199 réponses à ce sujet

[GuardianAngel470]

I learned that Silent Marketing may be enormously effective but Silent Damage Control is irrefutably counterproductive.

[Robhuzz]

It has taught me another thing: Professional reviewers are not to be trusted or even taken seriously.

That Video Games are art, but its both created by the consumer and the producers.
Like most things, the video game business is corrupt and needs reformation, but I don't know how we can do it.

While a video game may or may not be art, it's still a product designed to be sold to customers. A game developer has all the rights to make it as they desire but it's as if they're pretending to be above the usual trade rules. Their attitude when fans don't like it is pathetic.

For example: My company is building and selling TVs that only work properly for 200 hours. After 200 hours, random colors (red, blue and green) start appearing on the screen - A bit of artistic integrity on my part. I don't put this fact in the marketing obviously. The consumers start complaining because I sold them a product that wasn't in line with what I advertised.

Logical result: Returned TVs, people demanding money back, people demanding a new TV that DOES work as intended, potential lawsuit for me ripping off my customers. Reputation ruined.

Now why the heck should BioWare (or any gaming company for that matter) be above this? They're not special. They produce goods that they need to sell to make a living. So why are they not subject to the usual rules? BioWare sold a product that isn't in line with what they advertised, now they're falling back on artistic integrity, claiming they don't HAVE to do anything to fix this, and release the EC to simply wrap up a few closure problems. You're serious?

So yeah, this business really needs reforming badly.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 23 avril 2012 - 07:34 .

[TookYoCookies]

Off Topic:

I think it was mike gamble who posted a tweet earlier this month along the lines of "what point in the mass effect universe would you like to return to?"

Some board room in Redwood California 5 minutes before EA came in and bought Bioware, and i would beg Bioware to approach Activison/Blizzard instead. In the hope that some one in the know over there would have the sense to just stay out of the way and let Bioware do what they USED to do best, make f*cking great video games.

[DS_Abe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.

That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.

Well, leaving EA would be a good start.

Blizzard made Diablo 2 over 10 years ago, and Diablo 3 has been in development for at least twice as long as ME3 was. EA's policy is "whenever you create a new and interesting IP, milk it dry as soon as possible while alienatining the playerbase".

[Demodog35]

I am going to just throw this thought out as it seems to be relevant. I believe Blizzard has a very rare opportunity in the gaming industry in the form of a large, recuring source of income that is WoW. However, that source of income has probably also crippled them in terms of being able to create new games. Why? Because large portions of the income from WoW go back into WoW in the form of maintance, expansions, new equipment etc.

The above, probably accounts for a large portion of the time inbetween the releases of the Diablo and Starcraft franchises respectively. Couple that with Blizzard's usual M.O. of only releasing a game when it's ready and things make a bit more sense as to why their last few games have taken a number of years to make it to market. In short, when a business has a huge income generator, they spend the bulk of their resources on keeping that cash cow raking in the money.

[Shaoken]

Precious Roy wrote...

The reality of developing a mainstream AAA title is well understood; the cost is enormous and difficult to recoup if it fails. I wouldn't care to speculate about what Bliizard would be without WoW, because there is simply no way to know. My point was that BioWare used to have a degree of customer trust and loyalty similar to Blizzard's. They got it in a similar way, by making high quality games that people cared about. Whatever the root causes, it is clear that BioWare is no longer capable of making the same quality of game that they have in the past. Blizzard and Valve are (rightly) cited as models of how to be successful without adhering to the EA mantra of exploiting lucrative IPs as ruthelessly as possible, regardless of how detrimental it might be to their quality. The argument that "real world" demands on development cycles cannot be circumvented is provably false, and the market is beginning to reflect that.

Except they're not false; Blizzard and Valve can maintain that reputation because they have lucrative cash cows that keep them in business. It's not far to say that Bioware should follow their example when Valve and Blizzard can only do what tey do because they have the funding to do so.

Clearly BioWare cannot simply extricate themselves from EA and fly away to a mountain to develop and then release their games at their own pace. EA is too large and too top-heavy to ever embrace the sort of ethic that drives small and independent publishers, and they do not have the revenue stream that WoW and Steam guarantees. BioWare must find a way to create quality games within the restrictions EA places on them, or suffer a slow death as they relinquish more and more control over their destiny, and their fan base grows ever more disillusioned.

