291 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris wrote...
In order for the SP ME3 not to be negatively effected by the extra costs and resources, you would have us believe that EA is adding more resources to the ME3 budget to permit MP mode.

I find that.....unlikely.

-Polaris

Why?

Have you gone over EA's financial statements?  Attended investors meetings?  Interviewed the senior vice president responsible for BioWare's budget?

Or are you just making **** up on the internet?

[1136342t54_]

I don't really see the point in arguing with Chris. I mean Chris can explicitly say that EA gave them extra money to give a good MP experience while not negatively effecting the SP experience (which he already stated) and it won't matter because you will always highly doubt it. You will only be satisfied unless you get some actual data on their finances.

[didymos1120]

IanPolaris wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

So you assume we have moved into the building on the other side of one of the planet's largest countries...

 The fact that a different studio halfway across the world (an exaggeration at best...more like halfway across North America) only increases the costs.

Well, it's your exaggeration.

[1136342t54_]

IanPolaris wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

SnowHeart1 wrote...

Pretty much. I don't disagree with you. They don't have to convince me nor anyone else. But I do find it to be an incredible statement. And you know what? You have every right to believe it. ;-)

Well at least your not  a hypocrite about it. I get annoyed by people who claim they want Bioware to make statements about certain leaks or gameplay mechanics but then say they won't believe anything from bioware because of past crimes mistakes.

I said that, I stand by it, and it's not hypocritical or even contradictory.  *I* am at the point where I no longer believe anything Bioware says, but that's not true of everyone.  My advice was for those that still are credulous enough to listen.

-Polaris

So you explicitly said you won't more information from Bioware but won't believe it anyway? Yeah if it isn't hypocritical then it makes no sense at all.

[didymos1120]

jreezy wrote...

Why?

Because of this.

[eoinnx02]

So unless EA threw you guys some free multiplayer funding that otherwise would not have existed, isn't it fair to say that same slice of pie could have gone to another studio and dedicated to something like sidequests, exploration and some vehicle sections, or something?
[/quote]

How is it Free multiplayer money? If its a success, and it stands the test of time(i.e being good) then they make that money back in spades. This is a circular argument, you just take anything Chris says and destort or accuse him of lieing(not you specificly but others)
Hows about we wait till March 3rd and then if its terrible we can get up on our high horses and complain.

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
In order for the SP ME3 not to be negatively effected by the extra costs and resources, you would have us believe that EA is adding more resources to the ME3 budget to permit MP mode.

I find that.....unlikely.

-Polaris

Why?

Have you gone over EA's financial statements?  Attended investors meetings?  Interviewed the senior vice president responsible for BioWare's budget?

Or are you just making **** up on the internet?

Who's making anything up.  Hasn't anyone heard of diminishing returns or the zero sum game.  Any resource spent on MP mode or other non-RPG aspects are resources that could have been spent improving the core of the came which is the RPG/Single Player experience.

This is simple common sense.

-Polaris

[1136342t54_]

nevermind

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 09 novembre 2011 - 11:48 .

[DrFumb1ezX]

...Aren't we all gonna buy it, though? Regardless of multiplayer?

[1136342t54_]

soccerchick wrote...

...Aren't we all gonna buy it, though? Regardless of multiplayer?

Yep like we always do.

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris wrote...

Who's making anything up. 

You.

IanPolaris wrote...

Hasn't anyone heard of diminishing returns or the zero sum game.

Yes, but this isn't either of those.

IanPolaris wrote...

Any resource spent on MP mode or other non-RPG aspects are resources that could have been spent improving the core of the came which is the RPG/Single Player experience.

Or they increased the budget.  

IanPolaris wrote...

This is simple common sense.

While I'd dispute this, even if it was common sense is a placeholder.  It's meant to be replaced by knowledge of the facts at hand, or the application of rigorous logic.

It's just lazy assumption making and confirmation bias.  Please just go back to arguing about David Gaider and his anti-mage agenda on the DA2 boards.

[Massefeckt]

1136342t54 wrote...

I don't really see the point in arguing with Chris. I mean Chris can explicitly say that EA gave them extra money to give a good MP experience while not negatively effecting the SP experience (which he already stated) and it won't matter because you will always highly doubt it. You will only be satisfied unless you get some actual data on their finances.

I think if Chris said there was a fund for SP and a seperate fund for MP and that if MP didn't exist neither would the fund for MP so SP isn't effected then you have no choice but to believe him. I think it's wrong and simply not polite to say he lies. Even if you don't trust Bioware as an entity anymore on any issue that isn't 100% yet then the answer is never straight forward, it's "We are discussing it", "Those aspects are still being worked on etc." So when someone gives you a straight answer you can bet it's true.

