70 réponses à ce sujet

[Jerrybnsn]

meteorswarm wrote...

If Bioware went down,EA will buy Bethesda instead,simply thing.

The first thing EA would tell Bethesda studios is "You sold over 17 million your last game, Great.  But let's go after the Call of Duty Crowd."

[Fast Jimmy]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

meteorswarm wrote...

If Bioware went down,EA will buy Bethesda instead,simply thing.

The first thing EA would tell Bethesda studios is "You sold over 17 million your last game, Great.  But let's go after the Call of Duty Crowd."

While I know this was suggested in a humorous vein, it's not even a little bit of a possibility. People think of EA as this giant, all-powerful video game conglomerate (which they are, to some extent) but their financial strength is waning and their public company worth is the worst it's been in years right now. They wouldn't be able to afford to buy out Bethesda as a developer, let alone Zenimax as a publisher, without liquidating the vast majority of their IPs... and even then, maybe not. 

[KDD-0063]

The rumors I heard was that the reason 38 studio went down was also caused by the potential KoA MMO they are making, and they aren't able to get enough funding for that.

KoAR itself should not cost that much. 3 million to break even for development cost is simply ridiculous; I don't think KoAR had many huge money sinks. I don't think they had to pay for a lot of famous VOs, it is also under-advertised, and advertising is a big money sink in game industry.

[Das Tentakel]

38 Studios’ collapse seems to be an exceptional case. There are various slightly different stories in the media, hard to tell what to believe and to assess the relative importance of the various facts without actual inside knowledge. I remember reading that there will be an FBI investigation, perhaps that will turn up a more objective analysis of what actually happened and what went wrong?

Well, regarding huge videogame budgets and the big sales numbers required to make a profit, apparently Deadspace III has to sell 5 million copies sold in order to be really profitable.
If I remember correctly that is what DA:O managed to do, but DA2 only got about halfway there. If we can believe David Gaider’s comment in another thread, DA2 was profitable.
Ergo, it probably was, indeed, a relatively cheaply made game, not on a par budgetwise with other AAA titles, but presumably with hopes of equivalent or even superior sales compared to DA:O.

If so, I think THAT was the ‘experiment’ with DA2, not its ‘unusual’ narrative structure (which is far from uncommon in other media, and hardly innovative by itself). Rather risky, and one may wonder if it will really pay off in the long run…

I think we can safely assume DA2 failed to reach sales projections with a very, very wide margin, even if it was profitable. It’s hard for us as complete outsiders to guess what consequences this will have for DA3’s budget, but if I look at it in combination with the staggeringly fast decline of SWTOR and the current situation in the market I suspect: Probably not very positive.
UNLESS EA has concluded / has been convinced that pouring additional resources into the IP, ensuring that DA3 will be an outstanding AAA game, is a worthwhile investment.

I am not a gambling man, but if I were, I would not bet on it.

Still, I would like being pleasantly surprised:innocent:

[Fast Jimmy]

Das Tentakel wrote...

38 Studios’ collapse seems to be an exceptional case. There are various slightly different stories in the media, hard to tell what to believe and to assess the relative importance of the various facts without actual inside knowledge. I remember reading that there will be an FBI investigation, perhaps that will turn up a more objective analysis of what actually happened and what went wrong?

Well, regarding huge videogame budgets and the big sales numbers required to make a profit, apparently Deadspace III has to sell 5 million copies sold in order to be really profitable.
If I remember correctly that is what DA:O managed to do, but DA2 only got about halfway there. If we can believe David Gaider’s comment in another thread, DA2 was profitable.
Ergo, it probably was, indeed, a relatively cheaply made game, not on a par budgetwise with other AAA titles, but presumably with hopes of equivalent or even superior sales compared to DA:O.

