191 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

Great, since BW is "dead," you can move on to other forums to declare other companies "dead." And those of us with our sanity intact won't have to keep listening to constant pronouncements about it when the next game comes out.

[ahandsomeshark]

JeffKaos wrote...

I don't think BioWares going anywhere any time soon but you can definately see EA's ugly fingerprints all over everthing BioWare has recently released. While I haven't played SWTOR I've heard that a lot of my friends have already stopped playing with most of them saying that it's basically a single-player game with no exploration. My opinion is that where they were once a company that produced high quality, story driven RPG's with a loyal fanbase, thanks to EA BioWare is just going to be another company that specialises in RPG's. Some will be good, some will be bad.

except they're hardly even rpg's anymore. They've removed so much of the exploration and choice( choice in terms of how you proceed through the story). ME3 was basically completely linear.

[Darth Krytie]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Great, since BW is "dead," you can move on to other forums to declare other companies "dead." And those of us with our sanity intact won't have to keep listening to constant pronouncements about it when the next game comes out.

Such a lovely dream.

[metawanderer]

I remember back in 2003 the Bioware forums were predicting the end of Bioware because KOTOR only had a 40 hour campaign compred to the 100+ hrs of the BG games and was coming out on consoles. I still like Bioware, no company is perfect and they are (despite what some say) are learning from their mistakes. Even if it is the end of Bioware, I will be interested in whatever Casey Hudson works on and the Doctors work on. Bioware is just a name of a corporation, it's not the name that matters, it is the people working on the software.

Modifié par metawanderer, 08 avril 2012 - 08:13 .

[ahandsomeshark]

sfam wrote...

SuraklinPrime wrote...

But I also worry that part of the problem is that companies are trying to develop across platforms that do not share the same audience - i.e. I think what a PC player wants to play is quite different to what a console player wants, the control systems are not really very compatible between the two and even the types of people who play on each platform can be quite different. Thus you get games which don't really meet anyone's ideal gaming experience because they are forced to fit into two (or more) very different audiences...

I understand the desire of companies to sell one game across many platforms but I think it ultimately makes gaming less pleasurable for all of us.

I'm going to disagree with you here.  I love robust RPGs, but honestly, after spending hours and hours on a computer all day, I'd far prefer going to my home theater with a comfy couch, surround sound and a 65" widescreen TV to play games.  I love it that games like the Witcher are now coming out for XBox 360.  I'm more than willing to sacrifice some keyboard controls in order to do this. 

One problem I had with DA: Origins though is there was a critical bug on the XBox platform, which made it impossible for me to save after completing like 3/4 of the game.  I ended up stopping playing it till a patch came out months later.  This as much as anything prevented me from buying DA:2 immediately. Based on the reviews of only a few rooms where all the action took place, I bypassed it altogether in favor of the truly awesome Skyrim experience.

this also. I love rpgs but hate the fact that most of the good ones are on my computer (I use my computer for school and some socializing I don't really have a ton of money to spend specing it out and then buying games). It's one of the reasons I became a bioware stan in the first place because they made real rpgs AND made them for consoles.

[Sarevok Synder]

Darth Krytie wrote...


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, then... EA offered them money which allowed them to do more than they'd been able to do previously. I know people keep citing short Dev cycles, but overly long ones aren't good either. It makes any game, even the best game ever, less profitable. 

If you're trying to say there's a distinction between BioWare struggling and allowing EA to buy them out and BioWare selling to EA because they simply wanted more money but could have made it on their own...and that specific distinction is important to you...I don't see how it matters.

My point is, they didn't have to be struggling to get bought out. It matters because the other guy claimed it to be fact that they were bought out because they were struggling.

As for other reasons it matters, I can't be bothered getting into them.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 08 avril 2012 - 08:14 .

[ahandsomeshark]

I have no idea what the rest of the argument is about but companies, especially tech related companies, buy out "failing" companies ALL THE TIME, for cheapened access to their IPs, that's one of the big things people hated EA for doing in the early 00's buying developers and gutting them just to control their IPs. And considering how successful KOTOR and Mass Effect were, and the fact EA's stock price had been reeling and they had no real consistent IP's to lean on outside of releasing the same Madden game every year, it makes perfect sense that they pay 750 million for Bioware even if Bioware was struggling. Because of the value of the IPs. Bioware might have been struggling to come up with the costs to fund ME2 (or SW:TOR or w/e they were trying to fund) but given the success of ME1 it wouldn't be much of a game for EA to think they'd recoup the value once it was released.

