127 réponses à ce sujet

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Realmzmaster wrote...

A large developer can survive quite well just catering to consoles. A large company will not growth or develop the necessary revenues on just the PC market alone anymore. IMHO.

Yup. No doubt about that.
As of June 2010,Xbox 360: sales figure for US was 451,700 (Total: 20.6 million; June 2009: 240,600 – up 88%) 
http://www.digital-d...igure-analysis/
A healty 88% increase.

Worlwide sales figure Xbox 360 – 65.8 million as of 12 January 2012[52]
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Console_wars
65.8 million units sold? 

 This is ... huge.
 

[Realmzmaster]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A large developer can survive quite well just catering to consoles. A large company will not growth or develop the necessary revenues on just the PC market alone anymore. IMHO.

Yup. No doubt about that.
As of June 2010,Xbox 360: sales figure for US was 451,700 (Total: 20.6 million; June 2009: 240,600 – up 88%) 
http://www.digital-d...igure-analysis/
A healty 88% increase.

Worlwide sales figure Xbox 360 – 65.8 million as of 12 January 2012[52]
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Console_wars
65.8 million units sold? 

 This is ... huge.
 

Not counting the 62 million for the PS3 and the Wii coming in at 95.85 million.  Many will say that there are more PCs out there which is true, but many of them are not used for gaming or at best casual gaming. 
If you buy a console you are not into just casual gaming.  People buy PCs for varying reasons from work to play to surfing the Net or Facebooking. 

[n0na90]

I think Bioware really hit a spot with Neverwinter Nights and its expansions. They are endless amounts of amazing overrides and haks, player-made adventures and persistant worlds. I still play that game today.

I understand it's not very lucrative, and that Bioware is working with a completely different engine now, but I would much rather see a toolset and multi-player in the spirit of NWN than some tacked on, boring stuff that sucked out resources from making the Singeplayer as awesome as it could be.

DA 3 going for "Spiritual successor to NWN 1" is never going to happen, of course. But I'll just dream that maybe some day Bioware will take a Dragon Age game there.

[Realmzmaster]

n0na90 wrote...

I think Bioware really hit a spot with Neverwinter Nights and its expansions. They are endless amounts of amazing overrides and haks, player-made adventures and persistant worlds. I still play that game today.

I understand it's not very lucrative, and that Bioware is working with a completely different engine now, but I would much rather see a toolset and multi-player in the spirit of NWN than some tacked on, boring stuff that sucked out resources from making the Singeplayer as awesome as it could be.

DA 3 going for "Spiritual successor to NWN 1" is never going to happen, of course. But I'll just dream that maybe some day Bioware will take a Dragon Age game there.

NWN was great with the toolset for making different mods and haks, but the single player compaign was skewered for being mediocre  when it first came out. Let's face it  you were stuck playing the single player campaign until modders came out with other content or you were playing multi-player.  NWN also met the same criticism as Dragon Age because of its five development that the graphics quality was uneven. DAO had a good single player campaign and a toolset, but no multi-player and many gamer want it to stay that way with DA3.

[MagmaSaiyan]

id say bioware should give yall a toolset, in exchange, console users get dlc products first, kinda of how Bethesda is doing it(at least for the first few dlcs)

[Dakota Strider]

Realmzmaster wrote...

n0na90 wrote...

I think Bioware really hit a spot with Neverwinter Nights and its expansions. They are endless amounts of amazing overrides and haks, player-made adventures and persistant worlds. I still play that game today.

I understand it's not very lucrative, and that Bioware is working with a completely different engine now, but I would much rather see a toolset and multi-player in the spirit of NWN than some tacked on, boring stuff that sucked out resources from making the Singeplayer as awesome as it could be.

DA 3 going for "Spiritual successor to NWN 1" is never going to happen, of course. But I'll just dream that maybe some day Bioware will take a Dragon Age game there.

NWN was great with the toolset for making different mods and haks, but the single player compaign was skewered for being mediocre  when it first came out. Let's face it  you were stuck playing the single player campaign until modders came out with other content or you were playing multi-player.  NWN also met the same criticism as Dragon Age because of its five development that the graphics quality was uneven. DAO had a good single player campaign and a toolset, but no multi-player and many gamer want it to stay that way with DA3.