If so, I think THAT was the ‘experiment’ with DA2, not its ‘unusual’ narrative structure (which is far from uncommon in other media, and hardly innovative by itself). Rather risky, and one may wonder if it will really pay off in the long run…

I think we can safely assume DA2 failed to reach sales projections with a very, very wide margin, even if it was profitable. It’s hard for us as complete outsiders to guess what consequences this will have for DA3’s budget, but if I look at it in combination with the staggeringly fast decline of SWTOR and the current situation in the market I suspect: Probably not very positive.
UNLESS EA has concluded / has been convinced that pouring additional resources into the IP, ensuring that DA3 will be an outstanding AAA game, is a worthwhile investment.

I am not a gambling man, but if I were, I would not bet on it.

Still, I would like being pleasantly surprised:innocent:

I can understand the desire to see if a quickly made and less labor-intensive work could turn a profit, by keeping overhead expenses low and striking while the iron is hot on the DA:O wave of praise and enthusiasm.

However, the short development time shows. And the marketting attempts to further fan the flames of excitement about the DA franchise really wound up being punchlines for the entire gaming community, despite the fact that they cost tens of millions of dollars to implement. And, lastly, the quality of DA:O that may have not resulted in revenues still resulted in a huge fan following, as well as critical acclaim. That kind of credit is not easily bought.

So when DA2 came and was only able to turn a profit due to the vast number of pre-orders based off of fans of DA:O, then we can assume that credit was cashed out and wasted. 

Just like Bethesda did with TES games, Bioware should have taken the slowly increasing number of fans dedicated to the series with every installment and made sure the quality of each game was on par with what fans expect of each next iteration. Nearly no one played Arena when it first came out. Arguably, even LESS played Redguard, due to the fact that the devs changed the gameplay drastically. Morrowind was nearly a decade later coming out, and it shows in all of the detail and world building that was done in the game. Oblivion pushed the graphical nature of the series and adding full voiced NPC, while still staying true to its open world, complete-freedom philosophy. And now Skyrim, a true sequel to Oblivion that gives fans exactly what they want, but with new innovations and bells and whistles, is the best selling RPG of all time.

It seems to me that EA/Bioware is trying to make the best-selling RPG series of all time overnight. And its not done that way. People mock the Call of Duty crowd, but the reason Call of Duty sells so much is that they have refined their target gameplay with each of their (many) editions. 

Instead of paying their dues with the DA series and refining the genre they had with the first game, they want to borrow elements from other successful franchises, thinking that will in turn make them successful. 

SO... now after DA2, the DA series is almost back to square one. They have less credibility with their old, hardcore RPG fans, and the fans they picked up with the changes to DA2 are untested to see if they will stay with future sequels. They have no "trademark" mechanics to fall back on, since things are now going to be classifed as either DA:O, or DA2, not just DA. Their story options are hamshackled, as many want the bad taste of DA2's plot washed out of their mouth, but at the same time they have set up a world event around it that DA3 must address.

Instead of staying true to what they created in DA:O, they tried an experiment to cash in with a quick flip... and now they lab experiment has blown up in their face, leaving them and their fans unsure of what to do.

[KDD-0063]

Das Tentakel wrote...

38 Studios’ collapse seems to be an exceptional case. There are various slightly different stories in the media, hard to tell what to believe and to assess the relative importance of the various facts without actual inside knowledge. I remember reading that there will be an FBI investigation, perhaps that will turn up a more objective analysis of what actually happened and what went wrong?

Well, regarding huge videogame budgets and the big sales numbers required to make a profit, apparently Deadspace III has to sell 5 million copies sold in order to be really profitable.
If I remember correctly that is what DA:O managed to do, but DA2 only got about halfway there. If we can believe David Gaider’s comment in another thread, DA2 was profitable.
Ergo, it probably was, indeed, a relatively cheaply made game, not on a par budgetwise with other AAA titles, but presumably with hopes of equivalent or even superior sales compared to DA:O.

If so, I think THAT was the ‘experiment’ with DA2, not its ‘unusual’ narrative structure (which is far from uncommon in other media, and hardly innovative by itself). Rather risky, and one may wonder if it will really pay off in the long run…

I think we can safely assume DA2 failed to reach sales projections with a very, very wide margin, even if it was profitable. It’s hard for us as complete outsiders to guess what consequences this will have for DA3’s budget, but if I look at it in combination with the staggeringly fast decline of SWTOR and the current situation in the market I suspect: Probably not very positive.
UNLESS EA has concluded / has been convinced that pouring additional resources into the IP, ensuring that DA3 will be an outstanding AAA game, is a worthwhile investment.

