280 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

ianvillan wrote...

So does a tool kit, it will keep people playing for just as long as MP, yet Bioware is against including one but are going to add MP. Now you could say they want to add MP to keep people playing but its more likely they want MP because it will provide micro-transactions for them.

Citation needed.

There are other issues at play with toolkits that you may not have considered. Toolkits, for example, don't work on consoles (where the bulk of sales comes from), but MP does. Toolkits have legal issues when the developer uses 3rd party middleware products as part of the content creation pipeline. MP does not.

The question is about getting the highest number of players possible to keep playing. MP does a more effective job of this than toolkits.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

So you're saying that without MP people uninstall games and forget about them? Which is why Baldurs Gate hasn't been mentioned anywhere on the net in 10 years?

I'd argue a better SP RPGs have FAR, FAR more replay value and longevity than an SP-MP crossover game.

And you're point is that of a salesman's - surely as a consumer I should be wanting what's best for my product, not EA's pocket? Just because they're may be logic behind their decisions doesn't mean they're right from my POV, and my POV counts most because I'm the one with the cash.

Sure. You've always got the option not to buy. You might replay a single game 23 times, but most people won't. As a consumer and engineer, I always want to get the most for my money. Similarly, the publishers want to get the most for their money. The statistics show that most people don't finish games, let alone replay them.

You're perfectly within your rights to demand better. I'm just pointing out the facts that you may not have considered.

[ianvillan]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Citation needed.

There are other issues at play with toolkits that you may not have considered. Toolkits, for example, don't work on consoles (where the bulk of sales comes from), but MP does. Toolkits have legal issues when the developer uses 3rd party middleware products as part of the content creation pipeline. MP does not.

The question is about getting the highest number of players possible to keep playing. MP does a more effective job of this than toolkits.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

So you're saying that without MP people uninstall games and forget about them? Which is why Baldurs Gate hasn't been mentioned anywhere on the net in 10 years?

I'd argue a better SP RPGs have FAR, FAR more replay value and longevity than an SP-MP crossover game.

And you're point is that of a salesman's - surely as a consumer I should be wanting what's best for my product, not EA's pocket? Just because they're may be logic behind their decisions doesn't mean they're right from my POV, and my POV counts most because I'm the one with the cash.

Sure. You've always got the option not to buy. You might replay a single game 23 times, but most people won't. As a consumer and engineer, I always want to get the most for my money. Similarly, the publishers want to get the most for their money. The statistics show that most people don't finish games, let alone replay them.

You're perfectly within your rights to demand better. I'm just pointing out the facts that you may not have considered.

That hasn't stopped the likes of Besthesda or CDProject red who find that MP isn't needed in there games and that a toolkit actually helps the game.

Bioware has stated how much they liked Never Winter Nights and its MP aspect, but NWN MP would be nothing without the creation kit that meant players could design new lands etc, and actually they could play the game like a PNP game.

If Bioware wants to make a great co-op MP that isn't about how to get as much money from players as they can get, but is in the game to complement the game then they should add a tool kit.

Modifié par ianvillan, 10 septembre 2012 - 03:55 .

[hoorayforicecream]

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware wants to make a great co-op MP that isn't about how to get as much money from players as they can get, but is in the game to complement the game then they should add a tool kit.

Wouldn't that take resources away from the single player game?

[ianvillan]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware wants to make a great co-op MP that isn't about how to get as much money from players as they can get, but is in the game to complement the game then they should add a tool kit.

Wouldn't that take resources away from the single player game?

No because the tool kit they can give us is the one they used to make the game, It doesn't need extra assests or gameplay systems like MP and it certainly wouldn't need a whole other studio to develop.

[Atakuma]

ianvillan wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware wants to make a great co-op MP that isn't about how to get as much money from players as they can get, but is in the game to complement the game then they should add a tool kit.

Wouldn't that take resources away from the single player game?

No because the tool kit they can give us is the one they used to make the game, It doesn't need extra assests or gameplay systems like MP and it certainly wouldn't need a whole other studio to develop.

No it isn't. The tools they work with have to be heavily modified in order to be released to the general public, which takes a lot of time and money.

[hoorayforicecream]

ianvillan wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware wants to make a great co-op MP that isn't about how to get as much money from players as they can get, but is in the game to complement the game then they should add a tool kit.

Wouldn't that take resources away from the single player game?

No because the tool kit they can give us is the one they used to make the game, It doesn't need extra assests or gameplay systems like MP and it certainly wouldn't need a whole other studio to develop.

