134 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

So, to give this thread the bump it deserves, I'm going to comment on the impressions I had with my most recent DA2 play:

1. Romances and characters are way cool, BUT... the dialogue ball really is one-sided, I don't feel like I'm engaged, at all.
Ideally it would go like this: romance-options are available with all party members, all can be at the same time, but to "get there" I should have many dialogue-options, of which most are mistakes, misleading, a few smart ones "goal".
(yes, I know, I'm dreaming of a virtual harem here, but it really would be nice if the romance-objectives were engaging to pursue and the value that's been mesmerizing the ero-game/date-sim audience would be implemented more, though with Bioware subtlety)

2. The combat really was worse than DA:O imho. It actually felt the mistakes from DA:O were magnified. I.e. not being able to click on an enemy, the warrior/rogue jumping walls in order to fail hitting an oponent, the removal of the often essential overlook view. Of course the main problems were those of tedious encounters, but I've heard this is fixed in Legacy?


Overall - I really liked the comment by the "Talkative Man" in the hanged man tavern... "Don't you feel the world is getting simpler etc".

This is my main concern...

edit: one typo

Modifié par eroeru, 24 novembre 2011 - 01:17 .

[eroeru]

Another random idea I had just now:

Would it not be interesting if it were possible to massively invest into diplomacy-like skills so that for most of the game there wouldn't be fight-scenes, or they'd be a lot easier (thinking about "armies" to help out)?

This would both address the audience who buy Bioware purely for story, and those hoping for good old RPG with innovation. I'd certainly be delighted with a change of this sort.

Modifié par eroeru, 24 novembre 2011 - 12:22 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

eroeru wrote...

Another random idea I had just now:

Would it not be interesting if it were possible to massively invest into diplomacy-like skills so that for most of the game there wouldn't be fight-scenes, or they'd be a lot easier (thinking about "armies" to help out)?

This would both address the audience who buy Bioware purely for story, and those hoping for good old RPG with innovation. I'd certainly be delighted with a change of this sort.

What is this, Fallout? Planescape?

This is Dragon Age mother****er, THIS IS THE NEW ****!

50% of the game is mandatory filler combat. MANDATORY YOU HEAR!



Of course it'd be nice, but that's not a philosophy that BioWare tends to look at favourably. I've seen Gaider mention before in interviews that he doesn't like diplomatic skills in the sense of skill checks because they skip content and are used as an "I win button". Which is true, in the way most dialog is structured today. Now, of course, the idea is to structure a system for skill checks that don't rely on arbitrary single skill checks, perhaps like the one I outline in my blog.

Hell, BioWare did just fine with Landsmeet (that also runs on a points tally like the system I outlined), so it's not impossible.

To add to that, they'd need to design quests in a more non linear fashion, to allow more player freedom in approach, or else it'd end up pretty boring.

I mean if all you did was add options for diplomatic characters to shine, the quests would essentially be the same, but you're just clicking the right dialog options instead of the wrong ones.

They'd need to look into expanding their quest design to cater to a variety of archetypes. Action, Charisma, Knowledge and Stealth, amongst others. So, conflict resolution through combat, discussion, knowledge and stealth. There obviously can and should be overlap.

This can be designed either by specifically scripting unique and/or overlapping paths, or by making quests as open as possible and only scripting reactions to the player meeting certain conditions - basically, a good sandbox mode. Not in terms of sheer size, but in terms of flexibility of gameplay.

Within the context of BioWare's "let's make everything a cinematic" philosophy though, the latter would be absurdly difficult.

Like the MotA stealth sequence was definitely an example of the former (specific scripting). An example of the latter would be a lot of what Deus Ex (the original) does. Liberty Island, the opening level sticks out in my mind. Games like Dark Messiah of Might and Magic also actively encourage it. The Elder Scrolls and newer Fallout games also do a decent job. While TES isn't so great at diplomacy, basically anything you can kill, you can sneak past (or at least attempt).

Since TES runs under a learn by doing system, it also ensures that you won't get (too) gimped for not being good at combat.

Fallout is a little more explicit, with Fallout: New Vegas having a good mix of open ended approaches and specifically scripted ones.

