130 réponses à ce sujet

[TjM78]

Also the days of (Platform Here) only games are coming to a close (First Party titles excluded) The sheer amount of money needed to make a AAA title these days almost forces a company to publish a title across all platforms

[OneBadAssMother]

They have been recently yes, though I have wondered about the Maxis studio, Sims 3 was rather a disappointment and my wife prefered DA:O instead.

[TjM78]

kevinwastaken wrote...

The game was far enough along when EA took over that I doubt they had little influence even with their grubby little tentacles. Then again I'm sure they are 100% behind the DLC grifting.

Bioware stated numerous times that EA had nothing with the DLC.

[Matthew Young CT]

TjM78 wrote...

Never got the EA hatred. They have released some pretty outstanding games latley and seem to be pretty hands off with the devs

REALLY bad memories. They trashed studios people loved, and released garbage game after garbage game, with zero support.

They're pretty much an average publisher now, but such feelings take a long time to dissipate.

[Bryy_Miller]

They don't like it when you tell them that in this thread. They want to hate their EA.

[EvilIguana966]

TjM78 wrote...

Never got the EA hatred. They have released some pretty outstanding games latley and seem to be pretty hands off with the devs

It's not a rational thing.  It's just a symptom of anti-business bigotry.  Kids learn at an early age that corporations are evil incarnate and that making money is sinful.  They have no idea how good they have it nor do they have any conception of what life would be like if those evil companies were forced to behave the way they personally want.  I'd suggest you just do what I do and weep at their ignorance and shortsightedness. 

[EricHVela]

My favoritest game mfg in the world was Origin. (Origin Systems, Inc.) EA took over (supposedly for the distributing power they had), and EA started making wild changes, imposing insane deadlines, making content requests, transferring their people into OSI... The last thing they did was try to make the remaining OSI people move to California. OSI vanished after diminishing releases under the EA name.

In the entertainment industry, you can get some gems with low budgets and some flops with long-term expensive projects. If there's a power-shift (or worse, a power-struggle) behind the scenes however, you always get a flop.

Let BW keep its power. Let's hope EA has learned its lesson, because that's just one of a few really bad events brought about through EA. History is not so easily forgotten or forgiven for some. Once proof exists of failure, it takes more proof to sway opinion the other way.

The so-called EA-hate has justification with the old-skoolers.

Modifié par ReggarBlane, 08 décembre 2009 - 05:33 .

[ITSSEXYTIME]

No, I don't think EA had a bad influence.

Bugs happen with everything.  If you've been a PC gamer for more than 6 months you'd know this.  EA is like the president to you people: if something is going wrong then it's President/EA's fault even if they did nothing solely because you need to whine about someone but you're too much of a fanboy to point your finger at your favourite developer/political party.

[Kolaris8472]

EvilIguana966 wrote...

TjM78 wrote...

Never got the EA hatred. They have released some pretty outstanding games latley and seem to be pretty hands off with the devs

It's not a rational thing.  It's just a symptom of anti-business bigotry.  Kids learn at an early age that corporations are evil incarnate and that making money is sinful.  They have no idea how good they have it nor do they have any conception of what life would be like if those evil companies were forced to behave the way they personally want.  I'd suggest you just do what I do and weep at their ignorance and shortsightedness. 

Because inhibiting the development of a game in order to squeeze out money that won't even go to contribute to the/future titles is certainly good motivation for making non-shovelware games.

[Bryy_Miller]

The so-called EA-hate has justification with the old-skoolers.

Way to completely write off anyone who says anything otherwise concerning EA.

[EricHVela]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

The so-called EA-hate has justification with the old-skoolers.

Way to completely write off anyone who says anything otherwise concerning EA.

Back at you.

What I said is that old-skoolers feel justified. I said nothing about whether anyone else have justification or not about their feelings.

You discounted all old skoolers with your statement as a response to mine. GJ at irony, pal.

[Dragon Age1103]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

 the 2nd patch should of been in the game from the start.

Then it wouldn't of been a patch.
Patches are called patches for a reason.
You don't patch someone up who looks perfectly healthy.

Also sorry console gamers but thanks to EA liking money & making this cross platform PC gamers got screwed with a delayed game then a buggy game on launch which is to be expected on PC on a MMO or even a regular RPG but not this bad.

A delay, you say? This is blasphemy! 
Also, EA did not make Dragon Age, so blaming EA for the bugs is lame.

sorry but your comments were so off I can't even see your side. lol. Publishers have a large say in what is going into a game or movie b/c they are paying for it. Also that was my entire point about the patch, it shouldn't of been a patch it should of been in the original game but time & other resources were wasted on the console versions.