Development occurs in very controlled environments, with rigid settings in place. Releasing a toolkit always always always requires programmer time to clean it up and make it presentable for the public. If it didn't, CDPR would have just dropped it out the door when they decided to release it. Why do you think they are waiting?

Because they need time to make it presentable. Things that crash, that only work sometimes, that have full time technical artists and programmers in the office to support development on, are not ready for prime time. If you think that giving development tools directly to the public costs nothing, you're very, very wrong.

[Dan Dillo]

I agree with the original poster. I have no interest in MP and I wouldn't want to see resources taken away from making a great SP game. Sometime focus is important.

[SpunkyMonkey]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

So does a tool kit, it will keep people playing for just as long as MP, yet Bioware is against including one but are going to add MP. Now you could say they want to add MP to keep people playing but its more likely they want MP because it will provide micro-transactions for them.

Citation needed.

There are other issues at play with toolkits that you may not have considered. Toolkits, for example, don't work on consoles (where the bulk of sales comes from), but MP does. Toolkits have legal issues when the developer uses 3rd party middleware products as part of the content creation pipeline. MP does not.

The question is about getting the highest number of players possible to keep playing. MP does a more effective job of this than toolkits.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

So you're saying that without MP people uninstall games and forget about them? Which is why Baldurs Gate hasn't been mentioned anywhere on the net in 10 years?

I'd argue a better SP RPGs have FAR, FAR more replay value and longevity than an SP-MP crossover game.

And you're point is that of a salesman's - surely as a consumer I should be wanting what's best for my product, not EA's pocket? Just because they're may be logic behind their decisions doesn't mean they're right from my POV, and my POV counts most because I'm the one with the cash.

Sure. You've always got the option not to buy. You might replay a single game 23 times, but most people won't. As a consumer and engineer, I always want to get the most for my money. Similarly, the publishers want to get the most for their money. The statistics show that most people don't finish games, let alone replay them.

You're perfectly within your rights to demand better. I'm just pointing out the facts that you may not have considered.

To be fair that's a viewpoint which does make sense and which I hadn't considered, but I look at the evidence of ME3 - MP included, Ending not included - I've yet to purchase ME3 due to this and am hanging fire until they either release an all-in bundle or Trilogy pack (however many years it may be). Discuss possible resources all you like - there is plain evidence that SP suffers with the inclusion of MP.

I've recently purchased the D&D Anothology for £30 - years after purchasing most of those games individually - I've also recently purchased the re-vamped Monkey Island and if they were to release BG/BG 2 with a DA:O engine I'd snap that up too - all based on the strength of the original game.

The same as with Appetite for Destruction - love it - had it on Vynal, then on tape, then on CD and now MP3 download - concentrate on a quality product and and the gimmicky side of things don't matter.

The stats that show most people don't finish games show one thing - that companies aren't making games good enough to hold people's interest any more. I bet 99% of those who didn't finish the games were all DA:2 players!

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 10 septembre 2012 - 04:26 .

[ianvillan]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

If Bioware wants to make a great co-op MP that isn't about how to get as much money from players as they can get, but is in the game to complement the game then they should add a tool kit.

Wouldn't that take resources away from the single player game?

No because the tool kit they can give us is the one they used to make the game, It doesn't need extra assests or gameplay systems like MP and it certainly wouldn't need a whole other studio to develop.

Development occurs in very controlled environments, with rigid settings in place. Releasing a toolkit always always always requires programmer time to clean it up and make it presentable for the public. If it didn't, CDPR would have just dropped it out the door when they decided to release it. Why do you think they are waiting?

Because they need time to make it presentable. Things that crash, that only work sometimes, that have full time technical artists and programmers in the office to support development on, are not ready for prime time. If you think that giving development tools directly to the public costs nothing, you're very, very wrong.

I never thought it would cost nothing or that it wouldn't take time just that it wouldn't take resources away from the single player game.

Would the tool kit need extra voice audio, extra levels, extra art assets, extra game systems, a whole different studio with all there time and wages, no but you say a tool kit will take resources from the single player game but MP which needs all that I mentioned wont.

[Huntress]

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?

Are the people working for multiplayer in ME3 are doing it for free?  who is paying them? bioWare? Ea?

Why if the company doesn't have enough resources to expand the game with  better ending options, more characters interactions, multiples and epic DLC but yet they have enough to pay another team to make multiplayer content than only add to one part of their gaming base? is that a good idea? I don't think so.