Always going to be people that like things, and others that hate the same thing.  I played the NwN solo campaign about 3 or 4 times with different characters before I even considered playing the MP.   For me, it was a very good game,





 Reception

Aggregate scores

Aggregator
Score

GameRankings
89.08%[8]

Metacritic
91/100[9]

Review scores

Publication
Score

Allgame
[10]

GamePro
[11]

GameSpot
9.2/10[12]

GameSpy
91/100[13]

GameZone
9.3/10[14]

PC Gamer US
95/100[15]

FiringSquad
91%[16]

Gameplanet
[17]
While I do not deny there were detractors, I remember it being well received by most.

[Icesong]

A large developer can survive quite well just catering to consoles. A large company will not grow or develop the necessary revenues on just the PC market alone anymore. IMHO.

"I don’t see us going away from the PC market. No one at Blizzard thinks the PC is dead, or at least, I’d be shocked if someone did – we make a good living off the PC. What I often like to say is, I really appreciate the game industry telling everyone the PC is dead, and the gaming press saying the PC is dead because it’s really cut down on our competition."

[Firky]

As a PC exclusive gamer, who is currently enjoying learning how to use the DA toolset, I don't think BioWare are *obliged* to release a toolset. I don't understand the economics behind it, or licensing agreements or whatever. It's a professional tool. They develop, license, whatever, as they see fit, need to do so, whatever.

As someone who appreciates the Origins toolset, however, I think that being able to use their tool is a great opportunity. I know I've learned some things about Origins, it's strengths, weaknesses, structures, limitations, features from exploring the toolset.

We're all gamers. We love our hobby. We love to play, analyse and/or create. To me it's not about "fixing the game." To me, it's recognition for the "create." They don't *have* to release a toolset, to my mind, but it's something wonderful for the creative amoung us. (PS. Although, I'm really interested in the add-ons/add-ins, cosmetic/gameplay mods are creative, too. They shouldn't just be seen as "fixing the game.")

[Pasquale1234]

I would expect that even if they could work out satisfactory licensing arrangements with the 3rd party vendor, it would still be a support nightmare for them.

For starters, most top-of-the-line graphics and rendering software has ultra-high system spec and performance requirements that the average gamer might not be able to meet.  Finding out that your system won't support a toolset for a game you enjoy could create another PR disaster.  They would also be expected to support a toolset that includes somebody else's software, which is never fun.

[Realmzmaster]

Icesong wrote...

A large developer can survive quite well just catering to consoles. A large company will not grow or develop the necessary revenues on just the PC market alone anymore. IMHO.

"I don’t see us going away from the PC market. No one at Blizzard thinks the PC is dead, or at least, I’d be shocked if someone did – we make a good living off the PC. What I often like to say is, I really appreciate the game industry telling everyone the PC is dead, and the gaming press saying the PC is dead because it’s really cut down on our competition."

Blizzard-Activison has WOW as a steady source of income like Valve has Steam. Take that away do you think Blizzard could space Starcraft and Starcraft II 10 years apart like it did or the same for Diablo II and Diablo III. You state the exception which does not apply to the 99% of the big name developers.

[deuce985]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Icesong wrote...

A large developer can survive quite well just catering to consoles. A large company will not grow or develop the necessary revenues on just the PC market alone anymore. IMHO.

"I don’t see us going away from the PC market. No one at Blizzard thinks the PC is dead, or at least, I’d be shocked if someone did – we make a good living off the PC. What I often like to say is, I really appreciate the game industry telling everyone the PC is dead, and the gaming press saying the PC is dead because it’s really cut down on our competition."

Blizzard-Activison has WOW as a steady source of income like Valve has Steam. Take that away do you think Blizzard could space Starcraft and Starcraft II 10 years apart like it did or the same for Diablo II and Diablo III. You state the exception which does not apply to the 99% of the big name developers.

Yea, but games that are built around PC strengths all sell better. Don't see why publishers ignore this fact. Witcher 2 sold over 1.2 million last year. The first Witcher, which is several years old, sold over 400k just last year...granted, they were probably at bargain prices but the first Witcher sold millions before that. Battlefield sells like crazy on PC. Any Blizzard game. Elder Scrolls. Does anybody see a relation here? It's because those devs give the PC community more care with their games. Elder Scrolls has one of the biggest mod communities. Battlefield use to be a massive mod community.

It may be small compared to console but when you throw a bone to the PC community, they buy. That simple. Wouldn't EA like to see more copies sold on PC? Give them more care. Even if it means releasing console versions first and then releasing PC version 6 months down the line. I'd take that over some shoddy ports devs been throwing out lately.

Dragon Age:Origins sold very well on PC. Dragon Age 2...not so much. How can a publisher ignore this when the facts are right there in their own financial numbers? I do think mods help a game extend life and create a steady stream of revenue. Games built better on PC always sell better than straight console ports with little support...