Except there really is no wa to make quaity games with such restrictions; your argument reminds me of how networks sabotage TV shows by giving them ludacrios mandates, moving their time slot around every week without any advertising, prempting it for half the season and then canceling them because "they didn't get good ratings."

It doesn't matter how good a team you have is, bad executive management will kill anything; it killed Firefly, Angel, Star Trek, Crusade, Arrested Development, and a laundry list of other shows that had talented actors, writers and directors but still got killed by restrictions.

So, I guess Bioware's dead now.

TookYoCookies wrote...

Warcraft 3 came out 6 years after tides of darkness: pre WoW. Diablo 2 came out 4 years after diablo, pre WoW. Expansion packs didnt take that long to make because they all ran on the same engines of the original games, saying that because they didnt take long to release them isnt a negative, obviously; because they were great expansions. Doesnt change the fact that the average time between full game releases was 3-5 years, (based off wiki research) with the exception of starcraft because it ran on the WC2 engine, also before the release of WoW, and every full game before and since has been good, and avoided narative destruction like ME3 hath brought.

You're ignoring the fact that Blizzard had other games released within these periods; they still had games out that made them money so they could stay in business. So it's not comparable; Blizzard still had games almost yearly coming out, they had multiple teams to achieve this.

They didnt need WoW to have the time to make great games, they made great games, made money, and have continued to make great games unimpeded by time constraints. Never having to deal with a lack of budget, given that (as their work shows) if you make a great game regardless of dev. time, people will buy it/play it/love it in that order.

Except they did have to deal with the budget; which they did by having multiple teams working multiple games aimed to be released in between the other's development times so Blizzard had money coming in each year. It's not as if Blizzard went four years without a game release and thus no money coming in.

Let's also remember that there's another game that had no time restraints that's famous; Duke Nukem Forever. Nobody gave them a deadline and thus they took ther time and kept bringing the game back to work on it, and what we got was a mess.

WoW is proof of that, given it was in production 2 years before Warcraft 3 relased (4-5 years total) and convinced 10 milion people to pay $12 a month to play it. Now that they have WoW shouldnt mean that its a drawback against Blizz like it was somekind of fluke, or scapegoat for other companies to point at using "yeah, but.." scenarios, but more that game companies should look at blizzard and see how they got to where they are..

You're missing the biggest point; WoW makes a constantly stream of mony. In the real world, that's what you need. It doesn't matter how good the end product is, you still need to pay the bills. You still need to pay your staff, artists, voice actors, animators, programmers, as well as rent, electricity, water, internet, insurance, mantinence, etc. etc.

Allan's pont was that Valve and Blizzard don't have to worry about any of that, because they have a constant cash flow. Bioware doesn't; all their money is what EA gives them (EA being the one behind those marketting ads you mentioned). And EA, as a business, also needs to make money at regular intervals to stay in business. It doesn't matter if the end product will sell great, if you runout of money half-way through it won't matte because you can't finish the game.

[Shaoken]

DS_Abe wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.

That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.

Well, leaving EA would be a good start.

Blizzard made Diablo 2 over 10 years ago, and Diablo 3 has been in development for at least twice as long as ME3 was. EA's policy is "whenever you create a new and interesting IP, milk it dry as soon as possible while alienatining the playerbase".

EA owns Bioware, they can't leave.

And again, Blizzard has WoW paying the bills, so they don't need Diablo 3 to stay in business. Bioware does not have a massively profitable MMO to pay their bills, so they need the next game to keep making money.

[Spatchmo]

From the ending of Mass Effect 3, I've learned that it wasn't enough to just want to see Uncle Henry and Auntie Em... and it's that if I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own backyard; because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with. Oh, but anyway, Toto, we're home – home! And this is my room – and you're all here – and I'm not going to leave here ever, ever again, because I love you all! And... oh, Auntie Em, there's no place like home!

[B3ckett]

I have learned that gamers have the guts and creativity to stand up for their cause.
Drivers won't block the gas stations even when the gas prices are skyrocketing.
People won't go out to the streets is taxes are being raised.

My country, Poland, in the last 6 months or so was the place of fierce protesting not about healtcare, taxes or against gas prices. No. We rioted because of ACTA. And the young ones did it.
There is still hope. We are strong if we come together. And that's good stuff, because ME3 riot took it to the public that gamers can be vocal, civil, sensible and heard.