BUT if Bioware wants to force multiplayers then make a MMO!.. that way whatever resources you have you'll know where to send it.. right? :lol:

I think Bioware/EA servers are very very very bad, even when you log in the single players games right now it shows, how can anyone be crazy enough to ask them for multiplayers??.. Not me! heck I'll allow the game server to check I own the game once, thats it, thats all EA/Bioware need after that.. get the hell out of my computer!!!

thanks have a good day.

[hoorayforicecream]

ianvillan wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...



Development occurs in very controlled environments, with rigid settings in place. Releasing a toolkit always always always requires programmer time to clean it up and make it presentable for the public. If it didn't, CDPR would have just dropped it out the door when they decided to release it. Why do you think they are waiting?

Because they need time to make it presentable. Things that crash, that only work sometimes, that have full time technical artists and programmers in the office to support development on, are not ready for prime time. If you think that giving development tools directly to the public costs nothing, you're very, very wrong.

I never thought it would cost nothing or that it wouldn't take time just that it wouldn't take resources away from the single player game.

Would the tool kit need extra voice audio, extra levels, extra art assets, extra game systems, a whole different studio with all there time and wages, no but you say a tool kit will take resources from the single player game but MP which needs all that I mentioned wont.

I disagree. Programmer time is a resource, and an incredibly valuable one. This is why, out of all disciplines of game developer (except executive producer), programmers are paid the most. Every programmer you put on making a toolkit presentable is one less that could be working on new features or fixing bugs.

I've been in the game industry for nearly a decade now. I've shipped a lot of games, and I've worked on a lot of projects, from AAA titles to indie ones. On the current project I'm on, to make the game work, I am running no less than 3 different proprietary tools just to build and deploy data and get things up to date. None of them would work on a regular home user's machine without programmer time, because they assume many things like a networked data repository, mapped network drives, and a connection to a source control depot. These dependencies would all need to be taken out and remapped in order to make a toolkit for users.

[Atakuma]

ianvillan wrote...
I never thought it would cost nothing or that it wouldn't take time just that it wouldn't take resources away from the single player game.

Would the tool kit need extra voice audio, extra levels, extra art assets, extra game systems, a whole different studio with all there time and wages, no but you say a tool kit will take resources from the single player game but MP which needs all that I mentioned wont.

They have budgets for these things, it's not just some lump sum that gets a big chunk taken out of it in order to add multiplayer. There's nothing to say those recources used for multiplayer would even exist without it.

Modifié par Atakuma, 10 septembre 2012 - 04:50 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

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?

If EA gives Edmonton $20 to make DA3, and you guys spend $3 on programmers, artists, etc to make MP and $17 on SP...  That's still $3 you could have spent on SP models, quests, voice, etc.  If, instead, EA gives you guys $17 to make DA3 and another studio $3 to make MP...  That's still $3 that could have been given to you to make SP models, quests, cinematics, etc.  

Either way, it seems that whatever was spent on MP could have been spent on SP.  It's not so much a direct subtraction SP, as much as it is subtraction by addition.  A lot of people would rather see MP never happen so the resources get folded into the SP budget.

Myself, I enjoyed and still enjoy ME3's MP.  It's fun.  I'm interesting what DA3 will bring to the table.

[ianvillan]

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
I never thought it would cost nothing or that it wouldn't take time just that it wouldn't take resources away from the single player game.

Would the tool kit need extra voice audio, extra levels, extra art assets, extra game systems, a whole different studio with all there time and wages, no but you say a tool kit will take resources from the single player game but MP which needs all that I mentioned wont.

They have budgets for these things, it's not just some lump sum that gets a big chunk taken out of it in order to add multiplayer. There's nothing to say those recources used for multiplayer would even exist without it.

It keeps being said that extra money is given to add multiplayer but until I see proof that there is extra money what you say is just wishful thinking.

But lets say your right how is it that MP which needs all those extra resources in no way effects the single player game but a toolkit which would not need as much money or assests to be added somehow effects the singleplayer game. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
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.

rule no1:
THERE IS NEVER ENOUGH ZOTS.

So even if you get 200 Zots, at the end of the day you still have to decide how to divide them and where to invest them.
The publisher won't give you 200 zots and tell you that you MUST spend X on feature Y. They will tell you that feature Y has to be done. Thats' it.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
I never thought it would cost nothing or that it wouldn't take time just that it wouldn't take resources away from the single player game.

Would the tool kit need extra voice audio, extra levels, extra art assets, extra game systems, a whole different studio with all there time and wages, no but you say a tool kit will take resources from the single player game but MP which needs all that I mentioned wont.

