145 réponses à ce sujet

[Anaeme]

 Gabe Newell discussed Valve's outlook to making games, treating people with respect and taking the long term view in this discussion below

I hope Bioware changes their culture of operation to being customer focused and taking a long term view of their business and franchises:
 
Gabe tells it like it is and has some interesting thoughts about ME3 and its recent fiasco in the interview

I wish EA will let Bioware be more like CD projekt and Valve in their approach to customers



http://www.sevendayc...ite/episode001/

[UriahJob]

Well, saying fiasco depends on how you see it. If it is about making a lot of money for EA and Bioware then they succeeded and did not have a fiasco. Fiasco would be for the upset players for buying the game.

[Vormaerin]

Making a game that didn't work out well is not failing to be customer focused.

The idea that CDProjekt is just doing this stuff out of goodness of their hearts is naive. They are a small company. They don't have the kind of money for massive advertising. But they do have the ability to generate a lot of advertising by dropping some DLC on people and letting them run around drinking the kool aid.

Valve is more competent than EA or Ubisoft, but that doesn't make them the nice guys. They are using the leverage they have through Steam to pummel their competitors. Which is why everyone is scrambling to come up with rival services like Origin.

Rockefeller and Standard Oil used to reinforce market dominance with massive markdowns, too. I believe the quote was something like 'Sure, I'm losing money on every sale, but I can lose money a lot longer than anyone else can.'

But that's right, Valve is one of the angels. Here's your kool-aid, kid.

[Cainne Chapel]

I think the fact that people perceive large companies as "Good" or "Bad" is in itself foolish.

Do some go about things better for customer perception? Sure. But at the end of the day they all do what they do to make a dollar plain and simple.

So I cant really fault ANY company for that.

Now that is not to say some companies dont go overboard with $$ and do detrimental things to a myriad of people/places/things. But generally speaking I dont find companies qualify as good or bad in my dealings with them.

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

UriahJob wrote...

Well, saying fiasco depends on how you see it. If it is about making a lot of money for EA and Bioware then they succeeded and did not have a fiasco. Fiasco would be for the upset players for buying the game.

True enough it depends on your viewpoint, but even saying it's not a fiasco just because it makes a lot of money for EA and Bioware is itself relative.  That's the old argument "there's no such thing as bad publicity" repackaged.  And that argument depends on whether you already have any goodwill stored up in the maker of the product to begin with.

Bioware's reputation, at least for some years, was first class: everything from Baldur's Gate onwards created a market 'image' that they turned out well-thought-out, well-crafted, minimal-bug games that gave people a lot of choice.  That is, high production standards.  This is not the same as simply spending a lot of money on a game.  In short, Bioware made its games a branded product.

Saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity because it gets us more sales" assumes that you are marketing a commodity - an item which, in the final analysis, is not really that different from any of its competition.  When selling commodities, the goal is to sell as many individual items as possible - typically by having a lower price than anyone else, although a higher profile will also help with that.  Bad publicity draws attention to your product without you having to drop your price.

For branded products, it's entirely different: people buy particular brands because there's thought to be some intrinsic value in the brand name itself.  And every maker of commodities generally falls over itself to try and construct a branded product, one where people buy just on the name of the maker rather than weighing up the product's price against anyone else.

I would have contended that the furore surrounding ME3's ending tends to magnify the other issues with the game - PS3 meltdown, Origin, Chobot, etc, etc.  Those are all hits to the perception of Bioware's brand -- if an impression is left in the marketplace that they're not really a cut above any other game maker (the old "pew pew shooter" argument) then people in the long run have no reason to pick Bioware as compared with any other game company.

For the most part, I would have thought the reason EA bought out Bioware was mainly because of the goodwill they'd accrued.  Bioware didn't have its own proprietary game engine; it was doing nothing terribly unique with games in terms of actual coding wizardry or making XBoxes drink oil and crap rainbows.  What it *did* have at the point of sale was massive goodwill -- a perception that Bioware itself was a branded product.  Had that not been the case, EA would have simply acquired the assets of the company and dissolved Bioware, absorbing the assets into EA overall.  They didn't -- "Bioware, a division of EA".