If they want to do a system where they can talk their way out of stuff, or use their diplomatic skills to help though, I'd recommend taking a look at how Assassin's Creed does their hiring mechanics. You know, with the thieves and ****s and stuff. You could develop a system that scales how much it would cost to hire people based on two factors: your level in a related skill (Diplomacy, Commerce, Intimidation, etc) and how appropriate the task is for the group. So if you want thieves to distract a normal NPC, it would cost 2 sovereigns. However, if they had to distract a Templar or a City Watchman, that's double.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 24 novembre 2011 - 01:16 .

[Talcsalk2]

I agree with this. DA:O was pretty good, but I was put off of DA2 when I saw that they boiled down all dialogue to nice, mean, and inspiring (I think?).

It was a complete divergence from what made past RPGs so great... dialogue. It struck me as lazy and disappointing. In fact everything had a little water added to it, from party management to combat. Evidently they were aiming to make it low-maintenance for some players.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Talcsalk2 wrote...

I agree with this. DA:O was pretty good, but I was put off of DA2 when I saw that they boiled down all dialogue to nice, mean, and inspiring (I think?).

It was a complete divergence from what made past RPGs so great... dialogue. It struck me as lazy and disappointing. In fact everything had a little water added to it, from party management to combat. Evidently they were aiming to make it low-maintenance for some players.

In regards to dialogue, I think it was the presentation more than anything that rubs people the wrong way. In terms of what is actually said, it's probably more in depth than previous entries because the writers were given license to write out full conversations instead of the one liners we see in other, particularly multiplatform, RPGs.

However, it was presented in a manner that boiled down to three main personality archetypes. There are actually much more than those three with quite a bit of nuance, but in practice, it doesn't make enough to an effort to make dialogue options feel contextual as opposed to tonal (mainly because you almost always get options that speak to those three base archetypes). So if you really wanted to, you'd easily boil things down to Nice, Snarky and Mean as you said.

Now, the paraphrase complicates things, as it adds an element of uncertainty in what your character says. As a rule, it's not inherently bad but it comes close as you should never be surprised by what your character says, or annoyed because what you wanted your character to say was not reflected in the actual spoken dialogue.

It's why I don't like tonal systems that introduce too much uncertainty. It puts too much of a focus on how you say things rather than what you actually say.

Now, some people can't handle abstraction when it comes to a silent character in cinematics because it wears on the suspension of disbelief and that's a fair call. That is why the voiced protagonist was introduced, to prevent that suspension of disbelief from breaking. -- Yet how anyone at all who cares about willing suspension of disbelief and can handle how DA 2 treats Mage Hawkes is absolutely beyond me --

In either case, I've suggested a method which I hope would both move away from tonal dialog options, turning the focus back on context while hopefully having the nuance, clarity and number of options that full text provides. This, while also keeping the voiced protagonist and avoiding problems of repetition.

From my Blog Entry:


Bump for greater justice! Nearly lost it off the front page.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 28 novembre 2011 - 01:05 .

[rak72]

^ I like that

[hgbsbfsib]

thank ^)

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Okay, I'm going to bump this up a little with a question and hopefully a topic of discussion:

How does everyone here feel about skill checks?
Do you want them back in Dragon Age 3? Do you want only personality based skill checks (coerce, intimidate) or do you want broader character checks too (attributes, talents, skills, classes, etc)?

How would you like them to be structured?
Naturally, in non cinematic gameplay (lockpicking, trap disabling, except for more things obviously), in conversation ala older RPGs, or both?

Assuming you wanted them back, what kind of role would you like them to play in the game?
Would you want them as a way to confirm your character's concept/build, instant conflict resolution with the right skillset, like previous BioWare games such as Origins? Or would you want them to be options and avenues that your character can use because of your concept/build, where one skill check success doesn't mean much, allowing you to fail even with the "right" build if you don't also pick the "right" responses?

Also, what are your opinions on prompts like interrupts in the Mass Effect series?
Would you want them for Dragon Age 3? Would you want them to be based on character checks (Attributes and classes) or personality based?

