20 réponses à ce sujet

[Playest]

 I found this recently over on the wiki and I thought it was worth discussing

http://www.eurogamer...l-us-what-to-do

This article is actutally quite old but i couldn't find a realted thread, If this has been brought up before please feel free to lock this and link to the previous thread.

after reading this article i immediately screamed:
"THEN WHY WAS DA2 SO OBVIOUSLY A RUSH JOB!"

The easy answer is that Greg and Ray are being less then completely honest. If not that then could Bioware have pushed it out early for some other reason? Maybe they needed the cash for SWtOR? 
 

Edit: I Just wanted to thank Stanely Woo for his thoughtful responses and giving so much of his time to talk to us here. He has cemented himself as my personal favorite Bioware Employee on these boards. Please join me in takeing the time to give a quick thanks to Stan is future posts.

[Sorry, had to finally correct the thread title.]

Modifié par Playest, 14 octobre 2011 - 11:58 .

[Stanley Woo]

Atakuma wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

if they are listening the fanbase why the toolset still don't exist?

The fanbase extends far beyond people who can actually use the toolset.

Also, "listening to the fanbase" does not obligate us to agree with you or obey you.

[Stanley Woo]

Joy Divison wrote...

"we think a lot more about the commercial elements than we used to," Zeschuk explained.

The likely reason we have to do so

EDIT: I think I fixed it

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 09 octobre 2011 - 06:54 .

[Stanley Woo]

Some spam and bickering removed. Let's try to keep things on topic and civil, please.

[Stanley Woo]

shepisavanguardgetoverit wrote...
Don't get me wrong Stanley but the costs of developing a pc game can't really be justified for what is annoying people the most about DAII.

I was merely responding to Greg's quote and why it might be that we're "thinking more about commercialization" now than, for example, 10 years ago which people are kinda touting as the halcyon days of BioWare, RPG development, and game quality.

I get that these things are expensive, but I would've happily paid $100-$150 on DAII provided it lived up to the huge standard that DA:O forged on its own, and I would've waited longer for it as well.  To put it in perspective, I played DA:O for 2 months straight, and about 25 playthroughs.  I played DAII for 2 weeks and 6 playthroughs. I payed $100 for Origins and $60 for DAII.  Esentially half the game, exactly

Unfortunately, you're not the only person we have to please or sell to. If there was a market of those willing to pay $100-$150 and waited longer, if that was something that we could guarantee, things may have worked out differently. While such claims and intentions are noble, and we appreciate the sentiment, unless we have a huge-normous portion of the market willing to do that, it's just not going to work out. And good luck getting even 1000 folks on this forum to agree to something like that, let alone the gaming public at large.

However, just let me say that Legacy IS a step in the right direction, and if DA3 or DA2 expansion follow that formulae, then the future of the Dragon Age franchise is looking good. 

Thank you. it's nice to hear positivity and hope coming from the community once in a while. We hope to be able to live up to that hope.

[Stanley Woo]

Nice post, Gotholhorakh. While I might disagree with you, you've expressed yourself very well. Thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

ElitePinecone wrote...

You're right, of course - it's impossible to ignore the commercial side of the business, given ballooning development costs. And we (as in, fans) aren't even privy to the number-crunching inside Bioware, so we don't know how a game's profitability measures up against its sales data.

All statements by a lot of those armchair executives to the contrary, lol. I have learned a lot about the industry, about game development, and about marketing and big business in my 10 years with BioWare.

But I'd wonder whether it's a sustainable business practice to do something like DA2 - with hugely polarising reactions and rampaging fans on the forums - where we've seen a genuine fall in overall sales numbers (a quite dramatic fall) and melodramatic posts from people who say they'll never buy another Bioware game again, etc. 

Well, for one thing, you don't make a project to have polarizing reviews or to anger fans. Most projects are made with the best of intentions and with the hopes of not only wowing the existing audience, but bringing in people from a different audience as well. There's no way you can guarantee that a project will be a success, no matter how successful the project looks or sounds or however much market research or focus testing you do.

Some of this is self-important hyperbole, but I'd suggest that some segments of Bioware's "core fans" (as one of the Doctors termed them/us) won't be so willing to pre-order any future content.

