280 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Changing the ending would mean spending lots of resources and wouldn't actually generate very many sales.

And making an actually good ending would require rewriting the game from Rannoch, which is impossible.

edit:  and charging for a decent ending would generate bad publicity too.

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 septembre 2012 - 03:49 .

[Masha Potato]

making good ending would require rewriting everything from the point where The Shepherd got magically resurrected tee bee eitch

[Rinji the Bearded]

Masha Potato wrote...

making good ending would require rewriting everything from the point where The Shepherd got magically resurrected tee bee eitch

Apparently MP was to blame for everything that happened there.  Who knew?

[Xewaka]

EntropicAngel wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
Apart from that extra ending which they released?
Anyway, like I said I'm off out, have fun

You're grasping at straws.
Bioware didn't release an extra ending. They gave clarity to the endings.
Nothing changed. The squaddies still were evacced at the run scene, just like before (although, they did drop the obvious "squaddies flee when Shep is hit" because people were once again refusing to see it).
The relays are still deactivated.
It isn't a new ending.
You have fun too.

Well, they added refusal as a new option for the end choice. That counts as an extra ending.

[addiction21]

mousestalker wrote...

Am I the only one who, when someone mentions "the other side of the ocean", thinks of Numenor?

Maybe you are. I think of waffles but most everything makes me think of waffles.


I don't want Multiplayer because I never make use of it but I really do not care if it is there.

[Xewaka]

EntropicAngel wrote...
If "even though literally everyone I've spoken to about it and even I have said for the last four years that conventional victory is impossible BUT I KNOW NOW IT WILL WORK!!11" counts...then yes.

Still beats grabbing your ankles and taking it like the Legion from the Starbrat. But let's not have this discussion here.

Regarding the original topic (to try and bring this back) The concept of multiplayer shouldn't, by itself, mean harm to the Dragon Age franchise; particularly if they do keep the idea of doing it "the Baldur's Gate way", allowing the players to play the single player campaign in co-op sharing the party control duties. However, I won't be able to judge its quality because a host of other reasons (which fall squarely in single player design decisions) are pointing that DA3 will not be a game I'll enjoy.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 septembre 2012 - 03:59 .

[Wulfram]

Did people really play Baldur's Gate multiplayer? It doesn't seem like it would be a very satisfactory experience to me - and getting together a group would be a pain considering how long those games are.

It also seems like a model with particularly high prospects for messing up the SP game, since you'll have to directly mess around with the SP to make it work. The ME model seems a lot less dangerous.

[Xewaka]

Wulfram wrote...
Did people really play Baldur's Gate multiplayer? It doesn't seem like it would be a very satisfactory experience to me - and getting together a group would be a pain considering how long those games are.

Night LAN parties were fun.
Granted, Icewind Dale was better for this purpose, because it was created with an entirely player-crafted party in mind.

[SafetyShattered]

I'm in favor of this! NO MULTIPLAYER! Though we all know EA will make them. So there's probably no point in even trying to change their minds in all honesty.

[upsettingshorts]

Shadowfang12 wrote...

I'm in favor of this! NO MULTIPLAYER! Though we all know EA will make them. So there's probably no point in even trying to change their minds in all honesty.

ITT:  People make assumptions about where the motivation to include multiplayer comes from, despite a complete lack of evidence confirming it, and ignoring evidence to the contrary (existence of multiplayer in games developed before the EA acquisition).

[Maria Caliban]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Well your entitled to your opinion. I disagree, but that's what freedom of speech is all about aint it?

Hmmm...

That's also a 'no.'

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I bet you miss CoS Sarah Jinstar.

We all miss Sarah.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 11 septembre 2012 - 05:31 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Wulfram wrote...

Did people really play Baldur's Gate multiplayer? It doesn't seem like it would be a very satisfactory experience to me - and getting together a group would be a pain considering how long those games are.

It also seems like a model with particularly high prospects for messing up the SP game, since you'll have to directly mess around with the SP to make it work. The ME model seems a lot less dangerous.

