216 réponses à ce sujet

[TwistedComplex]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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

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

[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?

[FedericoV]

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".

Oh, yes, just like Troika and Interplay and every other company who has gone bankrupt in the last 30 years. I mean, there must be a balance between business and creativity.

Modifié par FedericoV, 17 octobre 2011 - 07:48 .

[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.

[Imrahil_]

Stanley Woo wrote...
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, you should have a talk with this guy from a few pages back...

Stanley Woo wrote...
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.

Pre-Stanley seemed to think that you had nailed down the tried-and-true solution.  Neo-Stanley disagrees with pre-Stanley? 

Lets ask Atari, or 3DO, or Magnivox, or Taito, or Intellivision, or Coleco (Coleco originally manufactured shoe leather - isn't that weird?), or Coktel Vision, or Edge Games, or Black Isle Studios (that's a sad one - pour some out for the homies that ain't here), or Dynamix, or Infocom (*sniffle* Zork *sniffle*), or Data East, or Westwood Studios (too soon?), or Microplay, or Origin, or Sirius Software, or RedOrb, or Stategic Simulations, Inc. (SSI), or Team Bondi, or WizardWorks Software, or any  of these other now-defunct game developers.

They thought they were always going to be on top, too, no doubt.  They probably took theiir customer base for granted at one time.  And then they died.  Pride goeth before a fall, someone said... probably Nicky Minaj, I can never attribute quotes correctly.  I'm still holding out hope for Zork IV...

Modifié par Imrahil_, 17 octobre 2011 - 09:42 .

[AlexXIV]

FedericoV wrote...

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".

Oh, yes, just like Troika and Interplay and every other company who has gone bankrupt in the last 30 years. I mean, there must be a balance between business and creativity.

There is a balance, and this balance is probably hard to figure out. Funny though that DA:O was more of a 'We make games based on what we value' game and was surprisingly successful, while DA2 was a 'chasing after what is popular' game and wasn't as successful.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 17 octobre 2011 - 10:01 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Imrahil_ wrote...
snip

Let's be reasonable. All Stanley's doing is expressing faith in the higher ups in their ability to keep BioWare going strong in the future. There's nothing wrong with that.

Whatever problems we may have with BioWare's direction (I personally have many) and even their philosophy for making games in general, we can't pin it's success or failure to a QA guy who happens to frequent the forums.

Especially when all he's said is "Well, I trust my bosses. They've done pretty well so far, no?"

Now, if it were Mr. Laidlaw coming in making these posts, then maybe your concerns on this issue are well directed. But to use the immutable logic of a certain person, "it's not, so it's not."

Modifié par mrcrusty, 17 octobre 2011 - 10:36 .

[FedericoV]

AlexXIV wrote...

There is a balance, and this balance is probably hard to figure out. Funny though that DA:O was more of a 'We make games based on what we value' game and was surprisingly successful, while DA2 was a 'chasing after what is popular' game and wasn't as successful.

Do you really believe that DA:O and DA2 were produced following two completely different creative patterns?  Do you really believe that focus group and marketing weren't involved in DA:O's creative process? C'mon guys, I like DA:O more than DA2 too, but I'm not as naive to believe those merry tales. I mean, DA:O started as a PC exclusive and later on they changed their view and decide for the consolle port for commercial reason: do you honestly believe that the game's "vision" hasn't changed because of that? They even changed the logo of the game...

Btw, DA:O was never marketed or described as you say: the slogan at the time were "back to the roots" and "spiritual successor to BG2" (only to be corrected in the final months with the sex and violence unfamous video, that helped the game to be more recognizable on the consolle). DA:O 's dev cycle begun as fan service, due to the success of a famous thread in the old boards (petition for BG3) and probably even because of the commercial failure of JE.

Moreover, if we believe to the DA2 devs interviews, DA2 is more in line with the kind of game they wanted to make ("interactive storydriven games") than DA:O, where they feel costrained by the limitation of old school RPG design.

DA2 is unsuccesfull because it's a budget and rushed game that lacks the production value standard of a AAA game: the creative process has not a lot to do with it. I believe that both games followed the same procedure and that the difference in terms of execution where mostly due to time costraints than commercial appeal (the latter was equally important).

Modifié par FedericoV, 17 octobre 2011 - 12:00 .

[LilyasAvalon]

The title of this article really should be 'EA doesn't tell us what to do [anymore]'. We hope anyway.

[DanaScu]

Imrahil_ wrote...
Pre-Stanley seemed to think that you had nailed down the tried-and-true solution.  Neo-Stanley disagrees with pre-Stanley? 

