Video games are art. But they, like most, including films and graphic novels, are commissioned art. I pay for an experience (art is an intentionally created item that creates or expresses emotion), but if that product, or commission, is not to my liking, it is my choice if I want a refund or complain.
So when a publisher demands changes in a game, it's totally ok...
Débuté par
batlin
, mars 22 2012 07:18
-
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 23 mars 2012 - 08:14
batlin
-
- Members
- 951 messages
I TV Casualty I wrote...
"So when a publisher demands changes in a game, it's totally ok..."
No. No it isn't.
The difference being the developer IS REQUIRED to listen to the publisher because the publisher is footing the bill to actually create the project.
I can guarantee you that there were at least a few changes that EA required BioWare to make that they were less than happy to implement...
I'm using the logic that the people crying "artistic integrity" have in regard to fans wanting to change the ending. No one seemed all that concerned about Bioware's artistic integrity when, say, EA demanded DA2 be released on 15 months, but all of a sudden when fans demand something it's a crime against art.
Modifié par batlin, 23 mars 2012 - 08:16 .
#128
Posté 23 mars 2012 - 12:45
Basher of Glory
-
- Members
- 1 026 messages
Perhaps we could see it this way:
ATM we have kind of an oligarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy) in regard of good RPGs.
Very few studios and publishers produce respectively have good RPGs in their portfolio. Those who have - like EA and BW - are able to dictate the conditions, because there is almost no competition.
I could live with that, if they behave fair - like so called "excellent organizations" should (see the EFTA paragraph here http://en.wikipedia....ness_excellence).
But not only in my opinion they have stopped to behave fair long time ago. Thus, an oligarchy can easily turn to something "evil", which tries hard to suck out the last cent of their customer's purses without delivering products not anywhere near the quality, which was promised and for which the customers payed for.
Often they do this because they believe "they CAN do it", judging their customers as "immature" and unable to say "NO!"
Sometimes it comes to an uproar like we see here the past weeks. After some days of silence, the oligarchs start to "probe", if this is a temporary crisis which could be sat out, hoping it vanishes quickly. If it doesn't, the communicational attempts to mediate between producer / publisher and the fans increase.
Easy to see here: After a while we got messages from different BW-employees, we got fed with "good reviews" etc. But the uproar remains and gets stronger and louder every day.
Finally the CEO sent word. He promised something for the near future - of course without being specific in any way. He demanded "constructive criticism" and finally he pulled back to his last line of defence:
Artistic Integrity.
Whatever this "artistic integrity" might be, lies clearly in the eye of the beholder respectively the user of this expression. We can discuss here for another 100 pages and would never find a solution about the "if's", "when's" and "where's".
In my eyes the involvement of a CEO is a clear concession to the fact that something went horribly wrong and that the coworkers are at their wit's end.
The question is, if a glossed over and PR-styled message will fix the things. We will see in April...
ATM we have kind of an oligarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy) in regard of good RPGs.
Very few studios and publishers produce respectively have good RPGs in their portfolio. Those who have - like EA and BW - are able to dictate the conditions, because there is almost no competition.
I could live with that, if they behave fair - like so called "excellent organizations" should (see the EFTA paragraph here http://en.wikipedia....ness_excellence).
But not only in my opinion they have stopped to behave fair long time ago. Thus, an oligarchy can easily turn to something "evil", which tries hard to suck out the last cent of their customer's purses without delivering products not anywhere near the quality, which was promised and for which the customers payed for.
Often they do this because they believe "they CAN do it", judging their customers as "immature" and unable to say "NO!"
Sometimes it comes to an uproar like we see here the past weeks. After some days of silence, the oligarchs start to "probe", if this is a temporary crisis which could be sat out, hoping it vanishes quickly. If it doesn't, the communicational attempts to mediate between producer / publisher and the fans increase.
Easy to see here: After a while we got messages from different BW-employees, we got fed with "good reviews" etc. But the uproar remains and gets stronger and louder every day.
Finally the CEO sent word. He promised something for the near future - of course without being specific in any way. He demanded "constructive criticism" and finally he pulled back to his last line of defence:
Artistic Integrity.
Whatever this "artistic integrity" might be, lies clearly in the eye of the beholder respectively the user of this expression. We can discuss here for another 100 pages and would never find a solution about the "if's", "when's" and "where's".
In my eyes the involvement of a CEO is a clear concession to the fact that something went horribly wrong and that the coworkers are at their wit's end.
The question is, if a glossed over and PR-styled message will fix the things. We will see in April...
#129
Posté 23 mars 2012 - 01:42
Rob Sabbaggio
-
- Members
- 122 messages
Does it change things if you substitute "fans" for "customers"?
Fans implies people's wishes can be ignored for the sake of artistic vision. But customers have paid lots of good money for the said product and are entitled to be able to complain when a service or product doesnt meet expectations or match the advertised product. if customers have complaints, then they need to be addressed, otherwise they will simply stop buying their products and go elsewhere.
