634 réponses à ce sujet

[KingJason13]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KingJason13 wrote...

As for your latter opinion... we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's a fact, though.  The idea that there's this pile of Zots that you just grab handfulls out of piecemeal and distribute them across development is simplistic nonsense.  

In ME3 for example, the multiplayer component was done with its own budget by its own development studio thousands of miles away.

greengoron89 wrote...

They did it with ME3 as well - so I'm going to assume it's the direction they aim to take BW in with all of their games. If I am wrong, then great - if not, at least I won't feel too disappointed.

And I would hope it's more than just additonal funding - additional time and personnel to work on the multiplayer would be swell. Otherwise, I will continue to not look too fondly on the idea of multiplayer.

A) Dude, you're a hypocrite troll. You rationalize your crap attitude by saying that people attack you... than you attack people... then wonder why you get attacked. You saying, "The idea that there's this pile of Zots that you just grab handfulls out of piecemeal and distribute them across development is simplistic nonsense" IS an indirect insult. Grow up.

It's not nonsense.
 
What I am saying is that: If Bioware get 10 units to make the overall game, they are diverting 2 units (hypothetically) away from what was "traditionally" a 9-10 unit budget for the SP game... into MP. Which I believe affected the final product.

You're saying that's "simplistic nonsense" because you believe EA wouldn't set aside 10 units for the game. They seperately gave 8 units to the SP team and 2 to the MP team... Which is apparently entirely different in your eyes!? Your logic is where I disagree... 
 

Modifié par KingJason13, 11 mai 2012 - 10:28 .

[slimgrin]

To be fair, Bioware/EA has about 20 gazillion units to spend on a game. I really don't think MP affected SP in ME3, bad writing and a few misteps in game design did. And also, I've no interest in DA3, but they're using the Frostbyte 2 engine, which can provide some of the best visuals to date...maybe even enough to overcome the crappy art design.

Modifié par slimgrin, 11 mai 2012 - 10:31 .

[upsettingshorts]

KingJason13 wrote...

A) Dude, you're a hypocrite troll. You rationalize your crap attitude by saying that people attack you... than you attack people... then wonder why you get attacked. You saying, "The idea that there's this pile of Zots that you just grab handfulls out of piecemeal and distribute them across development is simplistic nonsense" IS a indirect insult. Grow up.

Sorry, don't see how that is the same.  I'm arguing that it's an invented conclusion out of thin air.  People invent conclusions out of thin air all the time.  

KingJason13 wrote...
 
What I am saying is that: If Bioware get 10 units to make the overall game, they are diverting 2 units (hypothetically) away from what was "traditionally" a 9-10 unit budget for the SP game... into MP. Which I believe affected the final product.

You're saying that's "simplistic nonsense" because you believe EA wouldn't set aside 10 units for the game. They seperately gave 8 units to the SP team and 2 to the MP team... Which is apparently entirely different in your eyes!? Your logic is where I disagree...  

Your logic makes the following assumptions:

1) There are a traditional number of zots for a single player game.
2) This number of zots has a relatively fixed, "complete" amount.
3) The number of zots allocated to multiplayer is drawn from this "complete, traditional" pool
4) The number of zots does not grow in relation to the ambition of the project (this is where I take the biggest issue with your argument)

In my argument, a game that has more features demands more zots.  The publisher either allocates more zots or doesn't.  The idea that there's "ten zots and to get multiplayer we need to split the baby in half" seems... yes, simplistic.  Why not just ask for 12 zots because you think if you spend 2 more you'll make a lot more money?

Furthermore, it's not as if BioWare has never worked with publishers before (as far as I know they've never self-published) and have always worked within and through the budgetary requirements and restrictions of their publisher. 

[upsettingshorts]

slimgrin wrote...

 And also, I've no interest in DA3, but they're using the Frostbyte 2 engine

Do you have a confirmed source for this?

[Nerdage]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Cant possibly be bigger than the ME3's backlash. Than again it doesn't look like their learning. Multiplayer already announced? They know no one who buys DA3 wants that.
My days of giving Bioware the benefit of the doubt are over and ME3 has given me such a sour taste in my mouth that I'm afraid nothing can get me excited for anything they push out.

An "insider" leaking to Kotaku isn't really an announcement. Hell, the game hasn't even been announced yet.

[slimgrin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

 And also, I've no interest in DA3, but they're using the Frostbyte 2 engine

Do you have a confirmed source for this?

It's stated in Green Goron's first link in this thread, but I'd read it some time ago in another article...maybe I shouldn't claim it as fact just yet.


http://www.eurogamer...agon-age-report

Modifié par slimgrin, 11 mai 2012 - 10:40 .