Lets ask Atari, or 3DO, or Magnivox, or Taito, or Intellivision, or Coleco (Coleco originally manufactured shoe leather - isn't that weird?), or Coktel Vision, or Edge Games, or Black Isle Studios (that's a sad one - pour some out for the homies that ain't here), or Dynamix, or Infocom (*sniffle* Zork *sniffle*), or Data East, or Westwood Studios (too soon?), or Microplay, or Origin, or Sirius Software, or RedOrb, or Stategic Simulations, Inc. (SSI), or Team Bondi, or WizardWorks Software, or any  of these other now-defunct game developers.

They thought they were always going to be on top, too, no doubt.  They probably took theiir customer base for granted at one time.  And then they died.  Pride goeth before a fall, someone said... probably Nicky Minaj, I can never attribute quotes correctly.  I'm still holding out hope for Zork IV...

At least two of the studios you listed were acquired by EA and either shut down or "folded into" an existing EA studio. Sometimes after releasing rushed, buggy sequels to an outstanding game. Not that that seems rather familiar or anything. [one side of the story: http://www.escapistm...quest-of-Origin ]  Whether history will repeat itself or not remains to be seen, I guess. Their current direction for DA has effectively killed any interest for me, and ME3 isn't looking that great either.

[Akka le Vil]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Except you can have only one winner in an athletic competition, while people can buy several video games. You also have one precise set of criteria to know who is the best athlete in a competition, while there is several wildly different ones to determine if you like a game or not.

If you want to get the "game most sold in the year", yeah maybe you'll face big competition with big budget and you'll target an audience that requires big budget. And you'll have to slaughter the game you make to fit the "mainstream" tastes of this audience.
But if you "just" want to be "very successful", then suddendly you're left with next to no competitor (because the overwhelming majority of the other editor all to the same and target the same audience, while letting the "niche" market alone), and you can probably reach nearly the same objective with a fraction of the cost, all the while being able to make games that are directed more by quality and less by marketing.

As it was pointed several times, you don't sell more today than you did before (unless we're wrong with the numbers, you're welcome to correct us in this case), and the investments required are in a large part due to a change in the audience - not because of "changing tastes", but because of "changing target".

FedericoV wrote...

Do you really believe that DA:O and DA2 were produced following two completely different creative patterns?

Hu... Yes ?
I mean, it's pretty friggin' OBVIOUS, and it also been CONFIRMED and even discussed several times by the very people who made it ?

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 17 octobre 2011 - 09:10 .

[FedericoV]

Akka le Vil wrote...
I mean, it's pretty friggin' OBVIOUS, and it also been CONFIRMED and even discussed several times by the very people who made it ?

Give me the links, then, since it's been discussed and confirmed several times it should be quite easy. I read the forum daily and I can't remember such confirmation. I simply ask for a proof that they have not considered marketing or focus groups during DA:O's development process and that it was a game developed freeform without most  business concerns.

The way some people put it, it seems like DA:O was created by a cabal of creatives who worked in the dark Bioware dungeouns with their Pentium II, just following their artistic integrity and killing every market man who dare entered the geek room, while DA2 creative process was some sort of corporation meeting, called by EA with the aim to create the new world rpg order.

Just joking: truth is, you cannot seriously thik that money weren't in the picture during DA:O's long dev cycle. I believe that the creative process worked mostly with the same rules (feedback, market research, creativity and so on). Only, with DA2 they had different concerns, a lower budget and less time to develop and polish the game.

Modifié par FedericoV, 17 octobre 2011 - 09:33 .

[Akka le Vil]

FedericoV wrote...

I read the forum mostly daily and I can't remember such confirmation.

You must have worked VERY hard to avoid all the instances of Bioware's employee explaining how DA2 was about targeting a larger audience while DAO was about making an somehow "old-school" RPG.

Or you're just being purposedly obtuse. Which somehow seems much more likely.

[FedericoV]

Akka le Vil wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

I read the forum mostly daily and I can't remember such confirmation.

You must have worked VERY hard to avoid all the instances of Bioware's employee explaining how DA2 was about targeting a larger audience while DAO was about making an somehow "old-school" RPG.

Since when making a "old school" rpg is not targeting an audience? I'm not dead yet .

My point is that they were tarketing an audience with DA:O too, it's not that hard to grasp. With DA2 they have changed the target audience/demographic, but they used the same creative/decision process, only in a shorter time frame and with less budget (and maybe with poorly understood data).

Or you're just being purposedly obtuse. Which somehow seems much more likely.

Have you allready finished the arguments? Maybe you should read more carefully what I have written next time.

Modifié par FedericoV, 17 octobre 2011 - 09:43 .

[ElitePinecone]

Akka le Vil wrote...
snip

With respect, do you truly think your unsurpassed knowledge of the gaming industry and marketing trumps Bioware's? 

Yes, they might've miscalculated with DA2, or were overconfident that people would react well to the game. 

But seriously. EA and Bioware have knowledge about the gaming industry, and about their games, that we'll never, ever, ever know or understand. They do market research, polling, focus groups, studies, analyses; they know who is likely to buy their games and why. 