If you do have any kind of opinion on this issue, feel free to post it here.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 04 décembre 2011 - 09:45 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

That's relatively easy to fix imo. Less cinematics relying on good enemy placement and ambient dialog instead. The ideal solution would be to find a way to allow specific dialog options/decisions made without entering cutscene mode. But it can be done just as well without it.

There are a stack of cinematics that only go for 2-3 lines that don't add anything, when good ambient dialog or better enemy placement would've done the trick.

Just a random YT example:

That scene didn't require cinematics and the game is littered with waste like that. What role did cinematics play in that scene? None. How did it help the narrative in a way gameplay couldn't show? It didn't. It was there because it was there.

Imagine if instead, the Elves were chasing the man across the map (actually running) and you got to hear their dialog back and forth as you ran after them. Eventually exhausted and surrounded the man begs for help. The game waits a few seconds for you to decide. If you approach them, that counts as deciding to help him, so the Elves become hostile. If you decide to stay back, that counts as deciding to let him die, so they execute him.

Afterwards depending on what you did, the NPCs would walk up to you, have some ambient dialog thanking you for what you did, and then leave the map.

Not one cinematic.

Sure, there's more AI scripting involved but AFAIK it's not as resource heavy as cinematics to develop. Especially over time as other solutions may not even require "complex" AI maneuvers but simple enemy or item placement relying on already existing mechanics to make it work (such as aggro or stealth). Whereas each and every cinematic has to be made from the ground up.

If the whole game were structured more like that, you'd eventually find that the cinematics that would still be there become more important (mainly for plot important stuff) and you'd then have the ability to add more dialog options and branching dialog to them. Making the cinematics there better.

Quality over Quantity.

I really hate this "let's make anything and everything cinematic" mindset. Cinematics can be a good thing, but I hate how the industry loads their games with them as a crutch for good design and storytelling.

But how do you feel about the actual issue at hand? I realize BioWare's fetish for cinematics along with the voice protagonist presents some issues, but all of BioWare's other games are fine with skill checks. Even Mass Effect, with it's Charm/Intimidate options.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 décembre 2011 - 01:07 .

[Jonp382]

mrcrusty wrote...

Also, what are your opinions on prompts like interrupts in the Mass Effect series? Would you want them for Dragon Age 3? Would you want them to be based on character checks (Attributes and classes) or personality based?

I'd be okay with interrupts, as long as there isn't a time limit on them. Or give us an auto-pause option and give us all the information we need to determine whether that's an appropriate interrupt/action for our character.

And definitely character checks. Character checks, everywhere.

[Teddie Sage]

Your conversation wheel would work for a silent protagonist, but I doubt they'll ever go back to it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

People who defend BW's new direction "because it is an economic way to create games" should play chess. Maybe chess is even too complex. I am a gamer, not a stockholder.

If I look at another game that got released recently then that too was streamlined and probably has a ton of problems. But there is one thing in its favor: The creativity, attention and love for that game is oozing out all over. It's packed with enjoyable content. I was amazed by it. After 200 hours something new was just around the corner. It has probably more content then DA:O, DA2, ME1 and ME2 combined. Give or take a title. It won't have any small BW-like story DLCs, because it doesn't make sense. It would get lost in the flood of existing content. *shrugs*

Another game released a while back had true branching storylines. The company told up front that the game will be shorter because of that, but the advantage was great replayability. They too have mouths to feed, but made sure that additional content was part of the business plan where you didn't have to pay for additional stuff. Even that shorter game was longer than DA2.

So, don't give me those academic examples how hard it is to make decisions trees and make money at the same time. I don't say that BW is lazy. I do say that they just don't want to create it. They don't want to make complex single player games anymore. John Riccitiello does not believe in them and thus they won't be created. MP, DLCs, micro-transactions, social networks and Disney-like capitation for the whole family is where the money is. It's as simple as that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 05 décembre 2011 - 04:55 .

[Morroian]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Another game released a while back had true branching storylines. The company told up front that the game will be shorter because of that, but the advantage was great replayability. They too have mouths to feed, but made sure that additional content was part of the business plan where you didn't have to pay for additional stuff. 

Minor content that was cut from release. You've been sucked in by CDProjekt's marketing.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Even that shorter game was longer than DA2.