Selling a lot of games off the back of "bad ending" controversy is a short-term gain for long-term loss, because like it or not Bioware has done damage to its own reputation with ME3, justly or unjustly.  They have, in effect, burned up some of the goodwill that EA paid good money for.  That would count as a loss to EA.  Higher sales initially might stop some of that loss, but seen in the long term damaging the goodwill that EA paid for is a bad, bad move.  

Modifié par KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, 24 avril 2012 - 07:10 .

[Vormaerin]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

Bioware's reputation, at least for some years, was first class: everything from Baldur's Gate onwards created a market 'image' that they turned out well-thought-out, well-crafted, minimal-bug games that gave people a lot of choice.  That is, high production standards.  This is not the same as simply spending a lot of money on a game.  In short, Bioware made its games a branded product.

There's rather a lot of rose tinted lenses in that.   Bioware's games have always been pretty buggy and almost always had big enough plotholes to drive multiple 18 wheelers through.

However, they make a kind of game no one else does and they make really memorable characters.   Its easy to ignore how completely bumf**** stupid the plot of BG2 is and how utterly irrelevant your choices in DAO were, because they did the parts they do well extremely well.

If the ending of ME3 been up to snuff, the majority of the other complaints would have gone to that same place all the complaints about every other Bioware game went.    DA2 was too ambitious for their budget in time and money, unfortunately.

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

Vormaerin wrote...

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

Bioware's reputation, at least for some years, was first class: everything from Baldur's Gate onwards created a market 'image' that they turned out well-thought-out, well-crafted, minimal-bug games that gave people a lot of choice.  That is, high production standards.  This is not the same as simply spending a lot of money on a game.  In short, Bioware made its games a branded product.

There's rather a lot of rose tinted lenses in that.   Bioware's games have always been pretty buggy and almost always had big enough plotholes to drive multiple 18 wheelers through.

However, they make a kind of game no one else does and they make really memorable characters.   Its easy to ignore how completely bumf**** stupid the plot of BG2 is and how utterly irrelevant your choices in DAO were, because they did the parts they do well extremely well.

If the ending of ME3 been up to snuff, the majority of the other complaints would have gone to that same place all the complaints about every other Bioware game went.    DA2 was too ambitious for their budget in time and money, unfortunately.

I'll cop to wearing the slightly pink spectacles, I just remembered how annoying Aerie was.

On the other hand, as you say, unique kinds of game with memorable characters.  That creates goodwill, and, I'd guess, the main reason EA bought them out.  Was ME3 still that same unique kind of game with memorable characters? Absent the microscope on them now due to the ending, maybe.  As it is, probably not - and the goodwill has been damaged as a result. 

[DaJe]

UriahJob wrote...

Well, saying fiasco depends on how you see it. If it is about making a lot of money for EA and Bioware then they succeeded and did not have a fiasco. Fiasco would be for the upset players for buying the game.

Their latest games have only sold through hype and false marketing. The sales after week one have always dropped of a cliff. They wont be able to hold this up forever. At some point even the biggest fan boy will question the Bioware brand and that will reflect in future sales. The long term business will suffer a great deal from all the recent controversies.

[UriahJob]

I do not believe they intended their sales to be higher than average after a certain initial time. Almost always the companies whose games focus on the single player plan on selling a huge number from the start. Whether they did it through hype or false marketing (I don't see what was false about it personally) it does not detract from the point that they already did make millions from it. In addition, they were not making it with hopes of continuing the franchise, which is probably why not too much emphasis was put on crafting a very "good" ending.

I think that even despite the fact so many people didn't like the ending, all of the people who invested over 70 hours into the game will buy every single DLC that will come afterward. Just my guess.

Future games from Bioware? I don't know, but I think everyone will buy them too because they'll make sure to advertise it in a way that makes it look like "back to the roots" and it will be about Dungeons & Dragons..

If you believe they want to create a very happy fan base, and actually put making fans happy on top of their priorities I have to disagree with you. I do not see why they would. Probably individual employees definitely do. But since they started making games with EA, who probably pays them well, their natural concern is making games that sell, not games that may satisfy a loyal customer.