I am not a gambling man, but if I were, I would not bet on it.

Still, I would like being pleasantly surprised:innocent:

DeadSpace 3 needs 5 million sales to be profitable is a lie. That's more likely EA's target number; or a PR pass for them to sell out, dumb down or change the theme of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Has anyone mentioned how EA has already met with the government of Rhode Island (as 38 Studios' biggest credtor, they now own the Amalur IP) about acquiring the franchise?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 21 juin 2012 - 09:46 .

[deuce985]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Has anyone mentioned how EA has already met with the government of Rhode Island (as 38 Studios' biggest credtor, they now own the Amalur IP) about acquiring the franchise?

Who would work on it then? Most of the devs from 38 Studios went to Epic...

Can't see Bioware doing it unless they established a new studio for the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't imagine Rhode Island would drive a hard bargain.

Since Reckoning was a moderate success, if nothing else it would give EA a ready-made fantasy setting for whatever sort of game they wanted to make.

[bzombo]

I think the $90 million was what was spent on the mmo, or at least the vast majority of that money was on the mmo. Reckoning was supposed to be the stepping stone into the world of Amalur. I really like KOA: Reckoning. The budget for Reckoning I think was provided by EA and it was well under $90 million. EA was also interested in a second game. No way does EA want to do a second game if the first sold 1.2 million copies with a $90 million budget.

[bzombo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Has anyone mentioned how EA has already met with the government of Rhode Island (as 38 Studios' biggest credtor, they now own the Amalur IP) about acquiring the franchise?

Not surprised. I stopped following the whole mess after a while. Curt Schilling got screwed by the governor, but Schilling mismanaged the company so much. If Schilling budgeted at all, the $1.1 million payment wouldn't have been such a problem. 

[indyracing]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

SO... now after DA2, the DA series is almost back to square one. They have less credibility with their old, hardcore RPG fans, and the fans they picked up with the changes to DA2 are untested to see if they will stay with future sequels.

This is how I feel about DA, but also about Bioware as a whole.

Their last few releases all seem to be heading to a more actiony and heavily cutscene-laden experience, and the story telling (especially in ME 3 and DA 2 act 3, but also a little bit in ME 2) isn't as enjoyable (to me) as their games prior to the recent ones.

Actiony games are fine, but other companies do them better.  The stories themselves are ok, but Bioware used to do them better.  The games feel like they are in a middle ground were they are trying to please long-time Bioware gamers, but also draw in new players who may not even care about story, and the recent games feel like what they are, something in the middle, but not quite anything in particular.

ToR is a different beast altogether, but if you've played it, you can see where they spent all the money in development (the figure that game cost has been reported to be wildly differing amounts, but none of them are small).  The money went to things like voiceovers and cutscenes, which are nice once, maybe twice, but offer almost no replayability.  The replayability part (the "MMO part") feels like it was lifted completely from 2006-era WoW and hardly tweaked, and that's why so many left.  They'd seen the cutscenes, and had already played a version of that MMO years ago, and weren't interested in doing it again (especially since WoW had undergone so many changes that ended up increasing their playerbase - showing that, at least to most gamers, the new way was "better" - and Bioware went with the old way).

[bEVEsthda]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I can't imagine Rhode Island would drive a hard bargain.

Since Reckoning was a moderate success, if nothing else it would give EA a ready-made fantasy setting for whatever sort of game they wanted to make.

I think this is sort of good. If I didn't distrust EA so much, I'd be optimistic. KoA was in itself a good game. It's just that I suspect there really isn't any great market for what KoA tried to be. Same as DA2. They chose wrong directions. I really have a hard time seeing any game franchise receive good managing from EA (if it ever happened, it must have been Sims - but from what I've heard, EA's managers were told to stay the h*ll away from Sims), but I can sort of see a TES competitor being built from the ashes of KoA. I don't think it'll happen, but it's conceivable.