We are Legion.

[Gruzmog]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

sporeian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm pretty sure Blizzard took their sweet time making games, even before WoW.

Actually, looking at their release schedule:

Warcraft II: 1995 (expansion 1996)
Diablo: 1996
Lost Vikings II: 1997
StarCraft: 1998 (Expansion 1998)
Diablo 2: 2000 (Expansion 2001)
Warcraft 3: 2002 (Expansion 2003)
World of Warcraft: 2004
Burning Crusade: 2007 (!!!)
WOTLK: 2008
StarCraft 2: 2010
Cataclysm: 2010
Diablo III: 2012

Diablo 2-3 difference: 11 years
Starcraft 1-2 difference: 12 years
About a 2 year difference for EXPANSION packs for WoW

You're making the assumption that work started on those sequels right after the originals were done, and that they weren't working on other projects in the mean time. 

Though my post was directly in response to someone that said that Blizzard always took their time delaying games, even before WoW.

well Alan, not to be irritating, but they did delay their games in the old days. warcraft 3 and starcraft being the prime examples here. (Starcraft had its entire engine replaced during development and warcraft 3 was known for being delayed when it came out.) In addition some titles that were already in development for more then a year and announced were binned entirly, starcaft ghost and the warcraft game that was supposed to tell Thrall's story before WC3.

Nowadays Blizzard does not even give ETA's on announcements anymore. It;s done when its done.

Now ofcourse I have done no research on this topic so the following is highly subjective, but I am gonna base it on my own experience. I am a student with not alot of money, so most of my games are bought on sale (PC). That being said with Blizzard games I know I will get value for money so I get them sooner and at higher price. Blizzard was the only company were I ever pre-ordered a game untull mass effect 3

I did not start mass effect untill last januari (holidaty sales), so I got mass effect for abour 3 euros on steam. ME2 for 10 +20 for DLC or so. And I pre-ordered digital deluxe for ME3

Although the game was enjoyable, had some truly great parts (Tuchanka ), some minor flaws, (the walking animation for femshep and storywise), some unacceptable PC issues (one-key to bind em all? really?) and an ending I won't even get into, it was fun.

But even so I won't be picking up pre-order Bioware games anymore because they "might feel rushed" like this. I will wait till the first discount after launch if there is no outcry and even longer if there is.

Taking you're time might cost more in development, but customer loyalty might get you more. WoW was such a big succes to start with because people trusted Blizzard. Ofcourse you are free to disagree with me  and I might not be a prime-demographic (student-wallet < gift giving parent wallet). But for really mahor sales I think you need to reach more then the usual demographic.

[Johcande XX]

I've learned that people will b**** when a game is delayed, but it doesn't even compare to the vocal sh**storm that comes from retroactively ruining a franchise.

I've actually been wondering something since this whole debacle started. And that is what other game devs, like Bethesda or Rockstar think about the situation.

[spychi]

@shaoken
Bs, the best sc fanbase sclegacy.com is the best proof they failed even the most zealous fans admitted that sc2 was far from good game. But your opinion is in the minority not mine.
Kerrigan the plot armour pff, xelnaga bomb that deinfests her only to get her infested again in the HotS ....awesome, even worst plot than space magic.
Go ahead and hit the wall with your head maybe the last of your brain cells will fall out.
Sc2 story is ****, blizzard is no longer a good company.

[B3ckett]

Johcande XX wrote...

I've learned that people will b**** when a game is delayed, but it doesn't even compare to the vocal sh**storm that comes from retroactively ruining a franchise.

I've actually been wondering something since this whole debacle started. And that is what other game devs, like Bethesda or Rockstar think about the situation.

Damn true.
Either plan more wisely ('cause you had a big premiere not so long ago: SW:TOR) or delay the premiere if the quality of the product demands it.
Nothing good can ever come from rushing a game. Never. BW: you should've known that.
Especially, when you're rushing your big canon franchise...

[Shaoken]

@spychi

Somehow the bad grammer and spelling and appealing to one website devalue your point. It seems like you're subscriping to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

SC2 sold well and has plenty of people playing, including famous tournment players. So clearly "the most zealous" fans you're talking about are realy "the loudest and most self-rightous."

[Cyne]

1. gamers can be hostile
2. gamers are more passionate about games than the people who create them.
3. a poor ending can ruin an otherwise very good story.