I've said several times that I played through all of BG1 with a partner. It was a lot of fun; he had 3 characters and I had 3 characters. We played side by side. The only issue was the lack of easy in-game communication, which wasn't a problem because we were sitting side by side.

All they'd have to do is make it drop-in, drop-out multiplayer. They tag along for some of the stories, maybe add an opportunity to role-play a bit as the companion character they are controlling (e.g. select a response or a bit of banter), and then they can drop on out if/when they wish and let the AI take over again.

[Quixal]

Maria Caliban wrote...
We all miss Sarah.

Maybe you should lead your target more.

[Maria Caliban]

I've always been more spray and pray.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 11 septembre 2012 - 06:28 .

[Fast Jimmy]

One thing that comes to mind as a MP idea is a totally separate, but related campaign.

You could do a co-op mode (either through network or split screen on the couch) that would let you play through quests in tangent to the overall story (whatever that may be for DA3).

Perhaps something like the Ava Wong missions from Resident Evil 4, where your actions played out in the Single Player game regardless, but through the multiplayer section, you can see how they happened or how things were set up. Successfully completing different objectives in the multiplayer (on different difficulties and with different circumstances) could make things easier or even harder in the vanilla game. But none of which would reduce or restrict content, simply make objectives easier or rewards higher in the SP game.

It could help build the lore and the story, like the Facebook DA games, but would also remain distinctly separate. And also offer a bonus to the single player game (just like the DA Facebook game, with it's bonus gear) but not affecting how things could play out in the story.

Then more MP DLC could come out as time went on, going through different scenarios and aspects. Given that there is a war going on with the Mage/Templars, there would be a nearly unlimited amount of events or DLC that could come out. As long, of course, as the campaigns offered more than just horde modes. I'm blown away that people are still playing ME3's MP this long with that one type of game type. I'd prefer dungeons/environments, puzzles, dialogue, etc. outside of mindless combat for the co-op sections, but that might be living in a fantasy world.

[Fallstar]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

Even if you have entirely separate teams for single player and multiplayer, the fact remains that the additional resources you are putting into the multiplayer could have gone into the single player. If all of those multiplayer team members were working on the single player instead, that would gives you more man hours to work on the single player.

This is fallacious thinking. A developer is not given a pile of zots to do with as they see fit carte blanche. They build a plan for a game, and then the publisher allocates zots to them based on the plan. If the plan does not include MP, then they are allocated fewer zots to begin with.

What you imagine:

Publisher: Here are 200 zots.
Developer: We will spend 125 zots on SP and 75 zots on MP

What actually happens:

Developer: We want to do SP and MP.
Publisher: We think that this will cost 125 zots for SP, and 75 zots for MP, so here is 200 zots.

Developer: We want just SP, not MP.
Publisher: Here is 125 zots, but we would prefer you to do MP as well. We will offer 75 additional zots if you choose to do MP.

For sure. But if the publisher is willing to spend 200 zots in total on the combined single and multi player experience, but only 125 on the single player, the developer could go back with a new pitch and explain that they really don't think that multiplayer is right for this franchise, but with those 75 additional zots you would have given us for multiplayer, here's a list of features we could include in this single player and this is why those features will make you more money. Unlikely to happen, but hey.

For sure it'd be near enough impossible for single player content to make the same profit as microtransaction based multiplayer content, but the fact is that the publisher is willing to spend those additional 75 zots on the game. If the single player somehow were more profitable than the multiplayer, the single player would receive those resources.

This is the problem with microtransaction based multiplayer content. It is extremely profitable. Soon increasing portions of games are going to be dlc, and the developers will be told that "We'll give you 50 zots for the single player, and 150 zots for the dlc components. If you don't do dlc, you don't get those 150 zots." It's the obvious way that profit margins can be increased in the future, and I doubt EA and similar companies would pass up such an opportunity.

[hoorayforicecream]

DuskWarden wrote...

This is the problem with microtransaction based multiplayer content. It is extremely profitable.