Saying that a niche market exists and that Bioware catered to the mainstream doesn't make it true. Talking about competition without any reference to busness models, marketing or timing is disingenuous. 

Criticise them for some imagined transgression against RPG purism if you want, but try to understand that Bioware has an understanding of their games and the industry that we'll never get. They don't make changes without a reason; whether it was successful this time, or not, is a matter of opinion. 

FedericoV wrote...

The way some people put it, it seems like DA:O was created by a cabal of creatives who worked in the dark Bioware dungeouns with their Pentium II, just following their artistic integrity and killing every market man who dare entered the geek room, while DA2 creative process was some sort of corporation meeting, called by EA with the aim to create the new world rpg order.

Also this. 

There's marketing in everything, and creativity in everything, to differing degrees. We aren't privy to the development of DAO or DA2 (and nor will we ever be), so talking about it is pointless speculation. 

It's incredibly dishonest to set up an imagined perfect development cycle for DAO, where Bioware developers pranced with unicorns while lovingly programming Oghren, and compare it to an imagined corporate cycle for DA2, where EA slavemasters forced rapid production while chanting "Fight like a Spartan". Neither are true. 

The fact that people deify DAO as a masterpiece of RPGs might be a testament to how good the game is, but they shouldn't imbue it with some sort of mystical creative qualities. It was an outstanding game, but it's not like Bioware disregarded all commercial necessities when making it. 

[Akka le Vil]

ElitePinecone wrote...

With respect, do you truly think your unsurpassed knowledge of the gaming industry and marketing trumps Bioware's?

Don't bother with a "with respect" that you so obviously don't believe in.
Especially considering the main point is not about "knowing more" about marketing but about not letting marketing driving the game instead of creativity - the argument about marketing being that it's not even worth it considering the actual results.

But seriously. EA and Bioware have knowledge about the gaming industry

Yeah, EA has certainly a worthy history when it comes to good games.
(that's irony in case you didn't notice)

and about their games, that we'll never, ever, ever know or understand. They do market research, polling, focus groups, studies, analyses; they know who is likely to buy their games and why.

And the problem is precisely about tailoring a game toward market research, polling, focus group and analyses, rather than using creativity and a global idea of a great game.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 18 octobre 2011 - 06:33 .

[aries1001]

I think people (including me) are asking why EA can't or won't? have a studio make a niche rpg for the hardcore crowd e.g. like Planescape: Torment or something similar. Or like Obsidian's Mask of the betrayer. Or like Eschalon: Book 1 or like Drakensang 1. (although even if the studio behind Drakensang were an indie studio, the game still cost about 2½ million Euros to make=about 5 million US dollars). Sadly, the PR budget was maybe not that good, so the company is now out of business (in the sense that it has been sold...) And even a little Hollywood teen movie can easily cost about 16 million US dollars to make...

edit:

The problem, as I see it, with both the gaming and the movie industri these days are the fact? that they both expect profits within the first weekend, or the first week of the game or the movie being released. Economists have come up with the idea of the long tail, meaning that what you're looking for is to have (more) financial succes in the long run, not in the short run.

edit 2:
As one of Bioware's oldest fans (playing from Baldur's Gate the first), I'll have to admit that I like DA2, especially the combat. It is the most fluid combat I've yet seen in a Bioware game yet, if in any rpg to this day. I'm currently playing the first Neverwinter Nights game, and the combat is just horrendous, I find, compared to both the combat in DA2, DA:O and KOTOR. The story is OK, though, and I can certainly from where CD project got their idea about a certain disease that plagues the lands.

Modifié par aries1001, 18 octobre 2011 - 07:19 .

[xkg]

aries1001 wrote...

2½ million Euros to make=about 5 million US dollars

Huh? Nice exchange rate. More like 3.5 mil USD

Modifié par xkg, 18 octobre 2011 - 07:22 .

[AlexXIV]

aries1001 wrote...

I think people (including me) are asking why EA can't or won't? have a studio make a niche rpg for the hardcore crowd e.g. like Planescape: Torment or something similar. Or like Obsidian's Mask of the betrayer. Or like Eschalon: Book 1 or like Drakensang 1. (although even if the studio behind Drakensang were an indie studio, the game still cost about 2½ million Euros to make=about 5 million US dollars). Sadly, the PR budget was maybe not that good, so the company is now out of business (in the sense that it has been sold...) And even a little Hollywood teen movie can easily cost about 16 million US dollars to make...

edit:

The problem, as I see it, with both the gaming and the movie industri these days are the fact? that they both expect profits within the first weekend, or the first week of the game or the movie being released. Economists have come up with the idea of the long tail, meaning that what you're looking for is to have (more) financial succes in the long run, not in the short run.

edit 2:
As one of Bioware's oldest fans (playing from Baldur's Gate the first), I'll have to admit that I like DA2, especially the combat. It is the most fluid combat I've yet seen in a Bioware game yet, if in any rpg to this day. I'm currently playing the first Neverwinter Nights game, and the combat is just horrendous, I find, compared to both the combat in DA2, DA:O and KOTOR. The story is OK, though, and I can certainly from where CD project got their idea about a certain disease that plagues the lands.