[IanPolaris]

eoinnx02 wrote...
How is it Free multiplayer money? If its a success, and it stands the test of time(i.e being good) then they make that money back in spades. This is a circular argument, you just take anything Chris says and destort or accuse him of lieing(not you specificly but others)
Hows about we wait till March 3rd and then if its terrible we can get up on our high horses and complain.

Unless the people working on the MP do it for free and somehow use resources that cost nothing, it will be have a cost and that cost could have been used to make the SP/RPG core of the game better.  Whether or not it's a good investment remains to be seen, but it pretty plainly is an extra cost that has to be recouped that doesn't help the primary part of the game and that's the point.

-Polaris

[Drinking Shepard]

IanPolaris wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
In order for the SP ME3 not to be negatively effected by the extra costs and resources, you would have us believe that EA is adding more resources to the ME3 budget to permit MP mode.

I find that.....unlikely.

-Polaris

Why?

Have you gone over EA's financial statements?  Attended investors meetings?  Interviewed the senior vice president responsible for BioWare's budget?

Or are you just making **** up on the internet?

Who's making anything up.  Hasn't anyone heard of diminishing returns or the zero sum game.  Any resource spent on MP mode or other non-RPG aspects are resources that could have been spent improving the core of the came which is the RPG/Single Player experience.

This is simple common sense.

-Polaris

Yep. The other BW team that's been working on MP could actually be busy improving the single player along with the main developer team. The SP could be awesome and satisfy almost everyone. Apparently that's not gonna happen

[Massefeckt]

1136342t54 wrote...

I don't really see the point in arguing with Chris. I mean Chris can explicitly say that EA gave them extra money to give a good MP experience while not negatively effecting the SP experience (which he already stated) and it won't matter because you will always highly doubt it. You will only be satisfied unless you get some actual data on their finances.

I think if Chris said there was a fund for SP and a seperate fund for MP and that if MP didn't exist neither would the fund for MP so SP isn't effected then you have no choice but to believe him. I think it's wrong and simply not polite to say he lies. Even if you don't trust Bioware as an entity anymore on any issue that isn't 100% yet then the answer is never straight forward, it's "We are discussing it", "Those aspects are still being worked on etc." So when someone gives you a straight answer you can bet it's true.


Edit- Basically what I meant to say is I would assume games have a budget based on the size and options, so a game with MP has a bigger budget assigned to it than SP. So if ME3 didn't have MP they would be given a smaller budget.

I'm all for trying to get ME3 back to the best ME experience but I'm not sure the money would be any different either way.

Modifié par Massefeckt, 09 novembre 2011 - 11:54 .

[1136342t54_]

Drinking Shepard wrote...


Yep. The other BW team that's been working on MP could actually be busy improving the single player along with the main developer team. The SP could be awesome and satisfy almost everyone. Apparently that's not gonna happen

That argument doesn't work all the time. Your assuming EA would have given them the extra resources for SP if MP wasn't even mentioned.

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Who's making anything up. 

You.

No I'm not.  I can add 1 and 1 and get two.  I wonder about some others.

IanPolaris wrote...

Hasn't anyone heard of diminishing returns or the zero sum game.

Yes, but this isn't either of those.

Actually it is.  Its the zero sum game.  Unless EA gave BW an increased budget the MP resources had to some from the SP pool.  Even if they did, those extra resources could have been used to make the core of the game better.  That's the zero sum game.  Of course where diminishing returns comes in is is the increase in the quality of the game worth the extra cost?

IanPolaris wrote...

Any resource spent on MP mode or other non-RPG aspects are resources that could have been spent improving the core of the came which is the RPG/Single Player experience.

Or they increased the budget.  

Doesn't invalidate my argument at all. The only way it would is if EA has an infinate budget and we both know it doesn't.  Basically the extra resources could have been used to make the core game better but it's not.  That's true if the budget is increased or not.

IanPolaris wrote...

This is simple common sense.

While I'd dispute this, even if it was common sense is a placeholder.  It's meant to be replaced by knowledge of the facts at hand, or the application of rigorous logic.

It's just lazy assumption making and confirmation bias.  Please just go back to arguing about David Gaider and his anti-mage agenda on the DA2 boards.

Nope.  As for DG that's an entirely different argument and frankly of late not one that reflects well on DG and I'll leave it at that.

-Polaris

[didymos1120]

IanPolaris wrote...