[hoorayforicecream]

greengoron89 wrote...

Are these numbers just the general passing of time between games, or how long these games actually spent being actively worked on?

Developers are too expensive to be paid not to work. There is usually a few weeks of comp time after a big project ships, then it's either a layoff, work on DLC, or transition to a new team/project. There are never any serious blocks of downtime, because it's too cost-prohibitive.

Edit: Also, ME3's multiplayer was actually started independently as a totally separate game. It was folded later into ME3 proper. I can't say whether there were any zots pulled away from ME3's single player, but I'd also point out that the scheduling issues come during the production phase (i.e. later in the development cycle), which is when the zots have already been allocated. You can't get refunds on partially-finished content.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 11 mai 2012 - 10:53 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Furthermore, it's not as if BioWare has never worked with publishers before (as far as I know they've never self-published) and have always worked within and through the budgetary requirements and restrictions of their publisher. 

Most of DA:O was made without a publisher.

I've always wondered if they'd have ended up as part of EA if they'd not decided to take 5-7 years to make a game and pay for it out of their pocket.

[upsettingshorts]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Furthermore, it's not as if BioWare has never worked with publishers before (as far as I know they've never self-published) and have always worked within and through the budgetary requirements and restrictions of their publisher. 

Most of DA:O was made without a publisher.

I've always wondered if they'd have ended up as part of EA if they'd not decided to take 5-7 years to make a game and pay for it out of their pocket.

I'm guessing no.  But I reaaaaaaally don't think someone actually decided "let's take 5-7 years to make a game."  It just... happened.  The same way Duke Nukem Forever wasn't mean to take over a decade to finish.

For a pretty long period of time the only games BioWare had released were Jade Empire (which did poorly) and Mass Effect 1 (which was a 360 exclusive).

It really is no wonder they took the money, they probably didn't have much choice.  BioWare got an influx of cash, and EA got to buy an extremely valuable brand.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 mai 2012 - 11:02 .

[Yrkoon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

NWN: July, 2002
(12 months pass, guessing there's an explanation for this)

 They spent much *much* longer than 12 months on NWN.  NWN  was in development before BG2 was even  released.

Which is why the old  load screens in BG2  told you that you'll be able to import your character to NWN.

[KnightofPhoenix]

KingJason13 wrote...

With the direction EA/Bioware have been heading over their last several games, I fully expect the DA3 sh*tstorm to be as large as the DA2 storm AND ME3 storm COMBINED!!!

Am I wrong?

Is there hope?

They would have to try pretty hard to outdo themselves in that regard, and would have to deliberately plan to do something worse than those two games.

So no, I do not think it's likely that DA3 will cause a ****storm (but well, Bioware can always surprise me).

That being said, I am not expecting anything they make from now on to generate more than a "meh" from me, if I can muster the will and / or interest to even try it (obviously not buying, will borrow a friend's copy first and then see).

[upsettingshorts]

Yrkoon wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

NWN: July, 2002
(12 months pass, guessing there's an explanation for this)

 They spent much *much* longer than 12 months on NWN.  NWN  was in development before BG2 was even  released.

Which is why the old  load screens in BG2  told you that you'll be able to import your character to NWN.

Thought there'd be an explanation.  All I can go on - short of asking the developers themselves - is space between release dates.

[Yrkoon]

Understood.  It should also be reiterated that  unless they're working on a brand new IP, Bioware has never taken more than 2 years on a game.   They're so consistant with this rule that I don't think development time is as big a factor in the quality of their games as just about everyone else here thinks it is.

Again, it took them less than 2 years to create BG2, the longest and  most amazing game they  (or anyone else) has ever made.


I simply don't have a clue what the hell happened with DA2.  My guess is that they were too ambitious with the overhauling/changing, and ended up not having  enough time to polish it to their normal Bioware levels.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 11 mai 2012 - 11:30 .

[KingJason13]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

KingJason13 wrote...
 
What I am saying is that: If Bioware get 10 units to make the overall game, they are diverting 2 units (hypothetically) away from what was "traditionally" a 9-10 unit budget for the SP game... into MP. Which I believe affected the final product.

You're saying that's "simplistic nonsense" because you believe EA wouldn't set aside 10 units for the game. They seperately gave 8 units to the SP team and 2 to the MP team... Which is apparently entirely different in your eyes!? Your logic is where I disagree...  

