127 réponses à ce sujet

[jackofalltrades456]

Is there any word of getting a toolset for Dragon Age 3? That was one best features of Origins and I really hated how it was removed in DA2. I don't understand why they removed it in the first place. Was it because Dragon Age 2 was a rushed job or did they just not want to implement it into the game?

[Savber100]

Agreed.

You want goodwill, Bioware? Release a toolset with DA3. I know you rather sell us Appearance DLC etc but trust me when I say that the goodwill you'll win along with the power of modders, it will be MORE than worth it.

Look at Skyrim and Oblivion...

[Atakuma]

Mark Darrah said that there are no plans for a DA3 toolset.

[Dakota Strider]

The only way I really support a MP with Dragon Age, is if it is player created/modified worlds. Let the Bioware dev team work 100% on making the solo campaign. People that wish to play mp will buy DA3 for the toolset, and make their own worlds. It worked great for NwN, and probably generated almost as many sales for Bioware for people that just wished to play mp, as the Official Solo Campaign. I cannot see a reason that would not work again with Dragon Age 3.

[Atakuma]

Dakota Strider wrote...

The only way I really support a MP with Dragon Age, is if it is player created/modified worlds. Let the Bioware dev team work 100% on making the solo campaign. People that wish to play mp will buy DA3 for the toolset, and make their own worlds. It worked great for NwN, and probably generated almost as many sales for Bioware for people that just wished to play mp, as the Official Solo Campaign. I cannot see a reason that would not work again with Dragon Age 3.

The reason that wouldn't work is because DA3 will be a multiplatform game and bioware cannot just leave an entire component of the game out of the console versions.

[Dakota Strider]

Atakuma wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

The only way I really support a MP with Dragon Age, is if it is player created/modified worlds. Let the Bioware dev team work 100% on making the solo campaign. People that wish to play mp will buy DA3 for the toolset, and make their own worlds. It worked great for NwN, and probably generated almost as many sales for Bioware for people that just wished to play mp, as the Official Solo Campaign. I cannot see a reason that would not work again with Dragon Age 3.

The reason that wouldn't work is because DA3 will be a multiplatform game and bioware cannot just leave an entire component of the game out of the console versions.

I am not an expert on such matters, but would it not be possible to make the toolset a paid DLC?  Then those that want it can have it, and I believe they would be willing to pay the cost.  Those that play consoles get their own benefits, like being able to buy a used game, or play other games that are not made for PC's.   I personally believe that DA3 should be made to be the best game possible for the PC first, and after that, make it fit the different consoles.  Trying to please all different platforms equally, means that the game will never be as good as it can be.  If that makes DA3 a lesser game for some consoles, charge a lesser price for that platform.  Since DA devs have admitted on different occassions that the PC is the platform of choice for rpg's, why should PC users suffer, so that other platforms can get an equal experience? 

[Fast Jimmy]

Atakuma wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

The only way I really support a MP with Dragon Age, is if it is player created/modified worlds. Let the Bioware dev team work 100% on making the solo campaign. People that wish to play mp will buy DA3 for the toolset, and make their own worlds. It worked great for NwN, and probably generated almost as many sales for Bioware for people that just wished to play mp, as the Official Solo Campaign. I cannot see a reason that would not work again with Dragon Age 3.

The reason that wouldn't work is because DA3 will be a multiplatform game and bioware cannot just leave an entire component of the game out of the console versions.

Well, that didn't stop them from doing it with DA:O.

The real obstacle, from the way I understand it, is that a lot of development tools that would be part of the toolkit are actually third party software, meaning EA/Bioware didn't create it and doesn't own the rights to it. This is what happened with DA2, when they changed to new engines and software, as opposed to DA:O, which was based off technology that was all developed internally.

So EA/Bioware would essentially have to pay royalties for every toolkit they distributed, cutting into their revenue. They could possibly package the toolkit as a separate purchase, but those who don't understand that they would lose money giving it away for free (as opposed to say, Bethesda, which has their own development tools and doesn't have third party licenses to worry about, who it doesn't cost a dime to include a toolkit for).

P.S. Interestingly enough, I think most of the licensed software actually has to do with cinematics and the voice acting, but I could be incorrect about that.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 mai 2012 - 07:59 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dakota Strider wrote...

I am not an expert on such matters, but would it not be possible to make the toolset a paid DLC?