By saying that I am not suggesting that I agree with that approcah. This just seems to be the most likely state of things. They are not in the business of making toys like Hasbro, or pubishing books like The WIzards of The Coast.

If you feel differently, feel free to tell me why. I would actually be happy if I were wrong.

DaJe wrote...

UriahJob wrote...

Well, saying fiasco depends on how you see it. If it is about making a lot of money for EA and Bioware then they succeeded and did not have a fiasco. Fiasco would be for the upset players for buying the game.

Their latest games have only sold through hype and false marketing. The sales after week one have always dropped of a cliff. They wont be able to hold this up forever. At some point even the biggest fan boy will question the Bioware brand and that will reflect in future sales. The long term business will suffer a great deal from all the recent controversies.

[UriahJob]

Forgot to add. The sales actually always drop off a cliff after any major release. But if it is a big hyped game they will have had many pre-orders like they did with ME3. This means the sales should show a bigger drop afterward since everyone who would have gotten it already did. Someone who is not a die hard fan would probably not be aware of or not care about the ending since they did not spend too much time, if at any, on previous games.

DaJe wrote...

UriahJob wrote...

Well, saying fiasco depends on how you see it. If it is about making a lot of money for EA and Bioware then they succeeded and did not have a fiasco. Fiasco would be for the upset players for buying the game.

Their latest games have only sold through hype and false marketing. The sales after week one have always dropped of a cliff. They wont be able to hold this up forever. At some point even the biggest fan boy will question the Bioware brand and that will reflect in future sales. The long term business will suffer a great deal from all the recent controversies.

[Vormaerin]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

[ As it is, probably not - and the goodwill has been damaged as a result. 

No, its not.  Because the ending convinced a sizable minority of fans that all their devotion to the characters was irrelevant.  So the character based fuzzies stopped covering all the plotholes that are in nearly every bioware game.

[UriahJob]

I agre with you. But looks like some people think that people should not care about how much a company makes and whether they keep their jobs or not and just make games for the benefit of the fan base or society as a whole, (for free as well)

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I think the fact that people perceive large companies as "Good" or "Bad" is in itself foolish.

Do some go about things better for customer perception? Sure. But at the end of the day they all do what they do to make a dollar plain and simple.

So I cant really fault ANY company for that.

Now that is not to say some companies dont go overboard with $$ and do detrimental things to a myriad of people/places/things. But generally speaking I dont find companies qualify as good or bad in my dealings with them.

[UriahJob]

I never found Aerie from BGII annoying. Was one of my favorite characters.

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

Bioware's reputation, at least for some years, was first class: everything from Baldur's Gate onwards created a market 'image' that they turned out well-thought-out, well-crafted, minimal-bug games that gave people a lot of choice.  That is, high production standards.  This is not the same as simply spending a lot of money on a game.  In short, Bioware made its games a branded product.

There's rather a lot of rose tinted lenses in that.   Bioware's games have always been pretty buggy and almost always had big enough plotholes to drive multiple 18 wheelers through.

However, they make a kind of game no one else does and they make really memorable characters.   Its easy to ignore how completely bumf**** stupid the plot of BG2 is and how utterly irrelevant your choices in DAO were, because they did the parts they do well extremely well.

If the ending of ME3 been up to snuff, the majority of the other complaints would have gone to that same place all the complaints about every other Bioware game went.    DA2 was too ambitious for their budget in time and money, unfortunately.

I'll cop to wearing the slightly pink spectacles, I just remembered how annoying Aerie was.

On the other hand, as you say, unique kinds of game with memorable characters.  That creates goodwill, and, I'd guess, the main reason EA bought them out.  Was ME3 still that same unique kind of game with memorable characters? Absent the microscope on them now due to the ending, maybe.  As it is, probably not - and the goodwill has been damaged as a result. 

[NoxNoctum]

Vormaerin wrote...

Making a game that didn't work out well is not failing to be customer focused.

The idea that CDProjekt is just doing this stuff out of goodness of their hearts is naive. They are a small company. They don't have the kind of money for massive advertising. But they do have the ability to generate a lot of advertising by dropping some DLC on people and letting them run around drinking the kool aid.