Clearly this wasn't the intended effect of DA2, but I'd wonder whether it's worth arguably alienating some portions of your playerbase just to meet commercial pressures which would seem to be fairly flexible. We don't know why the development of DA2 worked as it did, or what concerns had to be met in terms of time or budgets, but I'd hope that taking some more time in the future for planning and polishing content is pretty high up on the list of future priorities

Despite a lot of self-admitted ignorance of internal business practices, policies and decisions, many are more than willing to condemn us or EA for any perceived fault in their much-anticipated game. i can't blame people for feeling strongly about the games we make, but I do wish folks would dial it down to a wary skepticism or cagey optimism instead of falling into internet stereotypes. i've often said that I don't care whether you agree with us, or even like us or our games, just talk to us in a civil, constructive manner and we can hash out much more than if everyone's raging so loud their ears and their brains have shut off!

I would hope that the steps we've taken to address some of DAII's concerns in Legacy and Mark of the Assassin will show very obviously that we are listening to the community's concerns and we can deal with our differences without resorting to insults or name-calling or, as I like to call it, "sensationalist hyperbole."

We can't (and shouldn't have to) tell you everything we're doing or why we're doing it, but several of our developers do their darnedest to be as open and honest as they can about our business and our games, despite people shouting them down and calling for their heads. Mike Laidlaw actually comes in to talk to the community, and he's the franchise creative director! David Gaider spends as much time with you guys as he is able, and he's the Lead Writer of the franchise. John Epler takes time out of Cinematics Design to both discuss things with the community and Moderate. And I find it therapeutic to come here on my breaks from QA testing. Heck, most of our writing department is here in one capacity or another! So yeah, you guys get a lot of attention from a bunch of us developers, so you have many different perspectives on the same issue.

Awesome comments, ElitePinecone. Thank you, and please let me know if you have any further questions or if there's anything I can help clarify.

[Stanley Woo]

ElitePinecone wrote...
I guess that by this point after DA2's release people who post on the forums usually do so constructively rather than ranting. Even if the reaction is less than glowing, it's mostly civil. 

Most of it, yes. We still get the occasional new player who's late to the game and decides that he's goign to be clever and come in here to bash the game... with months-old tropes that have since been addressed.

Didn't mean to imply Bioware actively set out to make something polarising - nobody plans a maelstrom - and I accept that there was genuine surprise at the level of dissatisfaction. People who entertain conspiracy theories about developers feigning penitence to win back fans will never be satisfied; if there were no response they'd accuse you of hubris or arrogance, but anything less than public self-flagellation is seen as insincere.

Exactly. They want us to admit we were wrong. And for some things, yes, we were. We knew we were doing things differently than with Origins--in many cases, out of necessity--and one of the things we did very wrong was that we failed to adequately prepare the community for just how different DAII was going to be from Origins. We mentioned some of the differences, but at that point, people still thought "oh, it's going to be similar to Origins but for these differences." We were neither loud enough, articulate enough, nor persistent enough in managing the community's extremely high expectations. Being too good at what you do--first world problems, right?

I'm personally very optimistic about future content (even if I can't understand the mindset behind some of DA2), and I hope the fan feedback and sales for MotA are enough to justify the investment of this level of quality in the future. 

One day, maybe we'll be able to talk about some of it, but rest assured, at no time are we merely sitting on our laurels or coasting on past successes. We are always looking for ways to make our games better overall. it's just that people are far less forgiving of a corporate game developer (like EA BioWare) than they are of a plucky underdog studio (like independent BioWare). And so it goes.

[Stanley Woo]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

GithCheater wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

And I find it therapeutic to come here on my breaks from QA testing.

You have a strange notion regarding therapy.

I always put on a straight jacket before reading and replying to these forums.

Maybe he meant therapeutic in a "Good God, I'm glad I'm not one of those mouth-breathers!" sort of way.

That's rather insulting towards the folks who might not have the same level of verbal/written articulation as we do. Sure, there'll always be folks on an internet message board that we don't like or that we think is a loser. but that's the same kind of knee-jerk, reactionary thinking that many of us argue against.

Look at the positive effect of some of those excitable people. If they like something, their enthusiasm is very evident. They feel very strongly about things, which is why, when they don't like something, you're sure to hear it. But, like all of us, they have a great passion for the game. They identify with it, they are moved by it, they have a very strong connection fo that BioWare game experience. Their feedback, while possibly harder to get at, is no less valuable than yours or mine. We should be trying to get at the core of their complaints or issues rather than belittling them or making fun of them. Part of having such a great community as ours is the willingness of perfect strangers to help out.

So let's not sink to the level of people we profess to hate, and cut it out with the name-calling, please. Thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

Imrahil_ wrote...
Stanley, your posting style is, IMO, much more engaging & less confrontational nowadays, so fwiw, I feel like it's more of a discussion.  Thank you for that.  Sincerely.