EA tried a similar thing with Take-Two, pre GTA IV Take-two's stock was a bit low so EA made a huge bid that overvalued their stocks at the current price but undervalued what they'd likely jump to after GTA IV was released (thank God, Dumbledore, Yoda, the Starks and the lion for Narnia it didn't go through). It's a common practice.

[ahandsomeshark]

metawanderer wrote...

I remember back in 2003 the Bioware forums were predicting the end of Bioware because KOTOR only had a 40 hour campaign compred to the 100+ hrs of the BG games and was coming out on consoles. I still like Bioware, no company is perfect and they are (despite what some say) are learning from their mistakes. Even if it is the end of Bioware, I will be interested in whatever Casey Hudson works on and the Doctors work on. Bioware is just a name of a corporation, it's not the name that matters, it is the people working on the software.

but even with the 40 hour campaign were there really any similar products on the market to what bioware was providing in 2003? My biggest issue is that ME3, outside of the story that was largely established in the first two games, doesn't really play that differently from a ton of other TPS's on the market. Where as games like Jade Empire and KOTOR were extremely unique (at least for console users) there weren't many western or non high fantasy rpgs being made on the consoles.

[Sarevok Synder]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

I have no idea what the rest of the argument is about but companies, especially tech related companies, buy out "failing" companies ALL THE TIME, for cheapened access to their IPs, that's one of the big things people hated EA for doing in the early 00's buying developers and gutting them just to control their IPs. And considering how successful KOTOR and Mass Effect were, and the fact EA's stock price had been reeling and they had no real consistent IP's to lean on outside of releasing the same Madden game every year, it makes perfect sense that they pay 750 million for Bioware even if Bioware was struggling. Because of the value of the IPs. Bioware might have been struggling to come up with the costs to fund ME2 (or SW:TOR or w/e they were trying to fund) but given the success of ME1 it wouldn't be much of a game for EA to think they'd recoup the value once it was released.

EA tried a similar thing with Take-Two, pre GTA IV Take-two's stock was a bit low so EA made a huge bid that overvalued their stocks at the current price but undervalued what they'd likely jump to after GTA IV was released (thank God, Dumbledore, Yoda, the Starks and the lion for Narnia it didn't go through). It's a common practice.

Yes, but it's pure speculation. The other guy was claiming it to be a fact that Bioware would have gone under if EA hadn't bought them out, which it clearly isn't.. The only ones who know for sure are the boards of both companies and senior investors.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 08 avril 2012 - 08:25 .

[Wolvy]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

metawanderer wrote...

I remember back in 2003 the Bioware forums were predicting the end of Bioware because KOTOR only had a 40 hour campaign compred to the 100+ hrs of the BG games and was coming out on consoles. I still like Bioware, no company is perfect and they are (despite what some say) are learning from their mistakes. Even if it is the end of Bioware, I will be interested in whatever Casey Hudson works on and the Doctors work on. Bioware is just a name of a corporation, it's not the name that matters, it is the people working on the software.

but even with the 40 hour campaign were there really any similar products on the market to what bioware was providing in 2003? My biggest issue is that ME3, outside of the story that was largely established in the first two games, doesn't really play that differently from a ton of other TPS's on the market. Where as games like Jade Empire and KOTOR were extremely unique (at least for console users) there weren't many western or non high fantasy rpgs being made on the consoles.

Shark,
Could this be in part that because of the wide popularity and uniqueness that those earlier games brought that other companies saw the value of trying to create their own products similar to that of Bioware? This is  why we have the variety on the market that there is now? Don't get me wrong, I am all for variety and competition. 

[Dr_Hello]

LOL... more and more speculations...

My advice... go play Diablo III while waiting for ME extended cut DLC... because you'll go crazy eventually with all the speculations about the 'who, what, when, why' will happen...