Your logic makes the following assumptions:

1) There are a traditional number of zots for a single player game.
2) This number of zots has a relatively fixed, "complete" amount.
3) The number of zots allocated to multiplayer is drawn from this "complete, traditional" pool
4) The number of zots does not grow in relation to the ambition of the project (this is where I take the biggest issue with your argument)

In my argument, a game that has more features demands more zots.  The publisher either allocates more zots or doesn't.  The idea that there's "ten zots and to get multiplayer we need to split the baby in half" seems... yes, simplistic.  Why not just ask for 12 zots because you think if you spend 2 more you'll make a lot more money?

Furthermore, it's not as if BioWare has never worked with publishers before (as far as I know they've never self-published) and have always worked within and through the budgetary requirements and restrictions of their publisher. 

Your logic makes the following assumptions:

1) That I think there is a traditional number of zots for a single player game.
2) That I think this number of zots has a relatively fixed, "complete" amount.
3) That I think the number of zots allocated to multiplayer is drawn from this "complete, traditional" pool.
4) That I think the number of zots does not grow in relation to the ambition of the project .

You took the factors I left out of my hypothetical situation (for ease of expression) "out of thin air" to use against my logic!? BUT still haven't countered what I've said.

What my logic WAS:

1) That there was a budgetary process at the initiation of the project that took into account ALL that was planned to go into the finished product. An initial budget was set.
2) This budget could increase or decrease given an accepted change in development circumstances.
3) Yes, I do believe the MP budget would be set from the initial budgetary process in 1, and would change according to 2.
4) EA at any time could pump more cash into the project.

What I meant by the use of the word "traditionally" WAS NOT that there was ever a standard budget for game development, used by multiple companies, since time immemorial... I meant that "traditionally" the majority of the Overall Development Budget of Bioware games would be used for the SP portion BECAUSE Bioware games have traditionally, with exception (better say that ot you'll grab it out of thin air), been SP...

My question to you is: Do you think there are initial budgets set for Bioware games that, although the size may change due to circumstance, over time, would include the  MP allotment?

[deuce985]

I have faith in the DA team. I think they're headed in the right direction. At least the first blog entry was a huge positive. It brings back two things I liked about both DA:O and DA2. Iconic looks and companion customization. That's a good compromise(depending on how it's implemented fully).

I can't wait to see what else they reveal. Hoping we get some info at E3. I felt DA2 did more right than a lot of people give credit to. DA:O was certainly a better overall game but DA2 wasn't bad either. I hope they bring the conversation icons back and experiment with tone more. Specifically a emotional tone in emotional moments.

[deuce985]

Yrkoon wrote...


Understood.  It should also be reiterated that  unless they're working on a brand new IP, Bioware has never taken more than 2 years on a game.   They're so consistant with this rule that I don't think development time is as big a factor in the quality of their games as just about everyone else here thinks it is.

Again, it took them less than 2 years to create BG2, the longest and  most amazing game they  (or anyone else) has ever made.


I simply don't have a clue what the hell happened with DA2.  My guess is that they were too ambitious with the overhauling/changing, and ended up not having  enough time to polish it to their normal Bioware levels.

DA:O took over 5 years to make...and didn't ME1 take over 3?

[Morroian]

KingJason13 wrote...

My question to you is: Do you think there are initial budgets set for Bioware games that, although the size may change due to circumstance, over time, would include the  MP allotment?

There may be that doesn't mean it takes away from the single player investment or that the single player investment would be greater if the mp component wasn't there.

Modifié par Morroian, 11 mai 2012 - 11:44 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Nah, it can't possibly generate as big a backlash as either of their previous two games, let alone combined. Although... at this point I wouldn't be too surprised if I turned out to be wrong about this, given their recent track record.

Oh well, at the very least we'll have a somewhat less interesting but still rather amusing trainwreck to watch.

[Yrkoon]

deuce985 wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...


Understood.  It should also be reiterated that  unless they're working on a brand new IP, Bioware has never taken more than 2 years on a game.   They're so consistant with this rule that I don't think development time is as big a factor in the quality of their games as just about everyone else here thinks it is.

Again, it took them less than 2 years to create BG2, the longest and  most amazing game they  (or anyone else) has ever made.


I simply don't have a clue what the hell happened with DA2.  My guess is that they were too ambitious with the overhauling/changing, and ended up not having  enough time to polish it to their normal Bioware levels.

DA:O took over 5 years to make...and didn't ME1 take over 3?

Right.  Those were new IPs, weren't they.

[hoorayforicecream]

KingJason13 wrote...

What my logic WAS:

1) That there was a budgetary process at the initiation of the project that took into account ALL that was planned to go into the finished product. An initial budget was set.

This was an incorrect assumption. ME3's MP was actually being prototyped as an entirely separate game (as evidenced in my earlier post), which was then rolled into ME3 later in the dev cycle.

