334 réponses à ce sujet

[commander_shepard]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Zeppex wrote...

Well then why ask for player feedback at all? Why makes statements that literally state we created something with you.

Then make other statements like, we didn't know there was a demand for it.

If you tell give me feedback on what we can do better, the people giving you that feedback will generally believe that you will take that into consideration. Unless your just asking to make them feel important,

Yes, but some people interpret "please give us feedback"n as "tell us what to do and we'll for sure do it." Some people believe "I disagree with what you did" is shorthand for "you have to fix things to my specification." And some believe "I suggest this" to be the same as "AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!" This is where discussions start to break down and why so many unproductive arguments happen in the community.

It's still BioWare's game and BioWare's IP. I don't see how asking people to vote on a poll will lead to unproductive arguments. The general majority of people here realize that a poll is only for gathering ideas and preferences, not some legally binding agreement between poller and pollee.

Modifié par commander_shepard, 12 avril 2012 - 07:35 .

[SaladinDheonqar]

It would be perfectly understandable for Bioware to ignore all of the criticisms and feedback (though it wouldn't be good for them in the long run) if the problem was only that the devs' vision for the ending differed with ours. However, that's not the case. Most of the proponents of the Retake movement are hitting out at objectively bad writing, and Bioware making false promises. That is something entirely different.

[Kajan451]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Damien Hirsts shark cut up into three peices. Still made millions. 

Doesn't have to make sense 'to you' in order for it to be very profitable and successful.

Yeah, as a rather famous story, called "The Emperor's New Clothes" tells us, those with to much money are easily fooled into believing in the merit of intangible things, especially if they are told they are stupid if they can't recognize it as what it is supposed to be.

And it works, quite well, i am afraid. Most people are more worried about being called a cretain that doesn't understand art, than they are worried about speaking their opinion, right or wrong.

[Dragoonlordz]

commander_shepard wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Zeppex wrote...

Well then why ask for player feedback at all? Why makes statements that literally state we created something with you.

Then make other statements like, we didn't know there was a demand for it.

If you tell give me feedback on what we can do better, the people giving you that feedback will generally believe that you will take that into consideration. Unless your just asking to make them feel important,

Yes, but some people interpret "please give us feedback"n as "tell us what to do and we'll for sure do it." Some people believe "I disagree with what you did" is shorthand for "you have to fix things to my specification." And some believe "I suggest this" to be the same as "AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!" This is where discussions start to break down and why so many unproductive arguments happen in the community.

It's still BioWare's game and BioWare's IP. I don't see how asking people to vote on a poll will lead to unproductive arguments. The general majority of people here realize that a poll is only for gathering ideas and preferences, not some legally binding agreement between poller and pollee.

They did a poll recently remember the femshep one, the negative reaction they got from that from many and even some saying they should not let customers dictate what they do and should of just decided themselves instead of polling. Some of those people later turned around few weeks back and said they should change this to suit their desire and demands. It's why there is now a stigma of hypocrisy (imho) towards some these sentiments.

A poll would serve only one purpose which is if goes in these fans favor they will use it as ammunition against the developer, if goes against them then they will dismiss it and scream and shout that EA paid off someone; somewhere. The incentive to do a public poll does not exist when it is a no win situation for them. If they did a poll not made public that also would go against them from tin foil hat brigade. Like said no incentive to do it.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 07:46 .

[Transgirlgamer]

[quote]Ownedbacon wrote...

[quote]Transgirlgamer wrote...

(snip due to size)
[/quote]

Maybe the catalyst's programmes only interact together to create it when the crucible is linked to the citadel.  As far as we know, the crucible could have been designed by the same race who designed and built the citadel and the reapers.  It could have never actually been completed and docked to the citadel before, and we know from what the catalyst tells us, that no-one has stood where Shepard has before.

The catalyst, once the programs make it come into being, then has control over the reapers, before that it doesn't exist as a unique entity so it doesn't control the reapers at all.  Sovreign exists to signal when the organic races reach the correct level of technological development to set the harvest in motion and thus continue the cycle, whilst the Catalyst's sole reason for existing could be to be there, present the choice and change/end the cycle.

I don't recall the catalyst ever saying that it created the reapers, but I could be wrong there, and if I am, I will try to come up with another hypothesis that fits what we know.

[/quote]
Shepard: I need to stop the Reapers do you know how I can do that?
The Catalyst: Perhaps, I control the Reapers. They are my solution.
Shepard: Solution to what?
Catalyst: Chaos.



[/quote]

It still doesn't say created though.  I admit it implies it, but all that is confirmed is that the catalyst controls the reapers.