That doesn't make sense at all. One only needs a toolset to create mods, not to use them. So, only the modders need one. That's a very small number of people. I think modders would be pissed if BW did that. What's next, letting modders pay for each mod they want to release? A toolset is generally seen as something like a promotion to increase the life cycle of the product. BW simply does not believe in that, the way companies like Beth do.

[Dakota Strider]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

I am not an expert on such matters, but would it not be possible to make the toolset a paid DLC?

That doesn't make sense at all. One only needs a toolset to create mods, not to use them. So, only the modders need one. That's a very small number of people. I think modders would be pissed if BW did that. What's next, letting modders pay for each mod they want to release? A toolset is generally seen as something like a promotion to increase the life cycle of the product. BW simply does not believe in that, the way companies like Beth do.

Point made.
So, to expand on my suggestion, to be able to multiplay, or to access the toolkit, you need the same DLC.  Then the modders will get their toolkit, and the cost will be shared with those that will use their mods.

[mousestalker]

If they made a toolset a DLC to be purchased, I'd likely buy it (depending upon the price and whether or not I own the game). Just FYI.

[jackofalltrades456]

Charging for the toolset would just become another PR disaster . So that means they would basically be forcing us to buy something that was free in the first game. It would be the Day 1 DLC all over again.

Modifié par jackofalltrades456, 02 mai 2012 - 08:35 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dakota Strider wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

I am not an expert on such matters, but would it not be possible to make the toolset a paid DLC?

That doesn't make sense at all. One only needs a toolset to create mods, not to use them. So, only the modders need one. That's a very small number of people. I think modders would be pissed if BW did that. What's next, letting modders pay for each mod they want to release? A toolset is generally seen as something like a promotion to increase the life cycle of the product. BW simply does not believe in that, the way companies like Beth do.

Point made.
So, to expand on my suggestion, to be able to multiplay, or to access the toolkit, you need the same DLC.  Then the modders will get their toolkit, and the cost will be shared with those that will use their mods.

There is no need to ask money for it all. The way Beth looks at it is that their toolset creates money anyway. It increases the life cycle of the product and it gives it additional value and goodwill. Charging for that is most likely counter productive. Beth even had the idea to allow to use mods on consoles (which would be created on PC). They didn't get the permission of Microsoft and Sony to do that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 02 mai 2012 - 08:44 .

[Dakota Strider]

@AFW That was my original point. However Atakuma believes that is undoable, because of the multiplatforms that DA3 will be released on. I personally believe that the game should be built primarlly for the PC, and then let it be made to fit the consoles, as well as possible, afterwards. I can see the point, of console users not wanting to pay for a toolset that they are unable to use, thus the suggestion of making it paid dlc.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dakota Strider wrote...

@AFW That was my original point. However Atakuma believes that is undoable, because of the multiplatforms that DA3 will be released on. I personally believe that the game should be built primarlly for the PC, and then let it be made to fit the consoles, as well as possible, afterwards. I can see the point, of console users not wanting to pay for a toolset that they are unable to use, thus the suggestion of making it paid dlc.

I think the issues for Microsoft and Sony were security and paying for bandwidth and the infrastructure. According to Beth security is doable and something they worked on. Beth still wanted them for free, because that's the whole idea of user created mods. Like BW, Microsoft and Sony did not believe in that. A company like Valve did believe in it, though, and created a tool which would make downloading and installing mods easier. Not sure if that was the best solution, but at least Valve tried.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 02 mai 2012 - 08:51 .

[Atakuma]

Dakota Strider wrote...

@AFW That was my original point. However Atakuma believes that is undoable, because of the multiplatforms that DA3 will be released on. I personally believe that the game should be built primarlly for the PC, and then let it be made to fit the consoles, as well as possible, afterwards. I can see the point, of console users not wanting to pay for a toolset that they are unable to use, thus the suggestion of making it paid dlc.

I seem to have confused what you menat. what I thought you were saying was to use the toolset as the primary source of a hypothetical multiplayer component, which would be unfair to console players. However, If you just mean a toolset as an extra like like DAO then I have no problem with that.

[ejoslin]

But mods actually earn money for the devs -- it's very shortsighted not releasing modding tools. When the game stays popular longer, more $$ can be made from DLC. And I know quite a few people bought PC copies of DAO after they bought console versions to use mods.

Edit: As a modder, I really am on the fence as to whether I'd pay for a toolset.  It's something that's fun to do, but at the same time, I know I would go into bug fixing mode if I wanted to start releasing extra things, and it's kind of galling to think I'd have to pay for the privilege of doing so.