You say it is a problem, but I disagree. If it is extremely profitable, then there are people who like it enough to pay money for it.

Your complaint essentially boils down to "I don't like it myself, so I want them to put more into what I like". But when there are thousands of people who are saying "I like it, and I will pay more for it" with their actions, there are a lot more compelling reasons for them to push for multiplayer, isn't there? Aren't they just making the game that the players have proven they want?

Soon increasing portions of games are going to be dlc, and the
developers will be told that "We'll give you 50 zots for the single
player, and 150 zots for the dlc components. If you don't do dlc, you
don't get those 150 zots." It's the obvious way that profit margins can
be increased in the future, and I doubt EA and similar companies would
pass up such an opportunity.

You're speculating and using a slippery slope argument. Things might get worse. They might get better. They'll most likely change. Bioware's had a long history of working with multiplayer in their games, and ME3's MP is fun, well-received, and engaging. But I would rather give them the benefit of the doubt (especially after they crafted a fun MP mode for ME3, and given that they've had multiplayer in their games traditionally since the beginning) than proclaim that multiplayer will herald the end of single-player as we know it.

PS. When Bioware first announced that their upcoming games were not going to have multiplayer, the fans also complained up a storm, declaring that doom would soon follow.

[addiction21]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

PS. When Bioware first announced that their upcoming games were not going to have multiplayer, the fans also complained up a storm, declaring that doom would soon follow.

They could announce the next game would come with a sack of gold and some people would complain the sack is too heavy, they should of been allowed to pick the color, and the material hurts their hands.

Modifié par addiction21, 11 septembre 2012 - 11:01 .

[Wozearly]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

This is the problem with microtransaction based multiplayer content. It is extremely profitable.

You say it is a problem, but I disagree. If it is extremely profitable, then there are people who like it enough to pay money for it.

Your complaint essentially boils down to "I don't like it myself, so I want them to put more into what I like". But when there are thousands of people who are saying "I like it, and I will pay more for it" with their actions, there are a lot more compelling reasons for them to push for multiplayer, isn't there? Aren't they just making the game that the players have proven they want?

The banking system is extremely profitable. The alternative medicine industry is remarkably profitable. Scientology is profitable. As, indeed, is the e-mail spam industry. If you only look at the flow of cash, you could argue that its proven that we desire the practices all of these industries engage in, because we collectively keep giving them money.

I think its fair to say that not everyone is 100% happy with what those organisations do. Just looking at money and profit misses the wider social costs that aren't picked up - deception, mis-selling and profiteering are not normally considered positive business practices by consumers.

There's actually a fairly fine line between highly profitable and insanely hostile customer relations. But the perception of easy and sudden increases in profits tends to lead companies to do stupid things and mess their customers around.

However, I do understand where you're coming from.

Personally, I have no problem with a separate MP mode tacked onto a game operating on a microtransaction basis to recoup its costs, provided that doesn't interfere with the SP experience. If I'm after a decent MP experience, I prefer to go for a game that was designed with that in mind, rather than one which added it as a feature and intends to try to extract money from me on a regular basis with no upper limit and nothing but my trust in the company providing it not to attempt to profiteer.

In the spirit of honesty, I'll admit that my past experience with EA's (and its associated studios) freemium and semi-freemium models have felt like they're constantly trying to get me to give them money, and are prepared to annoy me deeply in the process if they think it'll affect my behaviour. So I'm naturally biased against Bioware's musings on introducing any form of microtransaction model into the DA series.

However, its the "provided it doesn't interfere with the SP experience" which is the rub. DuskWarden's wider points, and others raised in the thread, were about how its not necessarily as straightforward as designing a separate MP add-on. And if the game is designed to appeal primarily to MP audiences, because that's where the cash is believed to be, its somewhat naive to assume that the SP mode wouldn't suffer.

Its naturally a risk when your core fan base is not purchasing your games for their MP modes - both a real one, and purely in terms of perception. Of course, its anyone's guess as to where the grey area of SP with a bit of MP and MP with a bit of SP starts and finishes. But linking MP progress to points in the SP campaign was a low blow in ME3.