Who's making anything up.  Hasn't anyone heard of diminishing returns or the zero sum game.  Any resource spent on MP mode or other non-RPG aspects are resources that could have been spent improving the core of the came which is the RPG/Single Player experience.

This is simple common sense.

-Polaris

Common sense, eh?  I suppose your keenly-honed common sense explains why you're conflating the very much distinct concepts of "diminishing returns" and "zero-sum game".  And BTW?  Diminishing returns doesn't help you in the least.  The entire idea is that you reach a point where pouring more of a particular resource into something leads to ever-decreasing gains. Often, this can even result in negative returns.  You need to establish that SP needed those additional resources.  You've also failed to establish that the MP and SP sides of development are in fact "playing" a zero-sum game against one another.

Modifié par didymos1120, 09 novembre 2011 - 11:55 .

[Chris Priestly]

Well, I tried. I didn't expect people to suddenly say "Oh wow! I didn't see it that way before. I was wrong to have doubted!", but I took a shot.

[1136342t54_]

Massefeckt wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

I don't really see the point in arguing with Chris. I mean Chris can explicitly say that EA gave them extra money to give a good MP experience while not negatively effecting the SP experience (which he already stated) and it won't matter because you will always highly doubt it. You will only be satisfied unless you get some actual data on their finances.

I think if Chris said there was a fund for SP and a seperate fund for MP and that if MP didn't exist neither would the fund for MP so SP isn't effected then you have no choice but to believe him. I think it's wrong and simply not polite to say he lies. Even if you don't trust Bioware as an entity anymore on any issue that isn't 100% yet then the answer is never straight forward, it's "We are discussing it", "Those aspects are still being worked on etc." So when someone gives you a straight answer you can bet it's true.


Edit- Basically what I meant to say is I would assume games have a budget based on the size and options, so a game with MP has a bigger budget assigned to it than SP. So if ME3 didn't have MP they would be given a smaller budget.

I'm all for trying to get ME3 back to the best ME experience but I'm not sure the money would be any different either way.

To be honest Chris did make a straight up statement and it is assumed that he is wrong. When Chris stated that no resources were being diverted from SP and it is still not believed at all due to a large amount of assumptions its quite clear they won't ever be pleased.

Although I do agree with you that games with MP in it will usualy have bigger budgets in them then the same game with just SP.

[Terror_K]

Also, I have to say, it's all very well to say, "people claim to want their fears put to rest, but don't believe BioWare when they do" and all, but there's one simple question you have to ask yourself with regards to that:

Why don't people believe BioWare when they do?

[IanPolaris]

Massefeckt wrote...

1136342t54 wrote...

I don't really see the point in arguing with Chris. I mean Chris can explicitly say that EA gave them extra money to give a good MP experience while not negatively effecting the SP experience (which he already stated) and it won't matter because you will always highly doubt it. You will only be satisfied unless you get some actual data on their finances.

I think if Chris said there was a fund for SP and a seperate fund for MP and that if MP didn't exist neither would the fund for MP so SP isn't effected then you have no choice but to believe him. I think it's wrong and simply not polite to say he lies. Even if you don't trust Bioware as an entity anymore on any issue that isn't 100% yet then the answer is never straight forward, it's "We are discussing it", "Those aspects are still being worked on etc." So when someone gives you a straight answer you can bet it's true.


Edit- Basically what I meant to say is I would assume games have a budget based on the size and options, so a game with MP has a bigger budget assigned to it than SP. So if ME3 didn't have MP they would be given a smaller budget.

I'm all for trying to get ME3 back to the best ME experience but I'm not sure the money would be any different either way.

I am sure you are right but that's EA's policy requiring all their games to be multiplayer.  It doesn't counter my argument at all.  Just becuase EA doesn't think that SP is worth investing extra resources into the core game doesn't mean they couldn't....and thus those extra resources are increasing the price of the product without increasing it's core quality.

-Polaris

[didymos1120]

Drinking Shepard wrote...

Yep. The other BW team that's been working on MP could actually be busy improving the single player along with the main developer team. The SP could be awesome and satisfy almost everyone. Apparently that's not gonna happen

OK, great.  Now establish that EA would have paid for this other team to work on the single-player in the first place.

[IanPolaris]

Terror_K wrote...

Also, I have to say, it's all very well to say, "people claim to want their fears put to rest, but don't believe BioWare when they do" and all, but there's one simple question you have to ask yourself with regards to that:

Why don't people believe BioWare when they do?

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

(see Dragon Age 2)

-Polaris