However, maybe part of what makes up the catalyst is a simulation of it's creator which is what gives it the ability to reason and respond to what you say.  Or maybe the catalyst is the creator of the reapers, and isolating it from the systems is part of what the protheans did to change the citadel.  Which, I beleive is essentially what someone suggested earlier.  Does anyone know if a reaper was left behind every cycle?  That could just be the reapers answer to the problem of the catalyst not being there anymore and somehow the crucible being docked freed it.

[PrussianBlue]

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”

Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)

[Dragoonlordz]

PrussianBlue wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”

Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)

This is not a adequate quote to harm or bash them with. I am a fan, you are a fan, other people are fans, any one of those fans could be listened to and pick their ideas because was more inline with their goals and therefore his statement is true regardless.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 07:44 .

[Transgirlgamer]

PrussianBlue wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”

Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)

It doesn't say how they use it though.  What My Woo is saying is that they take the feeback and then they decide what to do with what is suggested rather than debating every point with the fans, which would make the fans essentially part of the developement team.  Which wouldn't work as the entirety of the fanbase could never agree on what should happen.  Therefore the game would never be finished.

[DemGeth]

Yay all games in the future should be focused group to death, good post op

[Kajan451]

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

Well.. actually it is. We trust you to design stuff we like. You don't and we don't buy from you and you guys are out of a job. Thats how this game is played.

You create stuff, hoping it pleases us, we either like it and laude you, or we don't and we move on. Your actually depending on us, not the other way around as you obviously seem to believe.

I am not enough of a fool to assume you to depend on my personal purchase, thats really a non issue, but us customers as a group.. yes you do depend on us, not the other way around. You produce a luxery article. While we enjoy the luxeries, they ain't necessary and can easily and quickly be replaced.

A stance of "we don't owe you anything"... well, i do wish you guys luck with that. But just for the record. It was like that in the past and probably will be in the future, but its actually your name i frequently associate with all the negative responses that come from your team. A bit arrogance in the past was justified, but right now, and i know sheding the habbit is rather difficult, its very harmful for your position.

Modifié par Kajan451, 12 avril 2012 - 07:49 .

[TransientNomad]

xHarrison23 wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

TransientNomad wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Keldaurz wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

Tell that to the quest surveys on SWTOR.

AN MMO game is a different thing to a stand alone game.  An MMO game is a continuous experience that relies on the players to make up a lot of it's content.  By that, I don't mean it's story or quests, I mean the community of the game which people interact with every time they log onto the servers.  I have stopped playing MMO games as I haven't enjoyed the community the players and developers working together had built.  The first MMO I played was Star Wars Galaxies and I got into it because I really enjoyed the community, despite the repetatie grinding.  Until SOE stopped listening to the playerbase they already had and turned it into a WoW clone with a Star Wars skin.  The community died, my interest was lost and now, the game itself has closed down.

Mass Effect 3 however, is a single story.  It is much more like a book or a film whilst an MMO is more like a traitional, pen and paper or tabletop RPG.  You don't go to your favourite author or director and say 'Change this about this book/film you released' and expect them to actually do it.  It just won't happen.  Mass Effect: Deception was a special case that I don't know the details about so I can't comment on why it was a special case.

The book was terribly recieved, had a laundry list of plotholes and inconsistancies, and was a insult to ME lore.  Some would argue this is the same case with the games ending.  Still, endings have been changed in films and novels before in a number of different ways.  Harry Potter was originally slated to die but test audiences were against it.  In Clerks, the same thing was going to happen to the main character, but audiences were against it.  Bladerunner's director cut changed the theme of the entire original film.  The list goes on, with both big and small films and novels benefiting from test audiences and after release reactions

J.K. Rowling didn't release a version that had Harry die, then change it due to fan outcry.  As far as I know, with Clerks, that was changed before release.  With things like directors cuts, it's a little different.  Do they change things because of fan outcry or because the directors feel that things should have been different to how they were released?  Look at Star Wars for a prime example, George Lucas refuses to changing it back to Han shooting first as was in the original because it doesn't fit how he wants the film to be, despite a huge fan reaction against it.  And that changes hardly anything in the story.

Ever heard of the great writer Charles Dickens who wrote Great Expectations. He actually rewrote the ending to that story do to fan feed back. No one bashes on him for compromising his "artisitc integrity", he is viewed as one of the best authors of his time.

Also you missed the point about what I meant.  If there was a review process (test audience) the ending we would have got most likely would have be much more well recieved.  Rowling wanted Potter to die, Sir Doyle wanted Sherlock to die.  Fan outcry influenced these authors to change their tune.  Rowling was lucky/smart enough to change the ending before the book came out.  Doyle had to backpedal and retcon his original vision.  