Let BioWare do their job in the meantime and hopefully they'll blow us away with the EC DLC.

Six things IMO they should address in the DLC:
- Fix plotholes
- Make choices matter
- Closure where needed (They could leave some things open if they plan on connecting the dots in an eventual ME4, who knows)
- Love interest should matter and have closure
- Be generous with the cutscenes' length. Avoid the cut-and-dry ultra-brief end cutscene that is the current ME3 one.
- some more gameplay to empower the gamer/fan in the final moments of Shepard's story.

And it'd be advisable for them to:
- get the full writing team involved.
- consult the original lead writer on ME1/ME2, Drew Karpyshyn, about the ending's writing. He's afterall the architect of the Mass effect story and universe since from ME1. He's now retired from game writing and working on novels.

Modifié par Dr_Hello, 08 avril 2012 - 09:02 .

[Grusome11]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...



Continue believing what you want.  The evidence makes it clear to anyone paying attention.

Obviously BioWare just saw the money and flipped out, they hadn't tried other measures first to shore up their finances or anything.

No evidence just your bald assertions. Again, why would EA pay so much for a failing studio?


I still see no evidence that they would have gone under without EA. Money talks, that's how EA took over.

There are numerous reasons to buy something. Gaining access to their IP, ability to use their name/brand. Companies buy companies in financial difficulty all the time. Not saying that was the case here. As for the price they paid, they must have thought it was worth it. Not saying it is necessarily a good idea.

Look at Time/Warner and AOL.

[Sarevok Synder]

Grusome11 wrote...

There are numerous reasons to buy something. Gaining access to their IP, ability to use their name/brand. Companies buy companies in financial difficulty all the time. Not saying that was the case here. As for the price they paid, they must have thought it was worth it. Not saying it is necessarily a good idea.

Look at Time/Warner and AOL.

That's my whole point. There is no evidence Bioware were in any sort of trouble. Could they have been? Sure, but I've seen nothing to indicate they were. It's just the price EA paid despite their own difficulties which makes me think otherwise.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 08 avril 2012 - 10:22 .

[OhoniX]

Yes, paying 750 Million for a "struggling" company can only be
considered charity. Or you're just making it up as you go along, that's
far more likely.

You clearly don't understand how business works. If Bioware didn't need the money, they wouldn't have taken it. Just because they needed the money doesn't mean that they were not worth the money. Bioware was a studio with several high profile brands and high quality talent that had a great deal of potential at the time. By buying them out, EA latched on to that star, in the expectation that Bioware's future products would turn a profit and pay off their investments. They did not buy a "failing studio," but they did buy out a studio that needed a serious capital infusion in the short term, in the hopes of long term gains. This is called "business."

um I'm not playing COD so I don't see how that has relevance.
They're recycled maps. If they wanted to play up the holding
story-line...then they could have actually mentioned it in SP and maybe
them more involved then just go here and shoot these things.

They did mention it in SP. If you were actually paying attention to the mission briefings and mission dialogs, every SP N7 mission involved enemy forces overrunning some strategically vital alliance base because it had been poorly defended. Shepard was sent in to clear the place out and set up minimal defensive protections, which she did. Thus ends Shepard's role in each N7 site. Then, the multiplayer players (refered to by the SP campain as "N7" forces) are tasked with holding those positions, so that they don't fall back into enemy hands, which is a story told in the MP game.

except they're hardly even rpg's anymore. They've removed so much of
the exploration and choice( choice in terms of how you proceed through
the story). ME3 was basically completely linear.

Very very few digital RPGs are non-linear. They almost all end up in the same place, and the vast majority of them have you do the majority of missions in a set order. DA:O was probably the least linear Bioware RPG, and even it only had a limited amount of branching. ME3 was obviously very much an RPG. You had a geat deal of control over how your character's skills developed, ow her interactions with the other characters developed, and how things resolved. Yes, you had to do act 1 before act 2, and act 2 before act 3, but the order you took missions within each act was up to you, as were the choices you made in how things resolved. I would hardly say that your choices were insignificant when you were on multiple occasions given the option to commit genocide.

My biggest issue is that ME3, outside of the story that was largely
established in the first two games, doesn't really play that differently
from a ton of other TPS's on the market.