Modifié par Cyne, 23 avril 2012 - 08:36 .

[Vasparian]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.

That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.

You ask blizzard and rockstar how they release such kick ass games and don't  fall back on TIME CONSTRAINTS.. They just relesae when ready. 

[SimonTheFrog]

I learned that Casey Hudson, Mac Walters and Mike Gamble often lie in public and hide if asked about it.

I learned that BioWare as a company no longer necessarily aims for high quality games and tries to defend poor quality as artistic.

I learned that one of my most favourite franchises is now no longer my favourite.

[Vasparian]

Shaoken wrote...

@spychi

Somehow the bad grammer and spelling and appealing to one website devalue your point. It seems like you're subscriping to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

SC2 sold well and has plenty of people playing, including famous tournment players. So clearly "the most zealous" fans you're talking about are realy "the loudest and most self-rightous."

I love people that think they can tell other people how GRAMMAR works.

[Shaoken]

Vasparian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.

That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.

You ask blizzard and rockstar how they release such kick ass games and don't  fall back on TIME CONSTRAINTS.. They just relesae when ready. 

Blizzard has WoW to pay the bills. Rockstar I have no clue of.

The end result is that in order to avoid time constraints you have to have a consistant source of income to keep the company in business. You litterally have to be able to afford to take your time.

[Shaoken]

Vasparian wrote...

Shaoken wrote...

@spychi

Somehow the bad grammer and spelling and appealing to one website devalue your point. It seems like you're subscriping to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

SC2 sold well and has plenty of people playing, including famous tournment players. So clearly "the most zealous" fans you're talking about are realy "the loudest and most self-rightous."

I love people that think they can tell other people how GRAMMAR works.

Funny how you focus on one thing in a post and expect it to counter the entire argument. Tell me how me mispelling one word invalidates the second paragraph? Or how my one mistake is equivilant to someone not even bothering with spelling or grammar while trying to say that their position is correct. If someone can't be bothered to take their time with their post (even if they make mistakes), why should you assume they took their time to be informed about their opinion?

[count_4]

 What I have been taught:

About Bioware: Never trust anything they say. Chances are, they're lying straight to your face. 

As a developer: Never make promises you can't keep to customers. It will backfire - always.

As a gamer: We're not as powerless against publishers and devs as we feel at times.

As a person: If almost everyone tells you that you f*cked up, chances are you f*cked up. Admit it and don't tell people they are just too stupid to see it the right way.

Modifié par count_4, 23 avril 2012 - 08:45 .

[Zolt51]

TookYoCookies wrote...

Off Topic:

I think it was mike gamble who posted a tweet earlier this month along the lines of "what point in the mass effect universe would you like to return to?"

Some board room in Redwood California 5 minutes before EA came in and bought Bioware, and i would beg Bioware to approach Activison/Blizzard instead. In the hope that some one in the know over there would have the sense to just stay out of the way and let Bioware do what they USED to do best, make f*cking great video games.

EA might be the devil in disguise, but Activision is absolutely no better.

[pikey1969]

shurikenmanta wrote...

That the effect games have on the human psyche is spiralling out of control.

Remove the specificity, and I will agree with you.

[the red boon]

I only learned never preorder anything from bioware.

[karek]

Shaoken wrote...

Vasparian wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That Video Games shouldn't have time constraints put on them.

That's an ideal, but I'm curious how you would reconcile it with the demands of reality.

You ask blizzard and rockstar how they release such kick ass games and don't  fall back on TIME CONSTRAINTS.. They just relesae when ready. 

Blizzard has WoW to pay the bills. Rockstar I have no clue of.

The end result is that in order to avoid time constraints you have to have a consistant source of income to keep the company in business. You litterally have to be able to afford to take your time.

That's not quite true considering WoW has some of the most active and one of the largest dedicated development teams out there. The way you get around worrying about time constraints is by not blowing your budget on high profile voice actors and instead spending that time on actually quality producing aspects of the game like, I don't know, writing so you aren't missing something a important as the conclusion to your game on the first announced release date.

As for Rockstar, same reasoning, they make games that sell by spending time and budget actually developing their games. It's one of those wonderful practical things you usually find in studios that make profitable games that are generally liked, common sense priorities.

Modifié par karek, 23 avril 2012 - 08:54 .