They have budgets for these things, it's not just some lump sum that gets a big chunk taken out of it in order to add multiplayer. There's nothing to say those recources used for multiplayer would even exist without it.

Apart from ME3 - unless you need an official statement to confirm that a game totally based around player choice had no difference in the ending, apart from the colour of an explosion, because it had to skimp back on ending production costs to include MP.

What I find most baffling is that EA/Bioware seem to want to mop up the "casual" gamers such as myself - well they aren't going to that with MP because for us games are a break from friends and other people, not a reason to engage with them.

[Atakuma]

ianvillan wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
I never thought it would cost nothing or that it wouldn't take time just that it wouldn't take resources away from the single player game.

Would the tool kit need extra voice audio, extra levels, extra art assets, extra game systems, a whole different studio with all there time and wages, no but you say a tool kit will take resources from the single player game but MP which needs all that I mentioned wont.

They have budgets for these things, it's not just some lump sum that gets a big chunk taken out of it in order to add multiplayer. There's nothing to say those recources used for multiplayer would even exist without it.

It keeps being said that extra money is given to add multiplayer but until I see proof that there is extra money what you say is just wishful thinking.

But lets say your right how is it that MP which needs all those extra resources in no way effects the single player game but a toolkit which would not need as much money or assests to be added somehow effects the singleplayer game. 

There is no proof that money is being taken away from the singleplayer either. We don't know anything, so saying anything is definitive one way or the other is silly. I personally haven't encountered a game that has hurt in any way by the indroduction of a multiplayer component.

[Atakuma]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
I never thought it would cost nothing or that it wouldn't take time just that it wouldn't take resources away from the single player game.

Would the tool kit need extra voice audio, extra levels, extra art assets, extra game systems, a whole different studio with all there time and wages, no but you say a tool kit will take resources from the single player game but MP which needs all that I mentioned wont.

They have budgets for these things, it's not just some lump sum that gets a big chunk taken out of it in order to add multiplayer. There's nothing to say those recources used for multiplayer would even exist without it.

Apart from ME3 - unless you need an official statement to confirm that a game totally based around player choice had no difference in the ending, apart from the colour of an explosion, because it had to skimp back on ending production costs to include MP.

What I find most baffling is that EA/Bioware seem to want to mop up the "casual" gamers such as myself - well they aren't going to that with MP because for us games are a break from friends and other people, not a reason to engage with them.

The ending is the way it is because they had a very restrictive deadline.

[SpunkyMonkey]

Atakuma wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
I never thought it would cost nothing or that it wouldn't take time just that it wouldn't take resources away from the single player game.

Would the tool kit need extra voice audio, extra levels, extra art assets, extra game systems, a whole different studio with all there time and wages, no but you say a tool kit will take resources from the single player game but MP which needs all that I mentioned wont.

They have budgets for these things, it's not just some lump sum that gets a big chunk taken out of it in order to add multiplayer. There's nothing to say those recources used for multiplayer would even exist without it.

Apart from ME3 - unless you need an official statement to confirm that a game totally based around player choice had no difference in the ending, apart from the colour of an explosion, because it had to skimp back on ending production costs to include MP.

What I find most baffling is that EA/Bioware seem to want to mop up the "casual" gamers such as myself - well they aren't going to that with MP because for us games are a break from friends and other people, not a reason to engage with them.

The ending is the way it is because they had a very restrictive deadline.

So you put more staff hours into meeting that deadline - staff hours which were taken up elsewhere developing MP.

That's the whole point - EA/Bioware focused their resources on trying to develop an additional part of the game instead of finishing off the main core of it properly.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 10 septembre 2012 - 05:38 .

[Master Shiori]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...



So you put more staff hours into meeting that deadline - staff hours which were taken up elsewhere developing MP.

That's the whole point - EA/Bioware focused their resources on trying to develop an additional part of the game instead of finishing off the main core of it properly.

Proof please?

Unless you can link me a post by the devs where they openly admit that the endings suffered due to the developement of MP, I'd say this is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

We have no idea what the ME3 development looked like or what effect, if any, creating MP had on it. There could be any number of reasons as to why the dev team was in a hurry to meet the deadline, provided that they actually were having trouble meeting the deadline to begin with.

[Darkin30]

I don't want multiplayer in Dragon Age, so I visited here.

[bEVEsthda]

I don't want MP.

If MP is added, it should be of a minimalistic variety, that basically is only good for exploiting, so one can create multiple custom characters for the party, in the SP game.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 10 septembre 2012 - 07:08 .