Thank you. I'm trying to be more David Gaider and less Dane Cook in my interactions. i hope it doesn't come across as patronizing or condescending, because it's not intended to be.

To be honest, isn't that a good thing?  The EA part, I mean?  As much as the company line might be "Bioware = EA now!", isn't it a good thing *for Bioware* that people are putting the blame on EA?  Meaning they still mostly trust Bioware, if only tEvil EA hadn't Borg'd them?  Feel free not to answer, due to being Borg'd. 

Lol, nah, I'll answer. no, it's not a good thing. Beyond merely "toeing the company line," success for one means success for the other. If we are contributing well to the success of EA, EA is more likely to listen to us and look at the way we do things. if someone were to see you doing something rude or unsavoury, say, would you rather they blamed you for being uncouth or blamed your parents for not raising you right? Or if you were running a shop, should someone blame the clerk/worker or you the boss for anything they disagree with?

Niether is an attractive answer, really, and a lot of the "blame" that gets thrown around is misguided to begin with. Perhaps neither party should be assigned blame, like "if it weren't for party X, Dragon Age II would have been perfect." That's the misguided part. Blaming someone isn't going to magically make games better; it just makes people feel better to have a target. And that's what we developers have to be sometimes.

Instead of blaming, people like Mike Laidlaw and David Gaider and I try to open up discussions. WHY do you blame such and such? Why? How can we make things better the next time? Without knowing the precise nature of the business relationship between EA and BioWare, without knowing just how publisher and developer work together, many folks assume (usually erroneous) things and start their complaining/arguing from there. Some things we can correct them on, some things just seem to be logical ways for businesses to work, and some things--like many of the specific circumstances surrounding game development, vis-a-vis schedules, salaries, features, etc.--are privileged information that we simply can't and won't discuss with you. This naturally puts us at a significant disadvantage, when the best we can say in our defence is "you're wrong or misguided."

People talk about us "losing fans" all the time, on every major release. heck, anytime we announce a major feature, people start crowing about how it's new and unnecessary and people won't like it. Some threaten to cancel preorders, some threaten to leave and never return, some say they'll never buy another bioWare product again. but somehow we still have a bajillion fans, both new and old! But I trust that the upper-ups in my company know what they're doing, and that they have a much longer view of things than you or I do. You the audience can only see the next project coming uip. We as developers probably have two or three things we're working towards at any given time, be it games or DLC or concepts or technology or process or what have you. Those running the company have to plan our direction years in advance, so, like in chess or 9-ball or golf, they try to place their current shot in a certain spot so that getting to the next spot is easier.

Longtime fans saw us go from Baldur's Gate to Tales of the Sword Coast to Baldur's Gate II to Throne of Bhaal, which put BioWare in the right place to do Neverwinter Nights. Even the success of Neverwinter Nights put us in the right place at the right time to do Knights of the Old Republic, which kinda sorta made us the right people to do something like Star Wars: The Old Republic, right? If we are still trying to attract that new audience, we have to change our game a bit. we can't keep doing exactly the same thing and expect the world, the industry, and people's tastes to stay the same just for us.

We can never promise that you'll never be disappointed by a BioWare game or that we'll never make something you don't like, but I doubt we'll stop listening to your comments and feedback here in our community.

[Stanley Woo]

Akka le Vil wrote...
I made an answer about that, but it seems it was completely ignored

It was ignored (by me, anyway) because your base premise is something to which I can only respond "you are wrong." And as your base premise is incorrect, your conclusions based on that premise are incorrect. The rhetorical questions you ask based on that premise are misguided, and your utopian idea of game developer as artist and publisher as money-grubbing killjoy is laudable but completely ignores the financial realities of the industry. Sorry.

[Stanley Woo]

For some, it is, as they have invested too much of themselves emotionally in believing that BioWare games are the last, best hope for their type of gaming. just as many Star Wars fans believed Episodes I, II and II were George Lucas destroying their childhood. Can you imagine being locked out of your childhood fantasy world, a place where you spent hours and hours pretending to fight with lightsabers or trying to develop your own Force abilities, a place where anything was possible with perseverance and a calm, controlled exertion of will?

And yet, Star Wars didn't lose an entire generation of fans. Neither did Star Trek when the latest movie was released. Neither did Firefly when Serenity didn't do well at the box office. one might even say that, since these events, those respective franchises gained legions of new fans while retaining many of their old ones.