Modifié par ejoslin, 02 mai 2012 - 08:55 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

I am not an expert on such matters, but would it not be possible to make the toolset a paid DLC?

That doesn't make sense at all. One only needs a toolset to create mods, not to use them. So, only the modders need one. That's a very small number of people. I think modders would be pissed if BW did that. What's next, letting modders pay for each mod they want to release? A toolset is generally seen as something like a promotion to increase the life cycle of the product. BW simply does not believe in that, the way companies like Beth do.

Point made.
So, to expand on my suggestion, to be able to multiplay, or to access the toolkit, you need the same DLC.  Then the modders will get their toolkit, and the cost will be shared with those that will use their mods.

There is no need to ask money for it all. The way Beth looks at it is that their toolset creates money anyway. It increases the life cycle of the product and it gives it additional value and goodwill. Charging for that is most likely counter productive. Beth even had the idea to allow to use mods on consoles (which would be created on PC). They didn't get the permission of Microsoft and Sony to do that.

If they have to pay licensing fees to every company they use third party software on every toolkit they dispense, then they would lose money. Its not a matter of "they can give it away for free, but these guys are just jerks" but a real risk of it costing them money every time they push one out the door. 


This is different than Day One DLC. Day One DLC is built, done, created. They can make more money by charging for it, so they do. But if they decided to give it away for free, it wouldn't cost them anything extra (other than the time spent making it). 

If they have to pay royalties to other companies for every toolkit they sell, it means they would lose money, literally, for every singly copy sold. Not just take in less revenue, but actually lose money. 

I would love nothing more than for them to have a toolkit for every game that comes out. It adds great value to any RPG game. But if they are using third-party software, its just not going to happen. They would have to pay through the nose for it... and that's assuming the other companies even agree to let EA/Bioware do it. They could not want any modder in the world poking around their software that they charge other companies to use, regardless of how much they get paid.

So, while I would love to see a toolkit and think it would be nothing but fun to just point at EA/Bioware and call them greedy dunderheads, its not 100% accurate.

[jackofalltrades456]

ejoslin wrote...

 And I know quite a few people bought PC copies of DAO after they bought console versions to use mods.

and I'm one of them.  That was my prime movation for buying the PC version of the game. I couldn't stand not being fix all these awful bugs that have plagued me in the X-box port. Mods are what keep the game going for me in the end and my desire to continue after beating it.


(P.s I love you for making the ZDF)

@Fast Jimmy

I'm  confused about your post. What third party software did they use for DA2? Wasn't the Lycium engine created by Bioware?

Modifié par jackofalltrades456, 02 mai 2012 - 09:14 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

I am not an expert on such matters, but would it not be possible to make the toolset a paid DLC?

That doesn't make sense at all. One only needs a toolset to create mods, not to use them. So, only the modders need one. That's a very small number of people. I think modders would be pissed if BW did that. What's next, letting modders pay for each mod they want to release? A toolset is generally seen as something like a promotion to increase the life cycle of the product. BW simply does not believe in that, the way companies like Beth do.

Point made.
So, to expand on my suggestion, to be able to multiplay, or to access the toolkit, you need the same DLC.  Then the modders will get their toolkit, and the cost will be shared with those that will use their mods.

There is no need to ask money for it all. The way Beth looks at it is that their toolset creates money anyway. It increases the life cycle of the product and it gives it additional value and goodwill. Charging for that is most likely counter productive. Beth even had the idea to allow to use mods on consoles (which would be created on PC). They didn't get the permission of Microsoft and Sony to do that.

If they have to pay licensing fees to every company they use third party software on every toolkit they dispense, then they would lose money. Its not a matter of "they can give it away for free, but these guys are just jerks" but a real risk of it costing them money every time they push one out the door. 


This is different than Day One DLC. Day One DLC is built, done, created. They can make more money by charging for it, so they do. But if they decided to give it away for free, it wouldn't cost them anything extra (other than the time spent making it). 

If they have to pay royalties to other companies for every toolkit they sell, it means they would lose money, literally, for every singly copy sold. Not just take in less revenue, but actually lose money. 

I would love nothing more than for them to have a toolkit for every game that comes out. It adds great value to any RPG game. But if they are using third-party software, its just not going to happen. They would have to pay through the nose for it... and that's assuming the other companies even agree to let EA/Bioware do it. They could not want any modder in the world poking around their software that they charge other companies to use, regardless of how much they get paid.

So, while I would love to see a toolkit and think it would be nothing but fun to just point at EA/Bioware and call them greedy dunderheads, its not 100% accurate.