[Das Tentakel]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I can't imagine Rhode Island would drive a hard bargain.

Since Reckoning was a moderate success, if nothing else it would give EA a ready-made fantasy setting for whatever sort of game they wanted to make.

I think this is sort of good. If I didn't distrust EA so much, I'd be optimistic. KoA was in itself a good game. It's just that I suspect there really isn't any great market for what KoA tried to be. Same as DA2. They chose wrong directions. I really have a hard time seeing any game franchise receive good managing from EA (if it ever happened, it must have been Sims - but from what I've heard, EA's managers were told to stay the h*ll away from Sims), but I can sort of see a TES competitor being built from the ashes of KoA. I don't think it'll happen, but it's conceivable.

I am not sure, but I think the IP is basically worthless – it did not strike me as anything special, and it has the same ‘lookin’ generic, yo!’ problem that DA has. Without lots of PR and, more importantly, a number of genuine critical/commercial successes it’s going nowhere. And after SWTOR, does anyone think EA will soon develop another MMO using the Amalur IP? Not unless the entire EA leadership has gone bat**** loco and is bent on financial suicide. Sure, EA might buy it for 5 dollars or so, but why the hell would they do that when they own far more legendary IP’s which have been sitting pretty in the EA vault for so long?

If there is going to be a positive legacy from the 38 Studios debacle, that might be in the form of the newly formed Epic Baltimore, the ‘heir’, so to speak, of Big Huge Games, which actually developed KoA.
The genuinely fun and innovative part, the combat, is something we might see in an evolved form, perhaps an action-RPG for PC and next-gen console set in the Infinity Blade universe?

[bEVEsthda]

Das Tentakel wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I can't imagine Rhode Island would drive a hard bargain.

Since Reckoning was a moderate success, if nothing else it would give EA a ready-made fantasy setting for whatever sort of game they wanted to make.

I think this is sort of good. If I didn't distrust EA so much, I'd be optimistic. KoA was in itself a good game. It's just that I suspect there really isn't any great market for what KoA tried to be. Same as DA2. They chose wrong directions. I really have a hard time seeing any game franchise receive good managing from EA (if it ever happened, it must have been Sims - but from what I've heard, EA's managers were told to stay the h*ll away from Sims), but I can sort of see a TES competitor being built from the ashes of KoA. I don't think it'll happen, but it's conceivable.

I am not sure, but I think the IP is basically worthless – it did not strike me as anything special, and it has the same ‘lookin’ generic, yo!’ problem that DA has. Without lots of PR and, more importantly, a number of genuine critical/commercial successes it’s going nowhere. And after SWTOR, does anyone think EA will soon develop another MMO using the Amalur IP? Not unless the entire EA leadership has gone bat**** loco and is bent on financial suicide. Sure, EA might buy it for 5 dollars or so, but why the hell would they do that when they own far more legendary IP’s which have been sitting pretty in the EA vault for so long?

If there is going to be a positive legacy from the 38 Studios debacle, that might be in the form of the newly formed Epic Baltimore, the ‘heir’, so to speak, of Big Huge Games, which actually developed KoA.
The genuinely fun and innovative part, the combat, is something we might see in an evolved form, perhaps an action-RPG for PC and next-gen console set in the Infinity Blade universe?

Oh, I wasn't even considering the KoA MMO. Agree, that's stone dead. ...For now.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Having name recognition for the IP might give it a leg up if they were to develop a free-to-play MMO from it. Certainly I don't think another subscription-based MMO is at all likely.

Though EVE keeps on ticking along.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 juin 2012 - 08:39 .

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Having name recognition for the IP might give it a leg up if they were to develop a free-to-play MMO from it. Certainly I don't think another subscription-based MMO is at all likely.
Though EVE keeps on ticking along.

EVE subscriptions can be paid through in-game specific items. So technically, it can be considered free-to-play.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Having name recognition for the IP might give it a leg up if they were to develop a free-to-play MMO from it. Certainly I don't think another subscription-based MMO is at all likely.
Though EVE keeps on ticking along.