TW2? No it wasn't, not from the gameplay times I've seen at least.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Morroian wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Another game released a while back had true branching storylines. The company told up front that the game will be shorter because of that, but the advantage was great replayability. They too have mouths to feed, but made sure that additional content was part of the business plan where you didn't have to pay for additional stuff. 

Minor content that was cut from release. You've been sucked in by CDProjekt's marketing.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Even that shorter game was longer than DA2.

TW2? No it wasn't, not from the gameplay times I've seen at least.

Genius marketing strategy! Give things to people...for free! Oh they have us in their little web they do!

And yes TW2 was definitely shorter than DA2 if you play through the story with no toilet breaks. But then, you must take into account the 2 entirely different chapters that one can only experience through different playthroughs; because in TW2, choices actually matter.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

FWIW, I don't think it's fair to compare length in any sort of relevant way. Dragon Age 2 use an awful lot of filler combat to pad out the game's length. Most BioWare games (including Origins) do.

I've also indirectly mentioned above "filler cinematics" that not only (imo) waste resources that could go into smaller, better cinematics + better storytelling & gameplay but can artificially pad out game time as well. I can also explain why I think filler cinematics are an inferior storytelling method if need be.

In either case, this is not an open canvas for another pro/anti Dragon Age 2 argument.

Ultimately, I would like to get feedback from BioWare employees on this thread, though I know that's unlikely. I will however, settle with a good, constructive discussion on the topic: character systems, gameplay and roleplaying. That can extend to cinematics and dialog systems too.

What I don't want however, is for the thread to be buried under pro or anti Dragon Age 2 rhetoric. I've spent a number of hours of my own free time writing up these tl;drs and I've put some real effort into them. I don't expect the average forumite to read them, much less agree with them, let alone BioWare employee feedback and future implementation.

But what I do hope and expect is that everyone stay objective enough to stay on topic and not use this thread as a means to start more pro or anti arguments without keeping it relevant to the discussion.

Granted, reading the above posts over again, they are much more innocuous than originally thought, but Witcher 2 has been a trigger to derailment for many a thread over the months and I'm squashing it before it gets to that point.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 décembre 2011 - 08:48 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

mrcrusty wrote...

Talcsalk2 wrote...

I agree with this. DA:O was pretty good, but I was put off of DA2 when I saw that they boiled down all dialogue to nice, mean, and inspiring (I think?).

It was a complete divergence from what made past RPGs so great... dialogue. It struck me as lazy and disappointing. In fact everything had a little water added to it, from party management to combat. Evidently they were aiming to make it low-maintenance for some players.

From my Blog Entry:


Bump for greater justice! Nearly lost it off the front page.

That's a very interesting idea. I personally see DA2's dialogue wheel as a worsened version of ME's wheel. Simply because of the fact that the middle response is sarcastic instead of neutral, compromising a core component of roleplaying; neutrality. While i believe that Paraphrasing is an absolute pain in the ass, i still maintain that the dialogue wheel would work best if it took on DE:HR's full-text-view mechanic. 

Your idea is certainly interesting, and i could see how it would trump many other systems out there in some instances. But what of conversations of importance? Take the Landsmeet for example. With your system, an assumed conversational option would be "Anger: Tell Loghain he betrayed the King". But actually having text on the screen saying "You betrayed our King!" is much more hard hitting, even as a paraphrase. I realise that with a voiced protagonist the the paraphrase or full dialogue line isn't all that important when watching the scene, but i still like to read the emotion from the text or paraphrase before hand.

I realise this is just my opinion, but i just feel your system would be somewhat jarring in an important or emotional coversation.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I agree to that point, but I tried to make sure only character checks and not tone are structured in the "something: lol" way. For something that doesn't involve a character check, I think you can write in a way that still shows emotion, but it's really up to the writers to make it work.

So with your example, you could make it something like Erupt at Loghain for his betrayal of King Cailan. Or perhaps Unleash your anger at Loghain for his actions at Ostagar.

Because when the dialog responses are set in a way that's "descriptor: content", it's because it's describing the associated aspect of the character that's being checked. For example, Mage, Dexterity, Commerce, etc. I do also think that neutrality should be an option in many cases. It's part of what the system does, to take away the focus of the system away from tonal, and make it contextual again (which doesn't preclude a strong tone).