Stop accusing me of something I never said. I never said they were jerks, nor did I suggest that being jerks is their line of reasoning to not include mods on consoles. That is all in your silly mind. They have a different mind set. Not sure, but it looks like one that coincides with yours. About losing money and license fees: That's an assumption Beth does not believe in and they are in it for years now. It is very easy to remove license fees for mods. After all, it woud make money in the long run. Mods are not something new. On the PC they are around for ages and nobody ever lost money because of them.

[Firky]

Chris Priestly said fairly clearly that it was the licensing issue that was the problem in another thread a while back. Like, making DA2 with the aid of software from outside parties. It may not even be about money. There may be some reason why this software can't be released.

I'm not really sure what it all involves, though. More importantly, can it be fixed? (I'm really starting to enjoy the Origins toolset.)

[PaulSX]

I do not think EA will be interested in developing toolset, since mods will prolong game's shelf time and EA wont want that. BioWare/EA is aiming casual gamer crowd right now. They will be more interested in developing another game than continuing selling the current game.

[Dakota Strider]

suntzuxi wrote...

I do not think EA will be interested in developing toolset, since mods will prolong game's shelf time and EA wont want that. BioWare/EA is aiming casual gamer crowd right now. They will be more interested in developing another game than continuing selling the current game.

While it may be legitimate to claim that EA does not have the best interest of gamers in mind; it is another thing to believe they do not know how to make money.  And developing a brand new game series will cost them more money, than continuing an existing series with sequel after sequel.  I believe they will milk the DA series for everything they can, just as they will do with the ME universe.   That does not mean they will not also try to create a brand new game to capture those casual gamers.  But they will not abandon a franchise that is still making them money.  They can do both at once.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 02 mai 2012 - 09:45 .

[Zexiv]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

I am not an expert on such matters, but would it not be possible to make the toolset a paid DLC?

That doesn't make sense at all. One only needs a toolset to create mods, not to use them. So, only the modders need one. That's a very small number of people. I think modders would be pissed if BW did that. What's next, letting modders pay for each mod they want to release? A toolset is generally seen as something like a promotion to increase the life cycle of the product. BW simply does not believe in that, the way companies like Beth do.

Actually I'd try to get around it by charging more for the PC version in general figuring that the added mods make that product worth more. Unfortunately each game then becomes a licensing seat for what ever parties supplied the tools so while internally they might pay a set amount for X number of developer seats they might have to charge the consumer full price for each tool seat since the tool was being released or they may not even be able to release it via their contracts with the third party.

In general if releasing the tool set was an option I could see paying 15 to 20 dollars more for the pc version with the toolset but that might not cover the cost of a licensing seat.

Take it easy

Modifié par Zexiv, 02 mai 2012 - 10:53 .

[Dakota Strider]

Zexiv wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

I am not an expert on such matters, but would it not be possible to make the toolset a paid DLC?

That doesn't make sense at all. One only needs a toolset to create mods, not to use them. So, only the modders need one. That's a very small number of people. I think modders would be pissed if BW did that. What's next, letting modders pay for each mod they want to release? A toolset is generally seen as something like a promotion to increase the life cycle of the product. BW simply does not believe in that, the way companies like Beth do.

Actually I'd try to get around it by charging more for the PC version in general figuring that the added mods make that product worth more. Unfortunately each game then becomes a licensing seat for what ever parties supplied the tools so while internally they might pay a set amount for X number of developer seats they might have to charge the consumer full price for each tool seat since the tool was being released or they may not even be able to release it via their contracts with the third party.

In general if releasing th tool set was an option I could see paying 15 to 20 dollars more for the pc version with the toolset but that might not cover the cost of a licensing seat.

Take it easy

Since I am one of those that has no intention to ever play MP, I would be against raising the price of the PC version, if that is the only thing that is added over the consoles.  However, if the PC game is made to be far superior than the consoles are able to be made, I would happily pay more for that premium PC version.

[Blastback]

Firky wrote...

Chris Priestly said fairly clearly that it was the licensing issue that was the problem in another thread a while back. Like, making DA2 with the aid of software from outside parties. It may not even be about money. There may be some reason why this software can't be released.

I'm not really sure what it all involves, though. More importantly, can it be fixed? (I'm really starting to enjoy the Origins toolset.)

Pretty much this.  What torked me off about the whole thing was how they kept saying for months that they were consdiering releasing a toolset, but it would depend on whether or not they had the time.  Then they reveal that it was never even really an option.