Modifié par deuce985, 07 mai 2012 - 06:07 .

[Realmzmaster]

deuce985 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Icesong wrote...

A large developer can survive quite well just catering to consoles. A large company will not grow or develop the necessary revenues on just the PC market alone anymore. IMHO.

"I don’t see us going away from the PC market. No one at Blizzard thinks the PC is dead, or at least, I’d be shocked if someone did – we make a good living off the PC. What I often like to say is, I really appreciate the game industry telling everyone the PC is dead, and the gaming press saying the PC is dead because it’s really cut down on our competition."

Blizzard-Activison has WOW as a steady source of income like Valve has Steam. Take that away do you think Blizzard could space Starcraft and Starcraft II 10 years apart like it did or the same for Diablo II and Diablo III. You state the exception which does not apply to the 99% of the big name developers.

Yea, but games that are built around PC strengths all sell better. Don't see why publishers ignore this fact. Witcher 2 sold over 1.2 million last year. The first Witcher, which is several years old, sold over 400k just last year...granted, they were probably at bargain prices but the first Witcher sold millions before that. Battlefield sells like crazy on PC. Any Blizzard game. Elder Scrolls. Does anybody see a relation here? It's because those devs give the PC community more care with their games. Elder Scrolls has one of the biggest mod communities. Battlefield use to be a massive mod community.

It may be small compared to console but when you throw a bone to the PC community, they buy. That simple. Wouldn't EA like to see more copies sold on PC? Give them more care. Even if it means releasing console versions first and then releasing PC version 6 months down the line. I'd take that over some shoddy ports devs been throwing out lately.

Dragon Age:Origins sold very well on PC. Dragon Age 2...not so much. How can a publisher ignore this when the facts are right there in their own financial numbers?

So you think that PC gamers will be willing to wait six months for their version to come out? You think game companies will allocate more money to improve the PC version? So console gamers who buy the game are thereby supporting the improvements that will be put in the PC version that they cannot access unless they buy a PC version. How is that fair when the consoles represent the bigger market. Neither DAO or DA2 on the PC sold in the numbers that the console versions did. The same with Skyrim. Even the Witcher 2 is coming out on the console and will probably out sell the PC version.

[deuce985]

Realmzmaster wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Icesong wrote...

A large developer can survive quite well just catering to consoles. A large company will not grow or develop the necessary revenues on just the PC market alone anymore. IMHO.

"I don’t see us going away from the PC market. No one at Blizzard thinks the PC is dead, or at least, I’d be shocked if someone did – we make a good living off the PC. What I often like to say is, I really appreciate the game industry telling everyone the PC is dead, and the gaming press saying the PC is dead because it’s really cut down on our competition."

Blizzard-Activison has WOW as a steady source of income like Valve has Steam. Take that away do you think Blizzard could space Starcraft and Starcraft II 10 years apart like it did or the same for Diablo II and Diablo III. You state the exception which does not apply to the 99% of the big name developers.

Yea, but games that are built around PC strengths all sell better. Don't see why publishers ignore this fact. Witcher 2 sold over 1.2 million last year. The first Witcher, which is several years old, sold over 400k just last year...granted, they were probably at bargain prices but the first Witcher sold millions before that. Battlefield sells like crazy on PC. Any Blizzard game. Elder Scrolls. Does anybody see a relation here? It's because those devs give the PC community more care with their games. Elder Scrolls has one of the biggest mod communities. Battlefield use to be a massive mod community.

It may be small compared to console but when you throw a bone to the PC community, they buy. That simple. Wouldn't EA like to see more copies sold on PC? Give them more care. Even if it means releasing console versions first and then releasing PC version 6 months down the line. I'd take that over some shoddy ports devs been throwing out lately.

Dragon Age:Origins sold very well on PC. Dragon Age 2...not so much. How can a publisher ignore this when the facts are right there in their own financial numbers?

So you think that PC gamers will be willing to wait six months for their version to come out? You think game companies will allocate more money to improve the PC version? So console gamers who buy the game are thereby supporting the improvements that will be put in the PC version that they cannot access unless they buy a PC version. How is that fair when the consoles represent the bigger market. Neither DAO or DA2 on the PC sold in the numbers that the console versions did. The same with Skyrim. Even the Witcher 2 is coming out on the console and will probably out sell the PC version.