Valve is more competent than EA or Ubisoft, but that doesn't make them the nice guys. They are using the leverage they have through Steam to pummel their competitors. Which is why everyone is scrambling to come up with rival services like Origin.

Rockefeller and Standard Oil used to reinforce market dominance with massive markdowns, too. I believe the quote was something like 'Sure, I'm losing money on every sale, but I can lose money a lot longer than anyone else can.'

But that's right, Valve is one of the angels. Here's your kool-aid, kid.

Or take a company like GOG, which is an even better example than Valve:

http://www.gog.com/n...tanicula_owners  

There's just no comparison.

GOG>Valve>EA>Activision


They do that kind of thing all the time too. I knew a guy who bought BG series a day or two before a sale on all Black Isle games happened to take place, so they told him he could have a free game of his choice from their catalogue (minus Witcher 2).

Some companies believe in making money through good customer service.

(and ya I realize GOG is not a game publisher, but as far as a platform for selling games they're comparable to steam/origin)

Modifié par NoxNoctum, 24 avril 2012 - 08:20 .

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

UriahJob wrote...

I do not believe they intended their sales to be higher than average after a certain initial time. Almost always the companies whose games focus on the single player plan on selling a huge number from the start. Whether they did it through hype or false marketing (I don't see what was false about it personally) it does not detract from the point that they already did make millions from it. In addition, they were not making it with hopes of continuing the franchise, which is probably why not too much emphasis was put on crafting a very "good" ending.

I think that even despite the fact so many people didn't like the ending, all of the people who invested over 70 hours into the game will buy every single DLC that will come afterward. Just my guess.

Future games from Bioware? I don't know, but I think everyone will buy them too because they'll make sure to advertise it in a way that makes it look like "back to the roots" and it will be about Dungeons & Dragons..

If you believe they want to create a very happy fan base, and actually put making fans happy on top of their priorities I have to disagree with you. I do not see why they would. Probably individual employees definitely do. But since they started making games with EA, who probably pays them well, their natural concern is making games that sell, not games that may satisfy a loyal customer.

By saying that I am not suggesting that I agree with that approcah. This just seems to be the most likely state of things. They are not in the business of making toys like Hasbro, or pubishing books like The WIzards of The Coast.

If you feel differently, feel free to tell me why. I would actually be happy if I were wrong.

First up, personal views only here

It's a pity if that is the state of things, because it indicates that EA is either pressuring or has Bioware's agreement that they should be marketing commodities rather than branded products.  Branded products require a lot more care not to damage the brand than commodities do; and they carry more legacy issues than commodities do.

On the other hand, I'm not quite convinced that a meteoric first week followed by zero sales is what the game industry is aiming at, or what Bioware necessarily wants.  For example, look at the DA:O vs. DA2 sales figures -- DA:O doesn't sell anywhere near as many DA2 units on the first weeks, but its total sales figures for the first ten weeks at least are still much higher than DA2 - that is, DA:O sold more than DA2, even though DA2 had a much, much better first week than DA:O did.  DA:O lost 50% of its sales in the first week, 'tis true, but it didn't have any further substantial dropoff.  DA:O actually increased sales around week 6 or so.  Compare that to DA2 which lost 75% of its sales in the first week and just kept on going down.  Sustained sales net you more than a big opening week followed by horrible word of mouth.

I doubt very much their planned model is "meteoric sales followed by a 90% dropoff in sales" -- their planned model would surely have to be "meteoric sales followed by sustained sales figures over time."

And the only way you get sustained sales is if the game is good and lives up to its hype.  ME3 suffered from the double whammy that not only was the ending bad, but that its actual content was quite some distance from what the devs said would be in it (leaving aside the possibility of outright lies.)

So, yeah -- big sales in the first week don't justify the hit to reputation in the long term, either for the game released or any game that has to follow it.  The market for games is not just the 13-16 year old crowd that probably *would* eat up anything Bioware tossed to it, even after ME3 -- it now includes a decent proportion of seriously discerning people who will think twice before buying stuff with a Bioware tag on it.  EA's market model might not fit that, of course -- as demonstrated by the FTL way it releases new shirt versions of FIFA or NFL.  But it's not a market model that fits the way Bioware used to make and market its games.  Whether this is just a bad marriage between Bioware and EA or whether Bioware is changing its model to making a pure commodity rather than a branded product remains to be seen.