Given the massive importance of pre-orders and day one purchasers to game companies (given how resale and pre-owned takes up the slack after a week or two), game companies need buyers to want their product day one. Not wait around for the forum feedback to see if its worth buying.
At the moment, people are complaining but not leaving or boycotting. But if this is handled badly then how big a percentage of the fan-base will not buy ME3 DLC? How many people will think twice about spending money on a new journey in the Mass Effect universe when they believe that there wont be any chance of a happy ending at the end of it? I play games for many reasons, but close to the bottom of my personal list is feeling bummed out and disappointed with my tragic and - key point - unavoidable demise.
How many people are already thinking twice about buying DA3 given their experience with DA2?
Now I love Bioware, have played just about everything I could get my hands on, including Baldurs Gate, NWN, KOTOR, Jade Empire, all the DAs and MEs. And I bought them all new, because I was happy to trust Bioware to deliver a great experience and reward Bioware for their hard work. If I'm seriously considering not buying ME3 DLC (what is the point of pre-end DLC that only leads to the same end?) and thinking of waiting and see what comes out from them in the future, then that is going to impact their bottom line.
In game theory terms, this is a repeated game. If they just want to sell me ME3, then they succeeded. I bought it. But if they want me to buy other products in future, then they will clear up the issues over the endings and the face import.
They did it already with DA2 to an extent, where the two DLC released after the game explicitly addressed some of the concerns raised by fans. In DA2, it was part of Biowares vision that enemies could attack in waves falling from the sky, but that was changed for the DLC because it didnt work. Why should these endings be any different? I know they are part of the story, but that doesnt mean they cant explain why we saw what we saw.
Fans implies people's wishes can be ignored for the sake of artistic vision. But customers have paid lots of good money for the said product and are entitled to be able to complain when a service or product doesnt meet expectations or match the advertised product. if customers have complaints, then they need to be addressed, otherwise they will simply stop buying their products and go elsewhere.
Given the massive importance of pre-orders and day one purchasers to game companies (given how resale and pre-owned takes up the slack after a week or two), game companies need buyers to want their product day one. Not wait around for the forum feedback to see if its worth buying.
At the moment, people are complaining but not leaving or boycotting. But if this is handled badly then how big a percentage of the fan-base will not buy ME3 DLC? How many people will think twice about spending money on a new journey in the Mass Effect universe when they believe that there wont be any chance of a happy ending at the end of it? I play games for many reasons, but close to the bottom of my personal list is feeling bummed out and disappointed with my tragic and - key point - unavoidable demise.
How many people are already thinking twice about buying DA3 given their experience with DA2?
Now I love Bioware, have played just about everything I could get my hands on, including Baldurs Gate, NWN, KOTOR, Jade Empire, all the DAs and MEs. And I bought them all new, because I was happy to trust Bioware to deliver a great experience and reward Bioware for their hard work. If I'm seriously considering not buying ME3 DLC (what is the point of pre-end DLC that only leads to the same end?) and thinking of waiting and see what comes out from them in the future, then that is going to impact their bottom line.
In game theory terms, this is a repeated game. If they just want to sell me ME3, then they succeeded. I bought it. But if they want me to buy other products in future, then they will clear up the issues over the endings and the face import.
They did it already with DA2 to an extent, where the two DLC released after the game explicitly addressed some of the concerns raised by fans. In DA2, it was part of Biowares vision that enemies could attack in waves falling from the sky, but that was changed for the DLC because it didnt work. Why should these endings be any different? I know they are part of the story, but that doesnt mean they cant explain why we saw what we saw.
#131
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 10:30
Elhanan
-
- Members
- 18 626 messages
Bioware has the right to change, or hold as is; they are the collective group of artists, and it is their call to make. So all the so-called fans and critics of either decision can take a chill pill, and go mope outside; just stay off the flowers!
#132
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 10:35
Akeashar
-
- Members
- 163 messages
SE JN wrote...
Video games are art. But they, like most, including films and graphic novels, are commissioned art. I pay for an experience (art is an intentionally created item that creates or expresses emotion), but if that product, or commission, is not to my liking, it is my choice if I want a refund or complain.
In this respect, I can see where you're going with them being commissioned art. However, you are not the one that commissioned the art. The publisher is. You'd be like someone paying to attend an art gallery, or buy a print of a piece. If you were the commissioner, you would be set to give specifics on what you wish for your commissioned image.
Now, if we were Bioware's employers, (ie. they were directly on our payroll) then we might have had a say, depending on the nature of the contracts.
#133
Posté 24 mars 2012 - 10:50
Selene Moonsong
-
- Members
- 3 398 messages
Locked as spam due to OP blatantly bumping the topic multiple times.