2) This budget could increase or decrease given an accepted change in development circumstances.
3) Yes, I do believe the MP budget would be set from the initial budgetary process in 1, and would change according to 2.

This would be correct. However, the budgeting would take the scope of the project into account. Without MP, the publisher would simply deduct the estimated amount of zots for MP. SP would not get the zots if MP was cut, noone would.

4) EA at any time could pump more cash into the project.

Usually, the infusion of cash only happens when the publisher wants the inclusion of something beyond the initial scope of the project. The additional 3 months in this case were for the integration of the multiplayer, as well as the mobile system tie-ins. There are only a very small handful of developers who have the ability to ask their publisher for more zots (short of catastrophic results) and get it. I don't believe BioWare is one of these developers.

Having worked for both Activision and EA studios, I've observed that both publishers are actually quite hands-off with the studio as long as the project is doing well. If the project meets its schedule, stays within budget and makes its milestones, the publisher is often more than happy to let the developer do its own thing. They will occasionally mandate something (e.g. fold the MP into ME3), and that will come with a reexamination of the schedule and potential infusion of additional zots as per estimate.

However, "the game isn't good enough yet" is often not a sufficient reason to inject more zots. As the publisher, they have paid for a product. If the studio doesn't look like it will deliver on time, it is viewed as a failing on the part of the studio, and the publisher has to intervene to get the project back on track. The history of LA Noire is a prime example of this.

[KingJason13]

Morroian wrote...

KingJason13 wrote...

My question to you is: Do you think there are initial budgets set for Bioware games that, although the size may change due to circumstance, over time, would include the  MP allotment?

There may be that doesn't mean it takes away from the single player investment or that the single player investment would be greater if the mp component wasn't there.

It also doesn't mean that it doesn't...

To me, it makes more sense logically to hypothesis (since none of us were there and all any of us are doing is running a thought experiment) that if EA had alotted ME3 an initial OVERALL budget of a certain amount, that IF ONLY SP had been involved (obviously I'm not including the marketing and physical production costs) than MORE of the initial budget would have gone to SP, than if MP was coming out of the initial budget, as well. This would have allowed Bioware to further polish the game.

Don't agree? I don't care... I'm off to do some actual gaming.

[DarkDragon777]

slimgrin wrote...

To be fair, Bioware/EA has about 20 gazillion units to spend on a game. I really don't think MP affected SP in ME3, bad writing and a few misteps in game design did. And also, I've no interest in DA3, but they're using the Frostbyte 2 engine, which can provide some of the best visuals to date...maybe even enough to overcome the crappy art design.

No.

[KingJason13]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

KingJason13 wrote...

What my logic WAS:

1) That there was a budgetary process at the initiation of the project that took into account ALL that was planned to go into the finished product. An initial budget was set.

This was an incorrect assumption. ME3's MP was actually being prototyped as an entirely separate game (as evidenced in my earlier post), which was then rolled into ME3 later in the dev cycle.

Ok. So, my assumption was incorrect in the case of ME3... I'll happily defer to someone who knows more and has proven me wrong. Question: was my assumption of the norm in this situation correct?

2) This budget could increase or decrease given an accepted change in development circumstances.
3) Yes, I do believe the MP budget would be set from the initial budgetary process in 1, and would change according to 2.

This would be correct. However, the budgeting would take the scope of the project into account. Without MP, the publisher would simply deduct the estimated amount of zots for MP. SP would not get the zots if MP was cut, noone would.

I still find this hard to believe. My internal logic would dictate otherwise...

4) EA at any time could pump more cash into the project.

Usually, the infusion of cash only happens when the publisher wants the inclusion of something beyond the initial scope of the project. The additional 3 months in this case were for the integration of the multiplayer, as well as the mobile system tie-ins. There are only a very small handful of developers who have the ability to ask their publisher for more zots (short of catastrophic results) and get it. I don't believe BioWare is one of these developers.

Having worked for both Activision and EA studios, I've observed that both publishers are actually quite hands-off with the studio as long as the project is doing well. If the project meets its schedule, stays within budget and makes its milestones, the publisher is often more than happy to let the developer do its own thing. They will occasionally mandate something (e.g. fold the MP into ME3), and that will come with a reexamination of the schedule and potential infusion of additional zots as per estimate.

However, "the game isn't good enough yet" is often not a sufficient reason to inject more zots. As the publisher, they have paid for a product. If the studio doesn't look like it will deliver on time, it is viewed as a failing on the part of the studio, and the publisher has to intervene to get the project back on track. The history of LA Noire is a prime example of this.

Interesting. Nice to get an insiders point of view.

Thanks for your response...

Now, if you don't mind... The Witcher 2 is calling me...