280 réponses à ce sujet

[ianvillan]

Cyberarmy wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



The question isn't wether peopel might like MP or not.
The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

If BioWare wants a MP CGRP, then it should focus fully on that aspect.
Make a world and tools for Dungon Masters, so people can RP like crazy. A true PnP experience. Now TAHT would be something I would be interested.
Not this half measures where multiplayer is a deathmatch or some other crap like that.

Now we are daydreaming.

Same here i am of the opinion that we will never have a tool kit or any moding abiltity in Bioware games again, I belelieve Bioware thinks it takes too much money from DLC so they have decided to remove it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

Because everything costs resources. Manpower, workhours, time, money.
And it ALWAYS has to be divided among things and features. Always.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Cyberarmy wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



The question isn't wether peopel might like MP or not.
The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

If BioWare wants a MP CGRP, then it should focus fully on that aspect.
Make a world and tools for Dungon Masters, so people can RP like crazy. A true PnP experience. Now TAHT would be something I would be interested.
Not this half measures where multiplayer is a deathmatch or some other crap like that.

Now we are daydreaming.

Perhaps, but it's a dream I don't want to wake up from.

[Firky]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

I'm not who you are quoting, and I can only speak for myself. But, as eloquently as I could put it, as an "old school" BioWare fan, I feel a sense of ownership over RPGs (for the sheer volume of time/love invested) and don't understand the way money is managed/utilised these days.

[Malsumis]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

Finite resources. The SP experience is already reduced by voiced PC and 'cinematic experience'. This is just another strain on the budget.

Unless of course your stating DA3 has unlimited resources, in which case a 60 hour epic is minimum.

[Maria Caliban]

I remember when BioWare announced Dragon Age: Origins wouldn't have multiplayer and the real fans screamed bloody murder. After BG, BG 2, and NWN, multiplayer was considered an important part of the RPG experience.

This, of course, was when the average BioWare fan had actually played a pen-and-pencil game with real human beings.

Malsumis wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

Finite resources. The SP experience is already reduced by voiced PC and 'cinematic experience'. This is just another strain on the budget.

Unless of course your stating DA3 has unlimited resources, in which case a 60 hour epic is minimum.

The thing is that BioWare doesn't get to decide how much money goes into the SP campaign, EA does. They'll give them 800 zots to work with based on how much they expect a single player only RPG to make. BioWare gets that amount of zots for the SP campaign whether or not it it has MP. If they make an MP game as well, EA will give them additional funds only for MP.

Modern publishers don't hand over a pot of money and say 'Have fun.'

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 10 septembre 2012 - 10:15 .

[Firky]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I remember when BioWare announced Dragon Age: Origins wouldn't have multiplayer and the real fans screamed bloody murder. After BG, BG 2, and NWN, multiplayer was considered an important part of the RPG experience.

This, of course, was when the average BioWare fan had actually played a pen-and-pencil with real human beings.

I remember that too.

Man, I wish there were a PnP crowd when I was growing up. I've never had the opportunity to experience that community.

[Wulfram]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Because everything costs resources. Manpower, workhours, time, money.
And it ALWAYS has to be divided among things and features. Always.

But you can also make the pie higher

[Lotion Soronarr]

Maria Caliban wrote...
The thing is that BioWare doesn't get to decide how much money goes into the SP campaign, EA does. They'll give them 800 zots to work with based on how much they expect a single player only RPG to make. BioWare gets that amount of zots for the SP campaign whether or not it it has MP. If they make an MP game as well, EA will give them additional funds only for MP.

Modern publishers don't hand over a pot of money and say 'Have fun.'

You really think that's how it works. That publishers give money for each feature?

[Maria Caliban]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
The thing is that BioWare doesn't get to decide how much money goes into the SP campaign, EA does. They'll give them 800 zots to work with based on how much they expect a single player only RPG to make. BioWare gets that amount of zots for the SP campaign whether or not it it has MP. If they make an MP game as well, EA will give them additional funds only for MP.

Modern publishers don't hand over a pot of money and say 'Have fun.'

You really think that's how it works. That publishers give money for each feature?

Not for every feature, no, but for SP and MP campaigns? Yes, they have separate budgets. It's the same with voice over. If BioWare said that they were going to make an RPG with no PC voice over and few cinematics, they'd be budgeted less than an RPG with PC voice over and cinematics.