Personally I think it'll be sad if Bioware does go the way of the FTL release and to hell with the game, but game companies die and are born all the time.  There'll be someone along to fill the niche that Bioware has chosen to leave behind.  Capitalism FTW!

EDIT: Briefly, part of the reason why I think the market wants sustained sales rather than a big first week is the multiplayer thing.  You have to offer MP for a pretty decent period of time, which costs you money and resources to maintain even if nobody's playing it.  With no enduring sales, that's a loss that chews into your original sky-high sales.  With enduring sales, it's at worst a zero-sum game and you preserve your profits since you've got a continuing cash flow, which is the holy grail of all companies the size of EA.

Modifié par KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, 24 avril 2012 - 08:31 .

[hangmans tree]

I think its worth mentionig that CDP Red is CDProjekts dev team which is a part of Optimus SA. GOG.com is a sister company of CDP Red. So you see, its not such a small company. The real thing lies within their belifs and politics - check their CEOs inteviews (M. Iwiński), you will know why.

Modifié par hangmans tree, 24 avril 2012 - 09:21 .

[NoxNoctum]

Got a link? Sounds interesting. I googled but couldn't find anything.

[AkiKishi]

Ever wonder why EA leave a pile of "corpses" in it's wake ? Well now you know.

[MrGuse]

Vormaerin wrote...

There's rather a lot of rose tinted lenses in that.   Bioware's games have always been pretty buggy and almost always had big enough plotholes to drive multiple 18 wheelers through.

However, they make a kind of game no one else does and they make really memorable characters.   Its easy to ignore how completely bumf**** stupid the plot of BG2 is and how utterly irrelevant your choices in DAO were, because they did the parts they do well extremely well.

If the ending of ME3 been up to snuff, the majority of the other complaints would have gone to that same place all the complaints about every other Bioware game went.    DA2 was too ambitious for their budget in time and money, unfortunately.

ME3's ending isn't even the worst Bioware ending. Anyone remember Jade Empire?  You know, the one where every decision made throughout the game is irrelevant as the "good" or "bad" ending is 100% dependent on the Blue Dragon choice near the end?

Yeah. That pissed me off way worse than this.

[AkiKishi]

MrGuse wrote...
ME3's ending isn't even the worst Bioware ending. Anyone remember Jade Empire?  You know, the one where every decision made throughout the game is irrelevant as the "good" or "bad" ending is 100% dependent on the Blue Dragon choice near the end?

Yeah. That pissed me off way worse than this.

You mean like the colour of the object you either walk upto or shoot as your final act of the game ? That's not near the end, that is the end.

[DaJe]

UriahJob wrote...

Forgot to add. The sales actually always drop off a cliff after any major release. But if it is a big hyped game they will have had many pre-orders like they did with ME3. This means the sales should show a bigger drop afterward since everyone who would have gotten it already did. Someone who is not a die hard fan would probably not be aware of or not care about the ending since they did not spend too much time, if at any, on previous games.

DaJe wrote...

UriahJob wrote...

Well, saying fiasco depends on how you see it. If it is about making a lot of money for EA and Bioware then they succeeded and did not have a fiasco. Fiasco would be for the upset players for buying the game.

Their latest games have only sold through hype and false marketing. The sales after week one have always dropped of a cliff. They wont be able to hold this up forever. At some point even the biggest fan boy will question the Bioware brand and that will reflect in future sales. The long term business will suffer a great deal from all the recent controversies.

A game that does not dissappoint usually manages to have more steady sales that might even rise again due to positive word of mouth and publicity, like DA:O for example. DA2 and ME3 had a lot of negative word of mouth which results in sales drops and returned copies.

Recently yes, it is quite normal to sell most copies in the first week, but that just shows the sad state of the industry.

[Agent_Dark_]

Anaeme wrote...

