to iron out bugs or improve/finish up certain content.  Then the money has gone to the core game.  In this situation who's to say the planned out content development is going smoothly, problems pop up and most times unless the budget is increased the features or content gets cut.

littlezack wrote...
If Bioware implements MP, they need more money. Probably quite a bit, since ME is really not a game designed for traditional MP and you'd probably have to make a MP mode from the ground up, pretty much. If they're going to implement the feature, they need the money, but if they're not, the money for the future is no longer there. It's out of the budget.

I agree, mostly. To be clear I'm not discussing the validity of the budget for MP but for the reasons underlined that the money if allocated would be better spent on the core game and not DLC(until after launch) or MP. 

As to the bolded portion of I've quoted, I was saying a case could be made for the money for the core game.  They're trying to get the attention of new fans this would be one way to do it as you could consider the expenditure to polish the core game as part of the marketing budget.  It would also increase brandname as the polish(if implemented correctly) would surely shine in reviews.

[Someone With Mass]

I hope the feature is something about the customization.

[King Minos]

Xbox uses a measly DVD remember, Ps3 has the the blu ray so if mutliplayer Is in then content gets cut for us xbox players and we get robbed of more money just to actually get the full package. I bet Casey is just staring non stop at his bank account waiting for it to suddenly shoot up into the millions. I fully expect Bioware to rob us of more money.

[Gatt9]

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP. That extra 5 million could make a huge difference. See we are just going in circles nothing you say can honestly fully defend multiplayer as not being a waste of funds that could be used on to improve the singleplayer experience. I don't see why you people want co-op/multiplayer so badly anyway out of a franchise that has its main product ending. As a new project/story for the ME franchise this would be fine. It makes little to no sense to add multiplayer to the final installment of a trilogy that has never had it before. I recall games that had multiplayer implemented in the middle of the series but never at the end for good and obvious reasons.

Your not understanding though. Those funds would never have been used for SP at all only for DLC in the future. You would lose NOTHING from SP by adding MP.

Edit: Don't claim that I want MP because I never even said that. That is your assumption. I'm just tired of people like you complaining about funds being wasted when its highly likely it would have never been used for SP anyway so who cares? Mass Effect 3 SP won't change in anyway with or without MP.

But you're just trying to rationalize out something that would occur in an ideal world,  that does not occur in the real world.  EA doesn't give them some extra money to put Multiplayer in,  they give them the same budget and tell them to cut stuff out of the single player game to fit it in. 

There's no negotiation or good will here,  EA owns Bioware,  they give them a flat budget and tell them what features must be present. 

The single player game loses content to implement Online Pass,  just because EA wants to make people pay them for used copies,  not because it makes it a better game.

[X-JIDE]

space battles in me3? oh please!

[1136342t54_]

Gatt9 wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

For example. Mass Effect 3 single player gets 20 million dollars. EA wants Bioware to add in MP so they give them a extra 5 million. Now lets say EA didn't want Bioware to make MP. They don't give them any extra money.

Nothing's changed with the SP and no funding would have been added for SP other than some future possible DLC.

Adding or not adding is still the same thing. It doesn't matter how you try to reason with it. The funds that would be used for multiplayer could have/should have been used on SP. That extra 5 million could make a huge difference. See we are just going in circles nothing you say can honestly fully defend multiplayer as not being a waste of funds that could be used on to improve the singleplayer experience. I don't see why you people want co-op/multiplayer so badly anyway out of a franchise that has its main product ending. As a new project/story for the ME franchise this would be fine. It makes little to no sense to add multiplayer to the final installment of a trilogy that has never had it before. I recall games that had multiplayer implemented in the middle of the series but never at the end for good and obvious reasons.

Your not understanding though. Those funds would never have been used for SP at all only for DLC in the future. You would lose NOTHING from SP by adding MP.

Edit: Don't claim that I want MP because I never even said that. That is your assumption. I'm just tired of people like you complaining about funds being wasted when its highly likely it would have never been used for SP anyway so who cares? Mass Effect 3 SP won't change in anyway with or without MP.

But you're just trying to rationalize out something that would occur in an ideal world,  that does not occur in the real world.  EA doesn't give them some extra money to put Multiplayer in,  they give them the same budget and tell them to cut stuff out of the single player game to fit it in. 

There's no negotiation or good will here,  EA owns Bioware,  they give them a flat budget and tell them what features must be present. 

The single player game loses content to implement Online Pass,  just because EA wants to make people pay them for used copies,  not because it makes it a better game.

That isn't being ideal that is being intelligent and EA may seem evil but they aren't really stupid. They know what happens when you don't commit to SP (DA2). It makes PERFECT SENSE for EA to give extra funding for MP. That isn't being ideal or being nice it is being smart and rational.

[whywhywhywhy]

littlezack wrote...
I'd never claim that ME2 is a perfect game or that there's NOTHING in ME1 that's better. Just off the top of my head, I prefer the music in ME1.  But I feel that the changes made in ME2 were, for the most part, good.

Some things, that can't be denied but others were horrible.

littlezack wrote...
And I've yet to see any feature from ME1 really making a return. We have more stats now, but that's really just an expansion of Evolutions, a concept ME2 started. Haven't heard jack squat about vehicles. Weapon customization seems more like the upgrade system in ME3, only with more visible changes and you can modify weaponry on the fly.

Thank you for your post.  Even if we are of differing opinion we can have a conversation. I agree with most you've said here(past posts show this) but I have to add some evolutions did start in ME1.  An example: the weapons customization feature in ME3, weapon customization was absent in ME2 and present in a different form in ME3, so their is influence. 

But my opinion is still closer to yours then those I'm at odds with, not much of ME1 is present in ME3.  I have to apologize I had to frame the question so you'd post this very thing which I agree with.  My intention wasn't just to use you just to make a point, you make excellent observations.  I want you to know your one of the more intelligent posters in here.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 06 octobre 2011 - 10:49 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Guys unfortunately we're going to have to just accept it. They haven't come out and said "no multiplayer", so it's obviously in. Otherwise why else let the discussion go on? The only thing we can do now is just hope that the single player doesn't suffer for it. Bioware is no longer Bioware. They've lost their way, and are now a part of EA. EA likes multiplayer because they figure it will attract the cod dudebros. Unfortunately the campaign will suffer in some way, but I just hope not too much. There's not much we can do about it. They're the developers, they choose what they make. For obvious reasons it would be best to make something that your core fans will enjoy, but they're not worried about us because they figure we'll just buy it anyway since it's the 3rd game in the trilogy. I'd just really like to see their sale numbers for their new title after ME3 when man people won't be going back to them for slapping the fans in the face. It's going to be satisfying.


-Polite