As for Star Wars, its largely irrelevent.  The Han shooting first is the equivelent of turning Asari purple.  Now if Lucas made it so originally the Emporer killed Luke, then blew up Endor, he would have two choices, either let the Star Wars franchise die (and never become the juggernaut it is today) or change it to what we got.

[sgt_melin]

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

yes, you have great ides, great storyes, one problem, you should collaboration with the player when they are realy upset, if not its don't matter what great ide or storys you have, you will not sell them. poor auther dont either have many readers, poor movies dont sell...games that upset many many many player dont sell either. Hard to sell dlc when you don't collaboration with the player.   so good luck with that. I will not buy any DLC for Me3, and last game I ever will pre order. tired of company that think games are something else than a produckt like anything else in the market.  

[Dragoonlordz]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

PrussianBlue wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

Interviewer: “So are you guys the creators or the stewards of the franchise?”
Hudson: “Um… You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”

Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)

This is not a adequate quote to harm or bash them with. I am a fan, you are a fan, other people are fans, any one of those fans could be listened to and pick their ideas because was more inline with their goals and therefore his statement is true regardless.

So you asked them to have the GodChild and his horrendous illogical nonsense? You asked them to lie in their marketing of the game?

I wanted emotional end to the game not a database of facts or spread sheet of every little detail. I got that personally. If you never then thats your problem. I never buy into pre-release quote and tweets, my existance and choice does not rely on what they say prior to release. I almost never pre-order, the only reason I did this time is not because I wanted feature x, y or z. It is because no matter the outcome it is the last in the trilogy. So regardless of if I liked it, it merely continued Shepards story one way or another.

Where they see a literary failure, I see an enjoyable game and emotional success.Where they bought it for conclusion and end of the trilogy, I bought it game to merely continue the story of the previous two. Where they bought it for these so called 16 endings, I bought it knowing would have an ending of which it did just some people do not like that ending. Whether someone thinks I am being critical enough does not matter to me, I paid around £30 for a game that lasted 45 hours and of which I gained enjoyment from during that time.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 07:55 .

[Dragoonlordz]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I wanted emotional end to the game not a database of facts or spread sheet of every little detail. I got that personally. If you never then thats your problem. I never buy into pre-release quote and tweets, my existance and choice does not rely on what they say prior to release. I almost never pre-order, the only reason I did this time is not because I wanted feature x, y or z. It is because no matter the outcome it is the last in the trilogy. So regardless of if I liked it, it finished off Shepards story one way or another.

So it's alright for Bioware to lie about their games because you don't pay attention to it?

They never lied 'to me'.

[MechaGaiden]

Having a poll at the end of the game asking whether people liked the ending would be an excellent way for Bioware to gauge fan reactions, but I doubt they'd do it. It'd be weird for a game to have a random survey that asks "What did YOU think of the ending" slapped on at the end of the game or wherever.

Additionally, I doubt that it would matter to Bioware at this point. They've already made their decision to ride their "artistic integrity" high horse for the duration, so the chances of them listening to the majority of their fanbase is doubtful to say the least.

[Dragoonlordz]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I wanted emotional end to the game not a database of facts or spread sheet of every little detail. I got that personally. If you never then thats your problem. I never buy into pre-release quote and tweets, my existance and choice does not rely on what they say prior to release. I almost never pre-order, the only reason I did this time is not because I wanted feature x, y or z. It is because no matter the outcome it is the last in the trilogy. So regardless of if I liked it, it merely continued Shepards story one way or another.

So it's alright for Bioware to lie about their games because you don't pay attention to it?

They never lied 'to me'.

Your logic makes no sense. You're essentially saying that reality exists around you, and whatever you don't percieve doesn't exist.

You might feel like they misdirected you, you use the extreme phrase 'lied' when for almost all quotes used to attack them was prior to release meaning still in development stage. A stage I consider to be open to adjustment and change in direction until hits gold status and the shelves. I listen to what the game contains after release for almost every single game and do not preorder games often. The only reason I preordered this time is because regardless of whether I enjoy it or not, it was part of the trilogy and continued a previous story. If I never enjoyed  it I would of sold it and bought something else like an adult does. Not whined about it for month demanding changed and rewritten. I would leave feedback and then discuss from that point on what would like in the "next" title not alterations to the previous one.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 12 avril 2012 - 08:01 .

[-Area51-Silent]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Official EA/Bioware stance:

-snip-

Damien Hirsts shark cut up into three peices. Still made millions.

Doesn't have to make sense 'to you' in order for it to be very profitable and successful.