 Gabe Newell discussed Valve's outlook to making games, treating people with respect and taking the long term view in this discussion below

I hope Bioware changes their culture of operation to being customer focused and taking a long term view of their business and franchises:
 
Gabe tells it like it is and has some interesting thoughts about ME3 and its recent fiasco in the interview

I wish EA will let Bioware be more like CD projekt and Valve in their approach to customers



http://www.sevendayc...ite/episode001/

Valve is also a privately run company that doesn't have to answer to shareholders.  EA is not. 

Valve is in the business to make games.  EA is in the business to make money, by selling games.  I don't automatically hate EA because of that (they're a huge corporation in a capitalist society... I'm not sure what the point of getting mad over that is, unless you're a genuine socialist), but it's fairly clear that there is going to be a different focus by each company in regards to how they operate. 

[Kilshrek]

MrGuse wrote...

ME3's ending isn't even the worst Bioware ending. Anyone remember Jade Empire?  You know, the one where every decision made throughout the game is irrelevant as the "good" or "bad" ending is 100% dependent on the Blue Dragon choice near the end?

Yeah. That pissed me off way worse than this.

Yes and no, you weren't the Spirit Monk over 3 games, and told your choices would matter. I don't really remember the marketing for JE, but did it receive the same amount of hype and hyperbole from devs about how "reactive" the story was to your decisions?

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

Agent_Dark_ wrote...
Valve is also a privately run company that doesn't have to answer to shareholders.  EA is not. 

Valve is in the business to make games.  EA is in the business to make money, by selling games.  I don't automatically hate EA because of that (they're a huge corporation in a capitalist society... I'm not sure what the point of getting mad over that is, unless you're a genuine socialist), but it's fairly clear that there is going to be a different focus by each company in regards to how they operate. 

Yay for capitalism -- the objection is to the precise mode of capitalism being used.  You don't have to make mass market products to make money.  That's how EA does things, but it doesn't seem to have been Bioware's approach until it was taken over by EA.  Like I said, the essential difference between EA's approach and Bioware's old approach was that EA is more interested in selling commodities than it is selling branded products.  Their models -- based on the FIFA and NFL series -- suggest they would rather sell big mass market products than sell products -- as "action" RPGs, or RPGs generally are -- that appeal to a smaller niche.

I suspect Bioware didn't quite realise how much pressure they'd get towards making mass market games when they agreed to sell to EA.  I suspect all they saw was EA's massive cash reserves and their own big dreams of how much bigger and greater games they could make with access to that cash.  They might have considered the difference in approaches, but probably got some "puffery" from EA to the effect that "We'll see that you keep the artistic integrity of your franchises, we want to support the kind of games you make".

Reality probably set in around the time ME2 -- not ME3 -- was being considered.  Whatever EA had said before or during the acquisition process, Bioware was now in EA 's hands and EA determined how much money was to be spent and what time limits were set.

In passing, I shudder to think of how bad a shape ME3 must have been in at the point where Bioware got an extension on its release time limit -- given the models, even the beancounters at EA must have been convinced that ME3 needed another 2 months to make ready for release.  Sheez.

EDIT: Failing grammar is fail.

Modifié par KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, 24 avril 2012 - 12:07 .

[Cyberfrog81]

hangmans tree wrote...

I think its worth mentionig that CDP Red is CDProjekts dev team which is a part of Optimus SA. GOG.com is a sister company of CDP Red. So you see, its not such a small company. The real thing lies within their belifs and politics - check their CEOs inteviews (M. Iwiński), you will know why.

And they practice what they preach, releasing The Witcher 2 DRM free on GOG, and even including tons of extras like the soundtrack at no additional cost.

At some point marketing of The Witcher 2 claimed 16 "endings" or rather "states of the world". But when we played the game, that didn't seem quite true; that we'd been let to believe it'd be something else than what we got. Now in the Enhanced Edition, there are additional scenes showing the state of the world at the end. It's not gameplay, but it's pretty nice. HOWEVER, the Enhanced Edition doesn't stop there. There are hours of additional content, including gameplay. All for free to existing PC customers.

That goes beyond fixing something that is broken. And it sure beats the heck out of ME3 PR statements a lot of us interpret as "we're artists and you already bought the game, now GTFO".

So while it may not make sense to label a company "the good guys", CDPR/GOG is as close as it gets, and I hope their particular brand of insanity spreads.