EA knows they can squeeze more money out of MP buy selling item packs. That means they're willing to give BioWare more money for an MP feature.

If there's no MP, why would EA give them that money? Remember, a publisher isn't interested in 'art,' they're interested in return of investment.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You really think that's how it works. That publishers give money for each feature?

Not for every feature, no, but for SP and MP campaigns? Yes, they have separate budgets. It's the same with voice over. If BioWare said that they were going to make an RPG with no PC voice over and few cinematics, they'd be budgeted less than an RPG with PC voice over and cinematics.

EA knows they can squeeze more money out of MP buy selling item packs. That means they're willing to give BioWare more money for an MP feature.

If there's no MP, why would EA give them that money? Remember, a publisher isn't interested in 'art,' they're interested in return of investment.

Can you back that up with some proof?

Can you also provide proof that the money going into MP would be re-distributed to other aspects?
I can understand getting a bigger budget if you want more features, but the exact distribution of the budget being pre-determined like that????

I've worked on a few smaller games, and my expreience with resources is vastly different.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 10 septembre 2012 - 10:30 .

[Plaintiff]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I remember when BioWare announced Dragon Age: Origins wouldn't have multiplayer and the real fans screamed bloody murder. After BG, BG 2, and NWN, multiplayer was considered an important part of the RPG experience.

This, of course, was when the average BioWare fan had actually played a pen-and-pencil game with real human beings.

Speaking as someone whose only experience with Bioware is the Dragon Age series, the opposition to multiplayer is something I just don't understand. Looking at Bioware's history, their classic games all had multiplayer, and the entire concept of fantasy roleplaying originated as a multiplayer experience.

I love co-op gaming; some of my fondest memories are of playing Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance and Champions of Norrath, with my mother, of all people. They were mediocre games, but having somone to play with changed everything.

I don't like online multiplayer. I want to play in the same room, with friends and family, not with complete strangers. But if the multiplayer mode doesn't appeal to me, then I don't have to play it.

[Firky]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Can you back that up with some proof?

Me too.

I'm really interested in AAA games budgets, but there is so little info available.

[ElitePinecone]

Jamie9 wrote...

In the leaked survey, a possible option was to say you wanted co-op or multiplayer.

Now, I think ME3 would've been better had the MP resources been used to improve the SP. And it just wouldn't work in Dragon Age. There is no immersion in MP and that's why I play RPGs.

Now, the survey doesn't say MP will be there, but it shows they are considering it.

If you agree, tweet to Mike Laidlaw the following:

Please Bioware #NoDA3CoopMP

Thanks for your time.

It's not like expressing concern is necessarily a bad thing, but you do realise that if Bioware was going to implement some sort of co-op multiplayer in DA3, they'd have decided on its inclusion months if not years ago. The survey doesn't show they're "considering" its development, because that sort of thing happens in pre-production and The Next Thing is quite a fair way along, by the look of things. 

Marketing surveys are by definition used to test which features of a game to market in advertising and the like - it's fair to say that if multiplayer or co-op was listed as a feature, it's going to be in the game and there isn't much to be done about it. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Cyberarmy wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...



The question isn't wether peopel might like MP or not.
The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

If BioWare wants a MP CGRP, then it should focus fully on that aspect.
Make a world and tools for Dungon Masters, so people can RP like crazy. A true PnP experience. Now TAHT would be something I would be interested.
Not this half measures where multiplayer is a deathmatch or some other crap like that.

Now we are daydreaming.

Perhaps, but it's a dream I don't want to wake up from.

As much as people like to say "NWN had multiplayer! Why is everyone complaining about it in DA3?", NWN's MP was almost exactly like what you describe above. It was easily modded and allowed people to play host server for their own sets of multiplayer matches that the creator/host could DM.

Please realize - DA3's MP won't be co-op or the beauty that was NWN's MP... it will be something that can capitalize on social networking and micro-transactions. Whatever its form - that's what EA is pushing for. 