[Dragon Age1103]

kevinwastaken wrote...

The game was far enough along when EA took over that I doubt they had little influence even with their grubby little tentacles. Then again I'm sure they are 100% behind the DLC grifting.

see it's comments like this I was looking for, forgive me for being lazy but instead of trying to sniff out hate articles from real facts I figured the community on here could help me & point out opinions or facts about when EA got envolved if its worse than I am making it out to be or even better???
   I'm not trying to bash EA I'm just saying what I think. I've always felt liek quality means nothing to them just numbers & getting envolved in as many projects as possible to make a quick buck. Give the recent news though that they will drop from 50+ games to 40 or even 30 is good news though.

[Dragon Age1103]

bjdbwea wrote...

It's still too early to say that. DA was in development long before EA came into the picture. And except for that loading times issue, the game's been in a pretty good shape from the beginning. No big bugs, modest hardware requirements. But even without EA, BioWare couldn't have ignored the consoles. Unfortunate, because of course such a game makes only sense on a PC, but it's just the way it is. ME 2 will be the first real test about EA's influence in my opinion.

   See I don't know for a fact what tiem EA came into play in the development phase so I didn't want to comment in too much detail since I don't honestyl know. lol. As for the console comment, I can not agree with that Blizzard makes plenty of games that are PC only.
    As for DAO not having too many bugs? melee was completely flawed with a rogue, a very unbalanced games, memory leaks which i suffer little from but my friend had his comp crash from DAO using all 8GBs. Plus a dozen more little ones you can't think of until it happens to you. My point is I know all PC games will have issues at launch but if the focus was on PC gamer s like it should of been since they obviously appreciate the game much more than most console gamers who will consist of 10 year olds playing a game they're not even old enough to 7 complaining about the graphics. PC gamers deserved to have it balanced at launch, bugs are found in any great title & that is fine but the game is just so unbalanced. An article somewhere quoted Bioware saying Mages are awesome or something in response to the concern of the game being unbalanced..someone had a link on here...i'll have to dig up but point beign they admitted they felt no need to change the balance of the game & now with the 2nd patch we see them addressing balanncing issues. Just seems like PC gamers got cheated, I mean Bergen's Honor...I spent extra money b/c I knew this game would be epic only to get a templar helm with a cool picture that the in game actualy item doesn't match??? I'm getting competely off topic if I had one. lol.

[Dragon Age1103]

sinosleep wrote...

Um, if you haven't noticed, practically every review of the game has flat out said Dragon Age is better on the PC. And yes, that includes console specific reviews.

are you one of those ppl that reads one part then posts like they have any idea what they are talking about? b/c it seems that way since you missed my point entirely. Please do not respond in my thread if you're not going to contribute to a constructive conversation.

[Dragon Age1103]

Deflagratio wrote...

More EA bashfests. I'll take some middle ground here.

EA has ruined a few good companies yes, but honestly Pandemic was never particularly noteworthy, it's not as much of a loss as it's being made out to be. Sorry to be so heartless and blunt. Some developers are doing fine under EA, releasing quality titles still.

Publishers are akin to investors, they fund game projects, and as such they have reason to be concerned. Some Publishers trust developers under their banner. Some do not. It's true, at the end of the day, the publisher wants to make money and nothing else, the quality of a title is independent from the money it brings in. They would sell a brick in a jewel case if they could. As such, some publishers are in that shady area of knowledge, where they know enough to think they know enough. And that's when you get Publisher input, which is where stupid ideas come in. Now by the end of this paragraph, you're thinking "Publisher = Evil" well, it's true, but if there was no evil, there'd be no good, so let me validate some position from a publisher's stand.

As I said, a publisher is investing into a team and funding their project. They do this because of the promise of a return and profit. Games are not built of charity, and when you have situations like a horrible game sinking a publisher's fiscal year, or in the worst case, a Duke Nuke'em Forever Syndrome where all your investments wind up in an offshore account in Thailand or some such, it's really hard to fault a publisher for trying to keep tabs and direct the situation. This is especially difficult for new developers who are unproven. Bioware I doubt has to really worry about much more than deadlines from EA, they are a proven developer, and unless some obvious calamity in a development cycle is occurring, EA has no financial reason I'm aware of to mistrust the Bioware team. And as such, they get probably a lot more wiggle room than most. We'll have to see with Mass Effect2 before I can really say how badly EA has harmed Bioware. It's possible with the funding EA could and would provide for such a high-profile developer, this would be one of the few cases where EA helps, like Valve with Left 4 Dead.