I'm saying that if publishers give more budget to the PC versions they see large revenue gains. Would they rather see DA2 sell 3 million or 4 million? The proof is there, if you give PC versions equal care, you see revenue stream increase. Skyrim isn't exactly small on PC compared to consoles. Sure, it sold better on consoles but it sold pretty darn significant on PC too. Because they throw bones to their PC install base.

Battlefield 3, which doesn't have mod tools, sold extremely well on PC because they didn't give it a console port. Built for PC...not a direct console port. And the 360/PS3 versions didn't really suffer from it.

DA2 runs on my PC with the same performance as Witcher 2 and W2 has significantly better graphics on my rig at ultra.

Compare Bioware's DA:O to DA2. DA:O sold significantly more on PC than DA2 and was a big reason why DA:O's price took forever to drop on PC. It sold steadily. DA2 didn't. DA:O was built for PC and broke down to consoles and they gave PC a tool kit.

I wish they had data that supported claims about toolsets giving a game steady revenue.

I'm saying why not give all 3 ports equal care? Why does publishers just give the cold shoulder to their PC install base when data proves when you show them love, you get love in return...

Modifié par deuce985, 07 mai 2012 - 09:00 .

[Realmzmaster]

deuce985 wrote...

I'm saying that if publishers give more budget to the PC versions they see large revenue gains. Would they rather see DA2 sell 3 million or 4 million? The proof is there, if you give PC versions equal care, you see revenue stream increase. Skyrim isn't exactly small on PC compared to consoles. Sure, it sold better on consoles but it sold pretty darn significant on PC too. Because they throw bones to their PC install base.

Battlefield 3, which doesn't have mod tools, sold extremely well on PC because they didn't give it a console port. Built for PC...not a direct console port. And the 360/PS3 versions didn't really suffer from it.

DA2 runs on my PC with the same performance as Witcher 2 and W2 has significantly better graphics on my rig at ultra.

Compare Bioware's DA:O to DA2. DA:O sold significantly more on PC than DA2 and was a big reason why DA:O's price took forever to drop on PC. It sold steadily. DA2 didn't. DA:O was built for PC and broke down to consoles and they gave PC a tool kit.

I wish they had data that supported claims about toolsets giving a game steady revenue.

I'm saying why not give all 3 ports equal care? Why does publishers just give the cold shoulder to their PC install base when data proves when you show them love, you get love in return...

Basically you are saying give the PC gamers something (toolkit)  the console users cannot get unless they buy a PC version. Bethesda (makers of Skyrim)  gives the PC gamers a bone in the form of the construction kit, but they throw the consoles gamers a bone to make up for it. The console users get the dlc first. Would that be an acceptable compromise? It comes down to equity. Or should the developers give the console users more freebies to make up for the lack of a toolkit for consoles. 
The toolsets give maybe a steady stream on the PC side not the largest market. Console users would rather see those zots going to make the next big thing.

[Maria Caliban]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

For starters, most top-of-the-line graphics and rendering software has ultra-high system spec and performance requirements that the average gamer might not be able to meet.  Finding out that your system won't support a toolset for a game you enjoy could create another PR disaster.  They would also be expected to support a toolset that includes somebody else's software, which is never fun.

I can't speak for supporting other people's software, but I doubt that a toolset with high system requirements would be a PR disaster.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

scyphozoa wrote...

My understanding is that DA2 used third party tools that cannot be distributed by Bioware/EA in a toolkit.

That is basically what the devs said, yes. I doubt it's impossible, but there would be red tape whether they did it for free or charged for it, presuming they didn't have to strip it of the 3rd party components.

And they'd have to offer support if it came with a price attached.

[Sylvius the Mad]

We don't even need a full toolset, necesssarily. Some tools for extracting in-game resources would be a huge benefit, even without the means to create new content.

Yes, some of the modded cinematics from DAO were nice, but the modded game mechanics in both games were vital. Modding character models in DA2 was crucial to my enjoyment of the game.

[Vaeliorin]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...
For starters, most top-of-the-line graphics and rendering software has ultra-high system spec and performance requirements that the average gamer might not be able to meet.  Finding out that your system won't support a toolset for a game you enjoy could create another PR disaster.  They would also be expected to support a toolset that includes somebody else's software, which is never fun.

I can't speak for supporting other people's software, but I doubt that a toolset with high system requirements would be a PR disaster.

Heck, NWN's toolset ran horribly sometimes even on top end computers built a couple years after it was released. I used to have to wait 3-4 hours (without being able to use the computer for anything else) for it to finish updating if I made any faction changes in the module for the server I used to build for/run.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Just some editing software to add items or perhaps NPCs and quests would be nice. A full toolset would be better of course.