EVE subscriptions can be paid through in-game specific items. So technically, it can be considered free-to-play.

That just monetises ISK.  There's still a subscription cost.

Speaking of which, I thought it was clever when CCP named their in-game currency ISK (Inter Stellar Kredits) because ISK is also the standard abbreviation for the Icelandic Krona.  They were making their country's currency a standard for virtual trade.

Now, with the collapse of the Icelandic financial system, the Icelandic Krona, as a monetary unit, has effectively ceased to exist.  EVE's ISK has outlived Iceland's ISK.  That's incredible.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 juin 2012 - 11:11 .

[fchopin]

KoA is a big game and i think cost a lot more to do than DA2.

KoA is also a good game with some of the best combat i played.

[AshenSugar]

Only skim read beyond the opening post, so apologies if I'm treading over old ground here.

But, to my mind, it's for precisely the issues espoused within the opening post that Bioware needs to take their time and concentrate hard on making DA: III a rock-solid RPG that gives the fans what they have been asking for since day 1... rather than this continued practice of trying to be all things to all people. There's a time for compromise, and a time to be firm and stick to a single vision, as most compromises end up pleasing nobody.

Trying to spread your base thinly, in attempts to make the game appeal to the broadest-possible audience.... Rush the game out as fast as possible, cut corners, simplify and streamline mechanics here and there to please the casual CoD/GoW crowd; make it faster and more actiony to please the hack and slash crowd, add a few RPG elements bolted over the top to please the traditional RPG crowd - artificially extend it with a bunch of Fed-Ex  side quests - while all the while locking out  vital parts of the game until the DLC is purchased, in order to milk the fans for all they are worth.

This might all sound great when coming from the lips of a slick EA marketing suit, but it will only serve to alienate many people and repeat most of the mistakes of DA: II, and some of the mistakes of ME: 3. Utimately that's going to result in poor sales, and serious danger for Bioware.

In other words, if you are going to be spending millions on developing a game, there's one chance, and one chance only to get it right first time. I truly hope that the lessons of DA: II have been taken to heart.

[TonberryFeye]

This turned into more of a rant than I expected, and is in response to the opening post, not the stuff that came after...


One of the issues I have with modern games is the graphics.

Yes, modern games look amazing. They always look amazing. We will always be impressed at how people can squeeze more and more from our graphics cards, or take a five, or even ten year old console and make it look brand new.

The problem is that graphics rarely actually contribute anything to the game, and as awesome as it is to be able to play a game where your character has every individual nose-hair animated independently, we don't need that for a good game.

Developers want to cut costs? Stop trying for photo-realism. Stop shoehorning online multiplayer into games that gain nothing from it. Stop trying to wow us with big name actors who cost a fortune and give the job to some perfectly capable 'unknown' actor instead.

And stop blaming us for your problems. The reason we don't buy your games new is half of them aren't worth what you ask for them. Buying used is not stealing. If the used game market is such an issue, take it up with the retailers. Demand legislation that forces them to give you a cut of all used sales! Refuse to provide limited edition sets to businesses who actively push used games! We, the customer, are doing nothing wrong in all of this - stop treating us like criminals for buying used games.

In fact, stop treating us like criminals altogether. The fact I paid you money does not give you permission to install malware on my PC, or to force me to play with an active internet connection for an offline game. If you're so damn paranoid that videogame piracy is crippling the industry, then why go out of your way to give me more reasons not to buy your games?

With Dragon Age specifically... I'm sure people have already made it clear why they feel DA2 sucked. I know I have. I am so very, very glad I did not pay full price for that garbage, because it was hardly worth what I did pay. My overriding memory of Dragon Age 2 was boredom - grinding impatiently through sidequests just to get them cleared and out the way so I could focus on the main story arc... which rarely gripped me anymore than the side quests.

I am not exagerrating when I say nothing should be carried over from DA2. Nothing. Burn that bridge right now and say "Forget DA2 ever happened - this game is a sequel to Origins both in story and gameplay."

No-one will care if we lose Hawke.