Bethesda does not self-publish. Bethesda Game Studios has their games published in North America by Bethesda Softworks (A seperate entity) which is part of Zenimax Media. Bethesda Softworks is now trying to become a bigger publishing firm, unforunately all their titles aside from The Elder Scrolls are mediocre at best(Wet) and pure putrid, anally leaked bile(ROgue Warrior). The actual developers of The Elder Scrolls games and Fallout 3 don't publish their own titles.

  no offense but you kind of seem like  a know-it-all. lol. You even made the assumption I was bashing EA, when I'm not nor I'm I looking to start a giant bashfest with this thread. I've just rarely seen EA ever have a good influence on anything is my point along with that we are running out of PC onyl or close to developers that make high qualityl titles.
   Aside from Crysis, DAO, & The Sims I honestly can't think of anything they have produced that I enjoyed but I'll have to search that later & get abck to you.
    I just kind of feel your response was pointless, you don't have to 100% back one side of this thread but you're just sitting in the middle correcting ppl which is great to clarify if someone is wrong but that's besides the point of the topic if Bethesda self publishes. lol

[OneBadAssMother]

You do know that one day, the old-skooler Bioware fellas who got you these award-winning titles are going to die off one day. Appreciate what you have at the moment. Hell I speak as if I'm dying myself!

[Dragon Age1103]

LynxAQ wrote...

EA is evil. /thread

one again i can see reading along with comprehending is hard. lol. Don't post if you're not going to contribute or just annoy others, I've been down that road.

[Dragon Age1103]

Washell wrote...

Dragon Age1103 wrote...

That being said I feel this should of been a PC game only, not trying to bash console just some games are not meant for console & I'm getting tired of Blizzard being the only true PC main stream well known developer left. PC gamers loose content & quality for these not ports but cross platform games sucking up resources that should of been invested in a PC game only.

DA:O has been in production for 5 years. That's 5 years of salaries, building cost, electricity bills and such. Had it been PC only, Bioware would now have been declared bankrupt. Assuming smarter management, it would have been released 3 years ago, less visually polished and severely reduced in scope.

Publishing cross platform means there is a bigger market for the finished product and thus allows a larger allocation of funds for the production of the game. PC gamers do not lose content by this. They gain it. The added revenue of the console market more than pays for it UI changes. It more than likely makes up for the bulk of the profit.

     There used to only be PC sales for 90% of bideo game sales so you can't really convince me they needed to make it for consoles or fall as a company. I understand times are changing but sellign it cross platform are there any solid numbers out there PC in comparison to consoles sales. I mean they sold the console versions for $34.99 & 39.99 for like 2 weeks. Was that to compete with MW2? b/c numbers were not as high as they wished? out of the love they have int heir hearst for their fans! lol yeah right.
    Anyways point being if you make a game well enough you do not need to make it cross platform if it posses that quality that the old games had. Diablo 2 still sells to this day, they have a new patch for widescreen format coming out soon. Dablo should with ease crush MW2 sales, Wow has 5 million subscribers 10 if you count china. lol. no offense! just saying they are like half. That game is what 3 years old? Some ppl still play BG2, NWNs so you can not convince me they HAVE to or NEED to make it crossplatform they need to think more about their fans & less about the easiest way to make money. I you have a high quality game from a very well known slash epic dev team you will have your money.

[Kuravid]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

Kuravid wrote...
Then who is the cause of DLC? I know it's a different team working on it, but I'm not exactly sure of the details.

Bioware. The different team stuff simply means...it's a different team. Within Bioware. They're a big company.

Ah yes, I understand it's a team within Bioware and that they are a large company. I was simply curious about why they are planning on two years worth of DLC. I guess it's a good thing that a separate team is working on DLC, because I suppose that means the "main" team for DA will spend more time working on the sequel?

[Dragon Age1103]

TjM78 wrote...

Never got the EA hatred. They have released some pretty outstanding games latley and seem to be pretty hands off with the devs

Theres not really hatred here just opinions abotu EA's influence being good or bad but could you list these games? i still need to look them up b/c only 3 come to mind. lol

[Kuravid]

Deflagratio wrote...

More EA bashfests. I'll take some middle ground here.

EA has ruined a few good companies yes, but honestly Pandemic was never particularly noteworthy, it's not as much of a loss as it's being made out to be. Sorry to be so heartless and blunt. Some developers are doing fine under EA, releasing quality titles still.

Publishers are akin to investors, they fund game projects, and as such they have reason to be concerned. Some Publishers trust developers under their banner. Some do not. It's true, at the end of the day, the publisher wants to make money and nothing else, the quality of a title is independent from the money it brings in. They would sell a brick in a jewel case if they could. As such, some publishers are in that shady area of knowledge, where they know enough to think they know enough. And that's when you get Publisher input, which is where stupid ideas come in. Now by the end of this paragraph, you're thinking "Publisher = Evil" well, it's true, but if there was no evil, there'd be no good, so let me validate some position from a publisher's stand.