This allows for more neutral responses as the dialog itself isn't part of a system that tries to determine a tone.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 décembre 2011 - 11:19 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I was responding to the poster who claimed that choices were too expensive, because it added too much content for it to be economically viable. So, I showed two examples of games were more content was added and the price did not go up. As such it wasn't pro or anti DA2 rhetoric.

[Firky]

@mrcrusty Do you need "indignantly?" Like, if it was "(Lie) Claim to be a noble" then the player could think indignantly on their own, or alternatively, think worriedly. Just a thought, though. (And I'm assuming you're going with non-voiced protag, but I haven't really been following the thread.)

Your system looks a bit like what Kingdoms of Amalur is doing, too. I think there is also a percentage value in conversation that shows you how likely the action is to succeed. I think it's in conversation. It's definitely in other parts of the game, like if you go to steal something from a chest, you'll get a percentage chance of non-detection next to the option to do it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Skill checks should make sense in the story. Skill checks add nothing if they have no meaning or consequence. For an example: If there are two choices and a neutral one leads to the same as an intimidation then if the intimidation fails one can always select the neutral one to get to the same result. In that case intimidation has no meaning and the choice is merely cosmetic. If on the other hand the failed intimidation leads to violence towards the PC then the choice did matter, even though the result of both options were the same. I prefer the latter. Of course the game would be rather dull if that was handled the same everywhere.

I think I am not a fan of cinematics when there is no follow up in the gameplay. I rather have the environment to act like a stage where the game plays. The "camera" should be the regular play view.

I want to see a visible clue if the intimidation improved a skill.

Leave Mass Effect game mechanics to Mass Effect. The game should have its own identity and not move towards Mass Effect with swords and boards. There was already too much in DA2 that was taken from Mass Effect.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 05 décembre 2011 - 12:15 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Firky wrote...

@mrcrusty Do you need "indignantly?" Like, if it was "(Lie) Claim to be a noble" then the player could think indignantly on their own, or alternatively, think worriedly. Just a thought, though. (And I'm assuming you're going with non-voiced protag, but I haven't really been following the thread.)

No, I'm not actually. It's all with a voiced protagonist in mind. I'd have a different (although similar) system thought up if it were silent but I've accepted the sad truth that BioWare will not bring silent protags back.

So, I put "indignantly" in order to make it clear to the player how their character is going to lie. With indignation.



As for the idea that it would be too many dialog options (time and money issue), I don't think it will be too much of an issue if they focused on cutting out wasteful filler cinematics (as mentioned above) and had a longer development time.

Firky wrote...
Your system looks a bit like what Kingdoms of Amalur is doing, too. I think there is also a percentage value in conversation that shows you how likely the action is to succeed. I think it's in conversation. It's definitely in other parts of the game, like if you go to steal something from a chest, you'll get a percentage chance of non-detection next to the option to do it.

That's something I wish BioWare would adopt more: contextual and character build based skill as opposed to hard skill checks.

The problem is in how the consequences are sorted out. If you mess up opening chests in KoA, you'd probably get into trouble if NPCs were around. So there'd maybe be a factional hit or a law and order system. Consequences and Risk v Reward. In Skyrim, triggering traps could alert enemy NPCs of your whereabouts which is bad for stealthy characters. Many traps are linked to treasure and puzzles. Consequences and Risk v Reward.

The problem is in BioWare games, there is none of that. Either you get loot or don't. Either you trigger the trap or don't. There's no law and order system. There's no (universal) stealth system, or the ability to avoid combat. So no Risk v Reward.

I do wish they'd work on that for future games. It would make things more fun and more involved as it gives more importance to character building and by extension, roleplaying.

I know that's not really related to what you're saying but once I get started, I tend to go on tangents.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Skill checks should make sense in the story. Skill checks add nothing if they have no meaning or consequence. For an example: If there are two choices and a neutral one leads to the same as an intimidation then if the intimidation fails one can always select the neutral one to get to the same result. In that case intimidation has no meaning and the choice is merely cosmetic. If on the other hand the failed intimidation leads to violence towards the PC then the choice did matter, even though the result of both options were the same. I prefer the latter. Of course the game would be rather dull if that was handled the same everywhere.