I usually play on the PC these days when I play any games so I enjoy mods and personalizing each title. If they released a toolset for DA 3 it would interest me in it much more than I am now after seeing how DA 2 came out...heck, I might even buy DA 3.

[deuce985]

If one wants proof mods increase life and sales, look no further than the recent Day Z mod for Arma 2. It pushed Arma 2 into the top 5 selling games on Steam...

[MichaelStuart]

I like to use mods in games(reason I got PC) so I support getting a toolset

[Wozearly]

Cynical question.

If Bioware releases a toolset, this gives the ability for players to create and introduce things into the game by themselves and release them to the community. For example, a new weapon skin with above average stats available from game start for free.

On the other hand, this would sit against Bioware selling item DLC to the community, such as a new weapon skin with above average stats available from game start for...err...about £3.

This would mean that the benefit of purchasing the item DLC would be purely for the look designed by the Bioware artists and/or because you really want to give Bioware more money and/or because you're an absolutely completionist when it comes to owning all game content. Because modders could produce free alternatives using existing in-game models with equivalent (or even better) stats.

To me, it seems likely that toolsets would result in the death of any hope of revenue for item DLC in its current DA2 / ME2 form, unless its introduced in a way that's locked out of the toolset so that players can't interfere with that revenue stream, or implemented in a more imaginative way (e.g. the Feast Day item pack from DA:O)

I doubt the marketing department is encouraging other teams to spend much time exploring options for releasing a toolset...

[Atakuma]

Wozearly wrote...

Cynical question.

If Bioware releases a toolset, this gives the ability for players to create and introduce things into the game by themselves and release them to the community. For example, a new weapon skin with above average stats available from game start for free.

On the other hand, this would sit against Bioware selling item DLC to the community, such as a new weapon skin with above average stats available from game start for...err...about £3.

This would mean that the benefit of purchasing the item DLC would be purely for the look designed by the Bioware artists and/or because you really want to give Bioware more money and/or because you're an absolutely completionist when it comes to owning all game content. Because modders could produce free alternatives using existing in-game models with equivalent (or even better) stats.

To me, it seems likely that toolsets would result in the death of any hope of revenue for item DLC in its current DA2 / ME2 form, unless its introduced in a way that's locked out of the toolset so that players can't interfere with that revenue stream, or implemented in a more imaginative way (e.g. the Feast Day item pack from DA:O)

I doubt the marketing department is encouraging other teams to spend much time exploring options for releasing a toolset...

You didn't need a toolset for custom armors and weapons in DA2. Even if it did cut into dlc sales, it would only be for PC players, which are a small minority.

[hoorayforicecream]

Wozearly wrote...

Cynical question.

If Bioware releases a toolset, this gives the ability for players to create and introduce things into the game by themselves and release them to the community. For example, a new weapon skin with above average stats available from game start for free.

On the other hand, this would sit against Bioware selling item DLC to the community, such as a new weapon skin with above average stats available from game start for...err...about £3.

This would mean that the benefit of purchasing the item DLC would be purely for the look designed by the Bioware artists and/or because you really want to give Bioware more money and/or because you're an absolutely completionist when it comes to owning all game content. Because modders could produce free alternatives using existing in-game models with equivalent (or even better) stats.

To me, it seems likely that toolsets would result in the death of any hope of revenue for item DLC in its current DA2 / ME2 form, unless its introduced in a way that's locked out of the toolset so that players can't interfere with that revenue stream, or implemented in a more imaginative way (e.g. the Feast Day item pack from DA:O)

I doubt the marketing department is encouraging other teams to spend much time exploring options for releasing a toolset...

This is false for two demonstrable reasons:

#1. The largest factor in DLC sales by far is whether the game is installed. Toolsets and mods keep people replaying the game, which keeps the game installed. You may not buy the item packs, but you are probably much more likely to buy story DLC. Others might buy them anyway, because they want additional models for retexturing - I know a modder who did just that.

#2. Putting out professional-quality work will always have a market, even if there are good amateurs out there. Valve sells hats and other items via microtransactions in Team Fortress 2. They also released hat creator tools for players as well. Valve's hats are still considerably higher quality than the player-created ones. Their sales have not suffered. Bethesda does the same - they put out a creation kit with the last few Elder Scrolls games, and they still sell paid DLC. 

A lot of people have brought up the 'competition' angle, but honestly... if there were that many modders who could make professional quality work that releases on a similar schedule, they'd probably already be working for game companies full time.