I wouldn't be so fast. A niche for games that only RPG nerds like is probably really going to bankrupt a company. I see myself as an avid rpg player, but RPGs labeled 'only for RPG nerds' always disappointed me. For example Drakensang, since you mention it. Mostly they have rich detail but the main story is rather lame. There should be a balance between the main story and history that draws you in and RPG elements that add to the general RPG feeling with rich detail.I would agree that Bioware is going the wrong way by cutting down RPG elements, but what always amazed me most with Bioware games are their stories. Cliche as they may be, Bioware's strong side is the telling. They can, imo, even make a lame story look epic. They shouldn't lose that, ever. DA2 lacks detail and RPG elements that enrich an RPG on a more subtle level, that's true.  

[FedericoV]

aries1001 wrote...

I think people (including me) are asking why EA can't or won't? have a studio make a niche rpg for the hardcore crowd e.g. like Planescape: Torment or something similar.

Because they do not own a studio interested in such projects. Bioware is not that company for sure: they allways aimed for the big numbers. Yes, even with the BG series otherwise the game would have been turn based and not in real time like Diablo II and it would have not used D&D as a rule system.

But I would love them funding such kind of projects with small development groups.

Modifié par FedericoV, 18 octobre 2011 - 09:33 .

[FedericoV]

Akka le Vil wrote...

And the problem is precisely about tailoring a game toward market research, polling, focus group and analyses, rather than using creativity and a global idea of a great game.

The companies that worked in the way you described all have gone bankrupt sadly (or they have remained indy): Troika, Interplay/Black Isle, Looking Glass Studio etc. etc. etc. Those companies have developed some of the best games ever:Thief, Vampire Bloodlines, Arcanuum, Fallout I and II, Icewind Dale, Temple of Elemental Evil, System Shock. Still, they have all gone "back to the mud". The market is so hard and competitive that even sound business and creative project like LA Noire can lead to the dissolution of a company.

Creativity is clearly the most important element in a development group. It's the spark that makes good game really great. But since we are talking of projects that costs millions of dollar from investor all around the world, developers have the duty to test their creativity with player feedback with every tool they can use (forum talk, focus groups and market analysis). We leave no more in the age where Lord Brithish could develop his game alone, like it or not.

Some time the process works (ME2). Some time the process don't work (DA2). But it's naive to assume that the market reasearches has nothing to do with the success of a AAA game when everything go well.We are not talking of Amnesia The Dark Descent (wich is, btw, one of the best game of 2010).

Every developer in a company as big as Bioware has to find a balance between his creativity and what the market demands. And Bioware have followed that pattern with DA:O too: otherwise they would not have chosen to publish the game for consolles and they would not have marketed the game with the "sex and violence" trailer.

The problems of DA2 are a lack of quality for the standards of a AAA title, a rushed and unrealistic development cycle, maybe an uncorrect interpretation of the datas gathered with the feedback and a sudden (and stupid) change in the target audience for the game, with a marketing that passed from "old school nostalgia" to "button and awesome combined" that lead the existing fanbase to skepticism and anger even before the game was published.

They have made many wrong decisions, they have loose some elements of great experience and talent along the way, they were not able to communicate with the fans and understand them as hard as they tried, but I firmly believe that the devs have followed tha same pattern in terms of development cycle.

And ironically, it's possible that they made more money out of DA2 than DA:O.

Modifié par FedericoV, 18 octobre 2011 - 10:09 .

[Everwarden]

FedericoV wrote...

And ironically, it's possible that the return of investment of DA2 is probably better than DA:O.

In the short term. In the long term, a quality product that kept the brand name in high esteem would have been a better investment.

But let's be honest, Dragon Age is small potatoes. Bioware will stand or fall with The Old Republic. 

[FedericoV]

Everwarden wrote...

In the short term. In the long term, a quality product that kept the brand name in high esteem would have been a better investment.

That's true. But if DA3 is really good, people could forget their problems with DA2. It's a gamble, but gamer can show the shortest memory when a game is really good. 

But let's be honest, Dragon Age is small potatoes. Bioware will stand or fall with The Old Republic.

I do agree. I don't know how it will go: preorder are doing fine but they invested a fearfull ****load of money on TOR. You know, I've never played an MMO in my life but if there's a game in the genre I could give a try it woult probably be The Old Republic, since it seems almost as focused on solo gameplay.