A 14-foot (4.3 m) tiger shark immersed in formaldehyde in a vitrine (clear display case) became the iconic work of British art in the 1990s, and the symbol of Britart worldwide.

You are correct in some sense. In order for somthing like that to be successful and profitable, it has to be 1 of a kind! meaning if the artist was just able to mass produce them, the value would hit the toilet faster than a college freshmen at their first party.

My point is, when it comes to art, being abstract and "dark" is fine, and usually does well in particular, non consumer based settings. The artist is expressing themselves and through that, they are able to convey to the passive observer, what they are feeling. Art is SUPPOSED to be viewed by a PASSIVE observer, not an active participant (thus my argument of game mechanics not being art, but games being made up of art).

Mass Effect's story is art, in a sense because its all written, and the only influence we have is what parts of it we hear. The problem is that art is supposed to follow convensions in order to flow and not interrupt the observers view. When you set out to do a piece and in part of it you violate the convensions you've agreed to for most of the piece, then there is a jarring experience that is experienced by the observer. At the end of Mass Effect 3, we have such an experience because of the story plays out, the introduction of a new character with no warning, and a single endng that could not possibly make sense for all the various paths the observer has chosen to take in the story, meaning that each path should have a variation on the ending, and that variation should be reflective of the other portions of the story they experienced. Having a single experience at the end with very slight variations simply is off putting to the observer.

Why is that not true for everyone? if you didn't make a lot of decisions (in the prior 2 games) then your choices and paths are resolved as you play, and the ending makes sense because of that. With all the closure you need contained in the (lets say third book) of the series, no harm no foul. That cannot be said when you've woven this path in the prior 2 games, and there are unresolved issues lingering that simply need resolving.

The best analogy would be if you only played the 3rd game, its like looking at a piece of art, and that art was all done the same way, so it makes perfect sense! you can't see the other 2/3's of it, so the 1/3 you see flows properly based on your experience with the other unknowns. Then those who've played the other games, the more of the other games you played, the more exposure you have to the old style of art! so if you played 2/3's of it and not the first game, then its still jarring, but the painting can still be seen as OK because you didn't get used to it.

[Ownedbacon]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Ownedbacon wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

(snip due to size)

Maybe the catalyst's programmes only interact together to create it when the crucible is linked to the citadel.  As far as we know, the crucible could have been designed by the same race who designed and built the citadel and the reapers.  It could have never actually been completed and docked to the citadel before, and we know from what the catalyst tells us, that no-one has stood where Shepard has before.

The catalyst, once the programs make it come into being, then has control over the reapers, before that it doesn't exist as a unique entity so it doesn't control the reapers at all.  Sovreign exists to signal when the organic races reach the correct level of technological development to set the harvest in motion and thus continue the cycle, whilst the Catalyst's sole reason for existing could be to be there, present the choice and change/end the cycle.

I don't recall the catalyst ever saying that it created the reapers, but I could be wrong there, and if I am, I will try to come up with another hypothesis that fits what we know.

Shepard: I need to stop the Reapers do you know how I can do that?
The Catalyst: Perhaps, I control the Reapers. They are my solution.
Shepard: Solution to what?
Catalyst: Chaos.

It still doesn't say created though.  I admit it implies it, but all that is confirmed is that the catalyst controls the reapers.

However, maybe part of what makes up the catalyst is a simulation of it's creator which is what gives it the ability to reason and respond to what you say.  Or maybe the catalyst is the creator of the reapers, and isolating it from the systems is part of what the protheans did to change the citadel.  Which, I beleive is essentially what someone suggested earlier.  Does anyone know if a reaper was left behind every cycle?  That could just be the reapers answer to the problem of the catalyst not being there anymore and somehow the crucible being docked freed it.

I think Vigil on Ilos states that a reaper is left behind during each cycle.
Part 1


Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__n-kgRJEw&feature=relmfu

Long conversation watching them again.

Sovereign only docked at the Citadel because the signal falied. Had other things like the Catalyst had failed to operate prior to this cycle the Reapers would have known and probably attempted to free it.

"They are alien unknowable perhaps they need slaves or resources. More likely they are driven by motives and goals organic beings cannot hope to understand." LOL

"In the end what does it matter your survival depends on stopping them... not in understanding them."

They should have kept them a mystery.

Modifié par Ownedbacon, 12 avril 2012 - 08:10 .

[DreamTension]

Interview with Casey Hudson (Director)

http://venturebeat.c...fans-interview/



“Fans want to make sure that they see things resolved, they want to get some
closure, a great ending. I think they’re going to get that.”



Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)

http://www.eurogamer...me-people-angry



“Every decision you've made will impact how things go. The player's also the
architect of what happens."



“You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless
of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some
answers to these people.”



“Because a lot of these plot threads are concluding and because it's being
brought to a finale, since you were a part of architecting how they got to how
they were, you will definitely sense how they close was because of the
decisions you made and because of the decisions you didn't make”





Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)

http://www.360magazi...ferent-endings/



“There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could
you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced
into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that…”



Interview with Mac Walters (Lead Writer)

http://popwatch.ew.c...-3-mac-walters/



“[The presence of the Rachni] has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just
in the final battle with the Reapers.”



Interview with Mike Gamble (Associate Producer)

http://www.computera...missing-in-me2/



“And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as much
as we are anyway.”

Modifié par DreamTension, 12 avril 2012 - 08:08 .

[Transgirlgamer]

TransientNomad wrote...

xHarrison23 wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

(snip to try and keep the post length down)

J.K. Rowling didn't release a version that had Harry die, then change it due to fan outcry.  As far as I know, with Clerks, that was changed before release.  With things like directors cuts, it's a little different.  Do they change things because of fan outcry or because the directors feel that things should have been different to how they were released?  Look at Star Wars for a prime example, George Lucas refuses to changing it back to Han shooting first as was in the original because it doesn't fit how he wants the film to be, despite a huge fan reaction against it.  And that changes hardly anything in the story.

Ever heard of the great writer Charles Dickens who wrote Great Expectations. He actually rewrote the ending to that story do to fan feed back. No one bashes on him for compromising his "artisitc integrity", he is viewed as one of the best authors of his time.

Also you missed the point about what I meant.  If there was a review process (test audience) the ending we would have got most likely would have be much more well recieved.  Rowling wanted Potter to die, Sir Doyle wanted Sherlock to die.  Fan outcry influenced these authors to change their tune.  Rowling was lucky/smart enough to change the ending before the book came out.  Doyle had to backpedal and retcon his original vision.  

As for Star Wars, its largely irrelevent.  The Han shooting first is the equivelent of turning Asari purple.  Now if Lucas made it so originally the Emporer killed Luke, then blew up Endor, he would have two choices, either let the Star Wars franchise die (and never become the juggernaut it is today) or change it to what we got.

@xHarrison23  I didn't know that Charles Dickens had done that and I'm sorry it's taken me this long to reply to your comment, I've only just noticed it.  I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are exceptions.

@TransientNomad, I guess I must have missed your point, yes.  I have already made a reply about the review process.  I firmly believe that it did go through that process, I'm pretty sure they listed testers in the credits, and that for some reason their concerns about the ending either weren't in the majority, or weren't given the weight they should have been.

As to the Star Wars point, I was making the point that Lucas didn't change this small, insignificant thing despite huge fan opposition to the change, considering the number of remakes he's done since that, to bring it more in line with his vision, it would be a relatively simple matter for him to do it and probably improve the fan's opinion of him.  As to the Emporer killing Luke then blowing up Endor, I don't think that's comparable to the ME3 ending.  Because, from a certain point of view, Shepard did end the reaper harvest in the endings of ME3, in one way or another, which is what the story was always heading towards.  Luke dying at the hands of the Emperor is not where the story, using the standard plot conventions Lucas has admitted to following, was heading.  ME3, one man beats seemingly insurmountable odds and saves the galaxy, SW with Luke dying, one man beats most of the seemingly insurmountable odds then dies right at the end so nothing changes.

I admit that the actual events of the ME3 ending come out of nowhere, but the story still concludes the way most people expected it would.

[BadgerladDK]

Stanley Woo wrote...

One reason is that, generally, we have our own ideas about how to design games and stories and don't design them by committee in collaboration with the players. That's not really how the developer-player relationship works.

Stanley, I've always appreciated your willingness to talk to the community, but I think you're being a little harsh on the OP here. I actually think he's on to a pretty good mechanism for gathering feedback when you ask for it. Considering every origin/ea account is tied to an email address, it could be a valuable delivery mechanism to get a wider representation of your user base when you do request feedback on a topic, rather than the self-selecting sample you invariably get from soliciting feedback from the forum community (isn't the accepted figure that roughly 10 percent of a game's players will visit the forums, and the majority of those will never actively contribute?)

Compare it to the survey you receive when you cancel a subscription to something, be it an mmo, book of the month club or a music streaming service, or the periodic surveys used by those same services. rather than a wish for design by commitee (which, I agree, is generally a terrible idea).

(edited for clarification, typos... long day)

Modifié par Larg_Kellein, 12 avril 2012 - 08:14 .