But much of what you say is true, Mike_Neel. A bad product is not (or should not be) a personal insult to anyone. And this isn't the end of gaming as you know it. Thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

Sylvius, we all know by now that you are a very special pony, and no single developer will be able to make a game that will completely satisfy you. I'll settle for BioWare making a game you don't outright hate.

[Stanley Woo]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Supreme Commander 2, Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2, Civilization V, Deus Ex : Invisible War and many others have shown it. They usually don't outsold their predecessor, making all the changes "for better sales" useless and dubious, and all the money thrown into such marketing compeltely wasted and pointless (in other words : such changes are simply costing more for no additionnal benefit, and often reduced benefits), and more often than not killed the goodwill of the community, threatening fewer sales for the next iteration of the franchise.
Also, you can be pretty sure that none of them will be ever considered a "classic" few years down. If a new sequel is made, it will be built on the fame of their predecessor, not their own. Again, no benefit.

Of course not, if you look at it completely from the perspective of hindsight. Companies don't have the luxury of looking at the results of their decisions before making them, while players have every luxury of being able to judge a decision long after its results are already known. If we're making a decision based on "it'll sell more," we have to do so before any sales are made, before any numbers are released. This is, of course, long before players get their hands on the game. heck, it may even be long before the game has been announced.

It's like buying a lottery ticket, right? You can't predict whether you will win the jackpot, but you purchase it in the hopes of winning the jackpot. If you win, no one can say anything because, hey, you won, but if you don't win, your friends will ask "why would you buy a lottery ticket? You lost!" You have to decide to take that risk (spending the money on a ticket) in order to potentially reap the reward. If you never buy the ticket, the chances of winning are precisely zero. the same concept applies to game development. if we never try anything new, nothing changes. Games will become more expensive, advertising will get more expensive, but if all you're doing is targeting the same people each and every time, the chances of gaining a significant amount of sales to help position you for future development are pretty slim.

In other words, to come back at what I was saying : the move to follow marketing crap had not brang benefit, it has actually been counter-productive - despite higher costs.

So even on a purely commercial side (which is not even the one that should be given the highest priority) it's not a good move. So why the hell is it so often done ?

You should ask yourself the same question but put yourself in the company's shoes for a second. If it never works, why would it be tried at all, and by so many companies? Logically, one would conclude that it must work more often than not, since the company is spending so much money on advertising. And the results of it working are probably pretty significant, if the company is willing to risk that much on it. Companies rarely do something just for the heck of it, and that becomes more true the bigger the company is.

So why do it? Because it can work and can be of great benefit. It would be tough to prove because I can't bring any numbers into play, but as much as I disagree with it, movies have advertising budgets that are sometimes larger than the development budgets. it doesn't always work, sure, but compared to films which don't get that advertising, it certainly makes a difference.

Let's take two hypothetical films, Movie A with a Vengeance and Last Call for Movie B. It's summer blockbuster season and the studios behind each film wants to attract as many moviegoers as possible on opening weekend. Movie A With a Vengeance has a huge advertising budget, and uses it like it's going out of style. MAWV Studio takes out TV spots, so whenever you watch TV, every other commercial break screams MOVIE A WITH A VENGEANCE at you. The studio also advertises on your favourite websites. MOVIE A! MOVIE A! MOVIE A! WITH A VENGEANCE! It also takes up space at all the summer conventions. MOVIE A here! MOVIE A there! And, of course, let's not forget all the Movie A With a Vengeance, t-shirts, action figures, ringtones, Happy Meals, banners, screenshots, video clips, cosplayers and such.

Unfortunately, Last Call for Movie B has a significantly smaller budget but is coming out at the same time as Movie A With a Vengeance, but they try to do the same thing as Movie A on a smaller scale. Now, when you watch TV, the ads go Movie A, Movie A, Movie A, Last Call for Movie B, Movie A, Movie A, Movie A, Movie A. When you go to your favourite websites, you see MOVIE A! MOVIE A! MOVIE A! MOVIE A WITH A VENGEANCE! MOVIE A! and over there in the corner is, i think, maybe Movie B. MOVIE A! VENGEANCE ! VENGEANCE! VENGEANCE! MOVIE A! MOVIE A! At the summer conventions, there's only one Last Call for Movie B character running around with photocpied leaflets, while everyone's flocking to the Movie A cosplayers handing out REPLICA VENGEANCE GUNS! VENGEANCE GUNS! VENGEANCE VENGEANCE VENGEANCE! As for ancillary products, Movie B can only afford Last Call plushies, which do sell pretty well from the one site that sells them.