If I am wrong, I will happily dance while smacking my own face. But watching these boards over the years, during the slow times, the pre-release times, the post-release times and then back again, you see the same trends emerging. A new feature gets leaked, like MP for ME3. The fanbase cries out "This is a terrible idea! You're going to put deathmatches into ME3 and charge us microtransactions for money!" EA/Bioware says "no, we're not. We're not even going to HAVE MP." Then, a few months later "MP ANNOUNCED! But don't worry, it will have no affect on the SP campaign." Fan rage, because they think it will (how could it not?) and it will eat resources that will make certain aspectes of the game feel rushed, especially the ending (where cut resources hurt most in games).

Game is released. It has deathmatches and microtransactions. It does affect the ending so that your main character won't even survive the game if you don't play multiplayer. The mindless faithful say "MP wasn't that bad, and it wasn't the reason the SP campaign wasn't well received - it was all you naysayers!" Then the next product is announced and the cycle begins all over.

Again... I've seen it happen with various features or gameplay elements for years. And, again, I will gladly eat my own shoe if it is not true. But I can guarantee it will be. My old signature was protesting multiplayer in DA3 back last summer, back when people thought we were stupid for even debating its possibility, because there was no reason to think it would be true. But it is, as we can see now. 

TL;DR: MP is coming for DA3 and it will affect the Single Player campaign and it will involve bleeding its players for money on impulse-buy microtransactions. And those DA2 hardcore fans who did not play the ME series will see how it feels to become disillusioned.

[Xewaka]

Baldur's Gate Multiplayer was essentially the Single player campaign with the party members assigned to each player. They already stated in a developer panel (will try to find the reference) that, IF they add multiplayer to DA3, they would take a long, hard look at how BG did it.
If they keep that angle, I see no reason for fearmongering. On the MP perspective, at least.

[ianvillan]

Xewaka wrote...

Baldur's Gate Multiplayer was essentially the Single player campaign with the party members assigned to each player. They already stated in a developer panel (will try to find the reference) that, IF they add multiplayer to DA3, they would take a long, hard look at how BG did it.
If they keep that angle, I see no reason for fearmongering. On the MP perspective, at least.

It will be a streamlined version of BG2 multiplayer, because they will not let you create a character to play like they did in BG2.

Also do you really believe that they will just let the player play through the whole game with you as a companion, I dont because how will they make there money with microtransactions.


Typing this up has just given me a bad thought, they could charge you to play as a different race in the co-op section, charge you for co-op exclusive weapons and armour.

[Merlex]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

Any time spent on multi-player costs time spent on single player, or costs more development time, which drives up development costs. I assume there is a budget. Add to one area, it has to come from another.

[Fallstar]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

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.

[Jerrybnsn]

Jamie9 wrote...


It's resources they could use to make the SP even better, and looking at ME3 and DA2, the SP DOES need more resources.

Now, I respect those who do want MP. It's their opinion. But it seems that most of Dragon Age's core audience (RPG fans), does not want MP. So don't add it.

+4

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 10 septembre 2012 - 12:51 .

[Jerrybnsn]

scyphozoa wrote...

Lots of speculation and conjecture that people are willing to repeat and believe as fact.

Good god people, don't worry about the budgets you will never see or know about, worry about whether or not you enjoyed the final product. That is your only responsibility and qualification as consumers.

It's my understanding that the enjoyment level of the last two final products is the reasoning behind this feedback.

[hoorayforicecream]

DuskWarden wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

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.

[ianvillan]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The question is that proper MP requires a lot of resources, which will take away from the SP, which is soemthing I DON'T want.

I see this perspective get mentioned a lot. Why do you think that?

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.

More like

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

[SpunkyMonkey]

What's weird is that Bioware has made so many moves to try and appeal to more "casual" games, yet it doesn't factor that most gamers 30y/o and upwards (those "casuals" with the cash to actually buy games brand new for them and their kids) were reared on Single Player experiences and enjoy them far more than MP. There's an absolutely massive market for the 30 y/o+ gamer which they seem to be neglecting.

Some of my mates won't touch MP games, even if they come with SP campaigns, as they've been bitten by the likes of Left For Dead (great reviews for a game which is dire in SP).

And Bioware's strength has always been (up until DA:2) it's storytelling - why try to change that to copy the strategy of other companies? It's like Mexico seeing that Austria makes a lot of money via ski-ing resorts and then deciding to copy that by opening some up in Mexico too.

Whatever EA execs are making the decisions they need a rocket up the jacksy fast.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 10 septembre 2012 - 01:53 .