I think it plays tons differently than other TPSs on the market. The character customization options are far more robust, the "powers" make for much more complex gameplay options than games that typically offer even less options than exist within ME's "soldier" class alone, and the squad mechanics in SP are much more complex than in most similar games. I mean, I have no interest in "Call of Battlefield" or whatever, and I never played Halo muliplayer for any length of time, but I've played and enjoyed ME3 MP for weeks now and enjoyed it thoroughly, so clearly they're doing something very differently than the other guys.

And of course, if you aren't playing it in "action" mode, ME3's RPG and story elements are miles beyond what's seen in any TPS game. Really from your comments you just seem to have a problem with the fact that the action gameplay is a shooter.

That's my whole point. There is no evidence Bioware were in any
sort of trouble. Could they have been? Sure, but I've seen nothing to
indicate they were. It's just the price EA paid despite their own
difficulties which makes me think otherwise.

Would Bioware have collapsed without EA (or someone like them)? Maybe not. But there's no reason to believe that Bioware would have accepted EA's offer if they didn't need the money. If they had all that they needed without EA then they would have just stayed as an indepenent developer. Why wouldn't they?

Modifié par OhoniX, 09 avril 2012 - 04:40 .

[Sarevok Synder]

OhoniX wrote...

You clearly don't understand how business works. If Bioware didn't need the money, they wouldn't have taken it. Just because they needed the money doesn't mean that they were not worth the money. Bioware was a studio with several high profile brands and high quality talent that had a great deal of potential at the time. By buying them out, EA latched on to that star, in the expectation that Bioware's future products would turn a profit and pay off their investments. They did not buy a "failing studio," but they did buy out a studio that needed a serious capital infusion in the short term, in the hopes of long term gains. This is called "business."



Would Bioware have collapsed without EA (or someone like them)? Maybe not. But there's no reason to believe that Bioware would have accepted EA's offer if they didn't need the money. If they had all that they needed without EA then they would have just stayed as an indepenent developer. Why wouldn't they?

Clearly you don't understand how investments work. Investors expect a return on their investment, EA were giving them a nice quick return. Your arrogance is misplaced and completely unjustified.

Now like the previous guy, back up your claim that Bioware needed the money. Your bald assertions are worthless.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 09 avril 2012 - 08:55 .

[KoJotP]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
Clearly you don't understand how investments work. Investors expect a return on their investment, EA were giving them a nice quick return. Your arrogance is misplaced and completely unjustified.

Now like the previous guy, back up your claim that Bioware needed the money. Your bald assertions are worthless.

If not for any other reason, then to pay off the investors. You backed the claim yourself mate.

Regardless, whether Bioware needed or wanted to be bought out by EA, the fact is they were bought out and there is quite popular feeling that with EA came along some questionable practices towards clients. Not that EA is unique about it. Blizzard (owned by Vivendi then) after being merged with Activision did their share of nasty things to us gamers too. The ugly truth is that to corporate world we are nothing but a wallets to be drained . Be it by games or gas or whatever else.
Edit: removed accidental "enters" in the middle of the text

Modifié par KoJotP, 09 avril 2012 - 09:34 .

[Sarevok Synder]

KoJotP wrote...

If not for any other reason, then to pay off the investors. You backed the claim yourself mate.

Regardless, whether Bioware needed or wanted to be bought out by EA, the fact is they were bought out and there is quite popular feeling that with EA came along some questionable practices towards clients. Not that EA is unique about it. Blizzard (owned by Vivendi then) after being merged with Activision did their share of nasty things to us gamers too. The ugly truth is that to corporate world we are nothing but a wallets to be drained . Be it by games or gas or whatever else.
Edit: removed accidental "enters" in the middle of the text

Na, these guys were claiming Bioware would have gone under if EA hadn't taken over. I'm saying there is no evidence for that. When you look at the enormous price EA paid it isn't hard to figure out why Biowares investors sold their shares to EA.

Unfortunately quality always suffers as a result of EAs lust for increased profits. I think Bioware are in more danger now than they ever were on their own. EAs history with acquired developers backs me up on this

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 09 avril 2012 - 10:30 .