Which film do you think will attract the most audience? Probably Movie A, since they've saturated the market and people's brains with imagery, tag lines and titles from Movie A With a Vengeance. Heck, even leaving this post, the phrase MOVIE A WITH A VENGEANCE might stick in your head a little bit, since I emphasized it more and mentioned it more often. With all the competition in not just the videogames industry, but all other entertainment media and distractions, it seems necessary to spend that money in order to get, hold and keep people's interest in your product.

[Stanley Woo]

MerinTB wrote...
What is it you are comparing them to, Stanley?  I don't want to say "bad analogy" because I can poke holes in how different things are, I hate when people do that, but what you actually said doesn't connect.  If on nothing else, the Serenity comment screams of ignorance (and by ignorance I mean you not knowing much about Browncoats)...

Like with one lesser-selling game, a new Star Trek reboot, a poorly-grossing Firefly movie, or a polarizing Star Wars direction does not signal the death of a franchise or mass desrtion of the franchise by the fanbase. So folks should not start spouting doom and gloom for a company or franchise based on a single product that they didn't like, didn't sell well, or went in a different direction than they'd like.

[Stanley Woo]

Merci357 wrote...
Since you made the analogy to the movie business - you know the big players in hollywood produce not only AAA movies. For every Avatar made, there are also plenty of smaller ones, often catering to niche markets, made by the very same studio. A horror movie is far from Avatars budget, but in this niche market is still money to be made, otherwise they wouldn't be produced. And sometimes a low budget movie becomes a surprise big hit, not because it has a huge marketing machine behind it, but because of "word of mouth". Think, say, Blair Witch Project.

Why is this so different in the games industry?

It isn't. Movie studios generally have different imprints working on different types of movies, just as publishers have different dev studios working on different kinds of games. EA has the BioWare group for RPGs and MMOs, and within that group, BioWare Mythic and BioWare Austin do MMOs while EA2D does digital games and BioWare Edmonton and Montreal are working on the two RPG franchises. DICE is working on Battlefield 3, and there's a whole truckload of people working under the EA Sports umbrella.

There's a metric truckload of stuff going on behind the scenes of game development that just isn't visible to most gamers, and without intimate knowledge of these things, people don't realize just how much work goes into making a game or a movie or releasing a novel. The sheer scope of a national or international release of a multimillion dollar project is ridiculously mind-boggling! I find it fascinating, but then, i've been in the industry for 10 years. Some of our fans may be familiar with big business or large projects, but I think few have been involved in project this big.

[Stanley Woo]

I believe i've already covered this, if not in this thread, then in others. in brief:

- the increased cost of game development
- the emergence of new gaming and communications technology
- ubiquitous adoption of things like always-on broadband internet, mobile phones, portable computing, etc.
- videogaming being adopted by the mainstream
- increased competition
- changing tastes

[Stanley Woo]

schalafi wrote...

Stanley, I've been a member of Bioware fourms since 2003, and this is the longest, and most comprehensive explanation of how things are in the gaming industry I have ever heard from you, or any other Bioware employee. Thanks for taking the time to set some things straight about how a product needs to be developed and marketed, in order to be profitable, and just generally putting to rest some of the misconceptions about the relationship between Bioware and EA.

I recognize your screen name. Good to see you again, schalafi, and thank you.

[Stanley Woo]

TwistedComplex wrote...
Is it REALLY that hard to turn a profit with EA and Bioware backing the title, Stan? Is it REAAALLLLYYYY???

REALLY? Be honest. BE HONEST

Is it really that difficult for professional athletes to win games, even with the best training that money can buy? Remember that other companies also have all these benefit, many talented people in their employ, and comparable  business sense. Some may be better at some things, some worse at other things, but the farther you get up the success ladder, the harder you have to work to stay competitive.

Sidney Crosby, for example, doesn't work less than he did playing junior hockey just because he's super talented and is backed by a major league team. Every season, he has to compete with every other player in that league to win games. Even in our personal lives, we all work much harder than we did in junior high and high school, even though we have higher paying jobs and arguably much more freedom and independence. Is it really that hard to stay out of debt as we get older?

[Stanley Woo]

Ronnel wrote...

They should learn to From Software studios principle "We make games based on what we value instead of chasing after what is popular".

Different companies, different people guiding the way, different ways of approaching the problem. There's no one tried-and-true way of making a game or marketing it or having it sell well. Which is not to say that principle you've quoted is a bad one, but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution for every company.

[Stanley Woo]

Since we are no longer even remotely on topic, i'm going to shut this thread down. Thank you.

End of line.