As I said, a publisher is investing into a team and funding their project. They do this because of the promise of a return and profit. Games are not built of charity, and when you have situations like a horrible game sinking a publisher's fiscal year, or in the worst case, a Duke Nuke'em Forever Syndrome where all your investments wind up in an offshore account in Thailand or some such, it's really hard to fault a publisher for trying to keep tabs and direct the situation. This is especially difficult for new developers who are unproven. Bioware I doubt has to really worry about much more than deadlines from EA, they are a proven developer, and unless some obvious calamity in a development cycle is occurring, EA has no financial reason I'm aware of to mistrust the Bioware team. And as such, they get probably a lot more wiggle room than most. We'll have to see with Mass Effect2 before I can really say how badly EA has harmed Bioware. It's possible with the funding EA could and would provide for such a high-profile developer, this would be one of the few cases where EA helps, like Valve with Left 4 Dead.

Bethesda does not self-publish. Bethesda Game Studios has their games published in North America by Bethesda Softworks (A seperate entity) which is part of Zenimax Media. Bethesda Softworks is now trying to become a bigger publishing firm, unforunately all their titles aside from The Elder Scrolls are mediocre at best(Wet) and pure putrid, anally leaked bile(ROgue Warrior). The actual developers of The Elder Scrolls games and Fallout 3 don't publish their own titles.

Ah yes, it's understandable that they're trying to turn a profit. You can't blame a corporation for wanting to make a lot of money, it's simply what they do.

I don't really see how EA is going to, possibly, have a negative influence on Dragon Age---it is, after all, a really good product and a very talented team is behind it. Anyway, how could EA screw it up somehow? Like, what could they do to possibly harm development, the finished result of, let's say, the sequel to Dragon Age? 

[Dragon Age1103]

Yeah most ppl just respond no need to read or type anything intelligent. Anyways I can agree lots of games have to go cross platform to succeed like shooters who only have a 3-8 hours campaign & are heavily based on their online communities. I just feel that if EA was not involved Bioware might of considered taking this game to Epic proportions & what I mean by that is making DA:O a true spiritual successor of BG2 by adding a multiplayer community & being PC only. I can promise you with the correct advertisement the game would of been just as big as BG2 which is always widely consider by many sites to be in the top 5 PC games of all time. Most epic titles started on PC but thanks to piracy I'm sure all devs but Blizzard will turn their backs on PC & we'll get good, awesome, or great games but nothing that isn't watered down & just completely Epic.

These are all just opinions but I will say this I am satisfied with Dragon Age more so than most of my friends. all 4 of us got it at launch now I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who isn't playing D2. lol. DAO is an epic game for me, it's my favorite genre hands down, one of my favorite if not my favorite developer its way too hard to decide but I think it could of been epic for everyone if it was a PC exclusive but hey it honestly doesn't really matter b/c I love this game!!! Anyways keep posting without reading EA lovers, haters what ever!!! I'll be playing DA:O





thanks for all the responses though guys, had a few good ones!

[MOTpoetryION]

i agree with the op about ea a few bugs please there were more then a few andf the whole DLC thing pretty sly ea the way you just sold a video game for 70 dollars. nothing like raising the price by 20 bucks. imo some of the DLC should of been in the game already .and shale needed more work alot of problems involved shales dlc .she should of been part of # 2 or at least part of an nice expantion pack. and to top it off made a joke and laugh at us for paying that much again imo .i regards to the comment about the edge.that blew me away i cant be the only one that felt like that .anyone else think the "can be yours for the low price" comment was in poor taste??

[JJM152]

MOTpoetryION wrote...

i agree with the op about ea a few bugs please there were more then a few andf the whole DLC thing pretty sly ea the way you just sold a video game for 70 dollars. nothing like raising the price by 20 bucks. imo some of the DLC should of been in the game already .and shale needed more work alot of problems involved shales dlc .she should of been part of # 2 or at least part of an nice expantion pack. and to top it off made a joke and laugh at us for paying that much again imo .i regards to the comment about the edge.that blew me away i cant be the only one that felt like that .anyone else think the "can be yours for the low price" comment was in poor taste??

I'm sure you're not the only one to feel that way. But then again, a lot of the people on these forums have obviously put 4 points into their "Butthurt" specialization.

For the record: I <3 DLC. If it's something I don't want, then I don't buy it. You see how that works?