Yes. I agree completely. In my conversation system, for dialog battles, I've tied skill check successes to the disposition system ensuring that it does have an affect even if not immediate.

Failing to intimidate someone only pisses them off, making them harder to do what you want in the end.

Now in cases where the "dialog battles" aren't needed (conversation isn't important enough) I agree with what you're saying. There needs to be a tangible effect, even if it doesn't change the overarching plot. But for this, you'd need to design more open ended quests in order to show small scale consequences without breaking the quest.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I think I am not a fan of cinematics when there is a no follow up in the gameplay. I rather have the environment to act like a stage where the game plays. The "camera" should be the regular play view.

Like Skyrim? For the most part I agree. If nothing else, it would solve a lot of the time & money issues with cinematics.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
I want to see a visible clue if the intimidation improved a skill.

See I personally think that things like intimidation, charm, etc shouldn't be skills that are checked. Rather, I want the character's other skills to come into play instead. You can still intimidate or charm or whatever, but it's put into the context of a non-dialog specific character check.

So rather than:
[Intimidate]: Threaten to kill him if he doesn't comply.
I want to see more of:
[Strength]: Intimidate him into complying.

It's probably still not perfect, but I so want to get away from BioWare's idea of tying skill checks and character development  to "Angelic Martyr with a Smile" and "Puppykilling Angry Dick". Granted, it's gotten more nuanced since KotOR, but it's still the underlying principle.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 05 décembre 2011 - 12:59 .

[billy the squid]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

Good idea but let us analyse this from a developers point of view. An example for if a game had 100 dialogue sequences, each with three dialogue options=300 dialogue sequences and animations. In this new system you game has 6 dialogue options =600 dialogue options and animations. One thing we have to remember is that bioware is also a company. For every decision they have to make they have to do a cost benefit analysis. If they spend much more time how will it benefit? Again all this might be possible on a longer development cycle but they would require more resources and you know....resources require money. Let us use the example of the dialogue again. If in a set of dialogue they are 40 different animations(some can be reused) each taking up 2mb(just an example)=80mb and it is increased by 100 percent and they are now 80 different animations per set=160 mb they shall be using twice the resources. It is practical but is it beneficial from a company perspective?
One thing to also understand. Are the new systems added easily maintainable? if i add this new system in will it change the something else at some other part of the system? An example would be i have added new hair to the system. I find out that some npc's hair is intergrated with that current hair. Is it worth it to put it?
Back to the business perspective. Whether we debate it or not computer games are software. With COTS software you would want to announce it properly so that more people can get your stuff. It is a bit like microsoft. Their products are not good but the marketing is outstanding. I produce a game i would love to announce it at a big event full of gamers
List of things to consider
-Budget
-Cost benefit
-Maintainable
-Development Cycle
-Schedule
Dragon age 2 is my favorite game but if you analyse it this way you see that (cost benefit analysis, development cycle and maintanabilty were done wrong) resources were available but not exalted
im not saying im right

Cost benefit analysis is not restricted to fiscal figures, potential revenue, equity, increased market share, competition and IP establishment etc. are to be factored in.

Minimising content on an fiscal basis does not equate to an increased profit margin, neither does it affect the opportunity cost of the operation, which has been determined by undertaking the development in the first place. Minimisation  potentially results in increased competition as dominance in a market receeds in the face of newer IP's with superior qualities, repeated purchase and IP equity is damaged as the perception arises that the developer is simply skiming content and the sales figures inevitably drop. In addition negative association and post purchase dissonance with a developer ensure that the market shrinks and moves to another IP which produces the required product.

The original IP is then restricted to a declining market which it then has to invest further funds to restimulate, in excess of what it initally would have spent in an attempt to regain the lost market. Alternitavely shift to a new market, and face heavy competition as an unknown entity or cut further costs to maintain the profit margin and suffer from procyclicality as the market further declines in response to more minimisation of content, finally the IP may simply suffer from stagnation. No increase in revenue, and increased expenditure provides no measurable return so the IP holder simply kills the franchise.

Modifié par billy the squid, 05 décembre 2011 - 12:49 .