Don't get me wrong - Bioware isn't staffed with blethering idiots and if they do introduce MP into DA3 (which I hope they don't), I'm sure they'll produce something interesting and worthwhile that I probably won't bother playing and, if I do, then out of pure principle I'll spend absolutely nothing on it.

[Maria Caliban]

Wozearly wrote...

The banking system is extremely profitable. The alternative medicine industry is remarkably profitable. Scientology is profitable. As, indeed, is the e-mail spam industry. If you only look at the flow of cash, you could argue that its proven that we desire the practices all of these industries engage in, because we collectively keep giving them money.

I think its fair to say that not everyone is 100% happy with what those organisations do. Just looking at money and profit misses the wider social costs that aren't picked up - deception, mis-selling and profiteering are not normally considered positive business practices by consumers.

Then it's a good thing that microtransations are nothing like Scientology and nothing BioWare has done so far could be considered profiteering.

[hoorayforicecream]

Wozearly wrote...

I think its fair to say that not everyone is 100% happy with what those organisations do. Just looking at money and profit misses the wider social costs that aren't picked up - deception, mis-selling and profiteering are not normally considered positive business practices by consumers.

You're making some pretty speculative comments here. Regarding the microtransaction payments, none of what you say here applies at all.

1. Are they misrepresenting what you get for your money? No.
2. Are they deceiving you with what you get with your money? No.
3. Are they profiteering? Not any moreso than companies that sell collectible products, like Magic: The Gathering or baseball cards.

You're making a bad comparison here by alluding to these bad practices that have no basis in reality. The only similarity that ME3's microtransaction system has at all with the bad practices is that they make money.

I get that you dislike how ME3's MP mode was required for the best ending in the single player campaign. That's perfectly fine, and it's a point I agree on. Maybe you wouldn't have bought the game if you knew that. That's a legitimate gripe with the boxed game itself.

However, the microtransaction system has very little to do with that decision. The microtransactions are not required to play ME3 MP at all. Thousands of players continue to play ME3's MP 6 months after launch, most of which aren't paying a dime. Nowhere near this number would be playing a single player game this much 6 months after launch. Basically, the microtransaction system is about as benign as it can be. It is in no way intrusive, it is only utilized by people who like playing the game, and it has paid for lots of new content that all players can enjoy.

[Wozearly]

Now now, you two, don't quote me out of context.

My opening comments about poor business practice were not saying that micro transactions are inherently evil. It was in response to the line of argument that if it makes a lot of money and people pay, it must therefore be highly valued by customers. I simply gave some examples where I think a number of people would disagree with that logic.

Honestly, I dont trust EA as a company when it comes to micro transactions and the marketing of these, given past experience. In the interests of clarity as Bioware is part of EA, i had no problem with ME3's microtransaction model. At all. That approach is far better than the DA Journeys one. I didn't like the tying of ME3 multiplayer to the single player campaign, particularly as MP (or a paid-for app) was necessary to get the 'best' endings. That smacks of manipulation. Trying to coerce players who bought into the series for SP elements to try the MP side (and hopefully engage with the microtransactions) is not the kind of marketing that builds trust. Nor is planting a quest character into the world who only lets you know his quest is DLC when you come to accept it after talking to him (hello, Levi), or making a character perceived to be plot crucial as day 1 dlc.

Are these manipulative or deceptive practices? Up to you to decide. The point is not that micro transactions or MP are to blame in these cases (they're not), but that profit seeking is. And the rationale for moving towards a microtransaction led MP model? Quite. That's why I'm not welcoming it with open arms. Even if the MP is fun. 

Modifié par Wozearly, 12 septembre 2012 - 06:49 .

[xraytec]

LOL...After the completely POOR PERFORMANCE in the production, and design of DA2. I gaurantee if I see MP in DA3 then I will DEFINITELY say my last goodbye to both Bioware and EA. There are other companies I would be more than happy to spend my money at!