626 réponses à ce sujet

[Renmiri1]

Hey if I was on EA'a shoes I'd love to build the next WoW too! Instead of 2-3 years in a lab to get $60 sales once you get to spend 2 years on a lab and get $60 once plus $15 per month for years ? What company doesn't want that ?

Alas it is easy to dream but harder to make. SWTOR , Aion, GW 1 and many a "wow killer" have failed in this dream. And the Facebook gaming companies have yet to make significant money.

My grandma used to say it is better to have 1 loyal fanbase on hand than 2 loyal fambase paying monthly subs on my dreams 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:00 .

[Lord_Valandil]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...
the entire MP part requires spending no money at all.

Xbox Live says hello.

Thats a Microsoft issue not Bioware. PC you do not, PS3 you do not. If you choose to pay for a service that requires payment to play any MP on any game thats your fault not Bioware's. As for online pass it is a way for Bioware and EA to make a little money which I see nothing wrong in wanting to do.

How is it my fault?
I get that it's a Microsoft issue, but if you could just ignore MP then there wouldn't be any problem. But you need the ugly thing to get the best experience on SP. Correct me if I'm wrong, nevertheless.
I'm not a fan of online passes, BTW. Like if they didn't make any money. Online Passes are just a way to milk the fans' wallets even more.

[FedericoV]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


Thats a lot of hyperbole in one post. The ME3 operations require no money to play, the entire MP part requires spending no money at all.

So, they've added it to ME because it improved the storytelling? We've seen the result. They added it to milk customers dry with microtransactions and gain a steady cashflow from a SP game exploiting the compulsive nature of many (younger) gamers. 

Some people may want to spend money on it but you do not have to do so in order to play or gain what those who spend money get. EA has clarified what they mean when said what did previously and that is social element not MP specifically. 

EA cares only about my money. And that's good and fine in principle. I want to pay money for a good gaming experience. I want good devs to be as rich as movie, sport or music stars. The thing gets dirty when they focus too much on how many ways they can use to spill money from my pocket with microtransactions, day1 DLCs, special item offer (etc. etc. etc.) and not in the satisfaction I get from the quality of the chore product. And that's unfortunately a consolidated trend since EA has come on board.

Even if DA has MP there is factually no details about how would work and if will have any impact on SP. ME3 MP had no impact on my SP experience personally and especially when fixed that mistake about number of assets required.

It affected both the storyline (the ending) and the gameplay (wich turned more in to a shooter and used a lot of MP maps/gameplay sections recycled for the SP game). Do you really believe that the number of assets was an error? C'mon that's simply ridiculous. Yep, just like "no autoattack for DA2"... how many errors dear Bioware...

The one thing you did say that was more of a right thing as far as I am concerned is keep your expectations in check whenever buy any game which is sound advice regardless.

Well, at least we got somewhere to start :happy:,

[deuce985]

Mass Effect 3's MTs is about as good as it gets. As far as mechanics go on how it's setup. They don't force it on you but players still have the opportunity for shortcuts. A player who doesn't spend a penny gets the same content as the P2W player. Is anybody seriously complaining about another player P2W against...AI? I like the formula in ME3. That's how MTs should be done. They don't need to be forced on the player. Most games I've played with MTs give massive advantages to players who pay. They basically force you to pay.

Another game with good MTs is Uncharted 3. None of their MTs is involved in gameplay. It's purely cosmetic upgrades and characters. You can buy tons of gear and characters. Nothing gives you the advantage over other players.

While ME3's MT formula has negatives, I think the positives far outweigh the negative.

1.)Opportunity is there for me to buy shortcuts if I don't want to spend 400 hours unlocking everything

2.) I don't have to spend a dime to unlock everything in MP

3.) All MP DLC is free because they make money off people who buy the packs(huge bonus for cheap players)

4.) No major advantages for players because you're playing against AI

5.) Because all DLC is free, it keeps the entire community together. No more splitting communities up with paid DLC and killing the matchmaking.

If ME3's MP was competitive, then you'd have a good argument about how the MTs shouldn't be in the game. The fact I get free DLC at the expense of other players paying for the MTs is a huge bonus for me personally. It keeps me interested in the game too. ME3 is just a prime example MTs aren't 100% the devil some make them out to be...

MTs can be negative. It just really depends on how they're implemented in the game. If you're going the competitive MP route, you need a MT formula similar to what Uncharted 3 does.

Modifié par deuce985, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:07 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...
the entire MP part requires spending no money at all.

Xbox Live says hello.

Thats a Microsoft issue not Bioware. PC you do not, PS3 you do not. If you choose to pay for a service that requires payment to play any MP on any game thats your fault not Bioware's. As for online pass it is a way for Bioware and EA to make a little money which I see nothing wrong in wanting to do.

How is it my fault?
I get that it's a Microsoft issue, but if you could just ignore MP then there wouldn't be any problem. But you need the ugly thing to get the best experience on SP. Correct me if I'm wrong, nevertheless.
I'm not a fan of online passes, BTW. Like if they didn't make any money. Online Passes are just a way to milk the fans' wallets even more.

If you hate having to pay for use of XBL, or having to fork out money to Microsoft in order to use their service to access MP on any game not just EA's then why did you buy an Xbox? You do not have to pay subscriptions on PC to play MP on ME3 for example or PS3, it's only because you chose to buy a 360 which Microsoft demands you pay them to use in order to access MP. Pretty sure EA or Bioware get ziltch of your money when you pay your subscription fee to use XBL in MP games. The only money they get is when buy DLC and such.

You are not their (EA or Bioware's) customer if bought from someone else and paid them (EA or Bioware) nothing for their product. You are a customer of the person you bought from, they have all the money and you gave none to EA or Bioware to play their game when buying used. An online pass is a one off payment (small amount) in order to use the services others paid Bioware or EA to play on which was included in price they paid for the game new. Buying used does not make you a customer of EA's or Bioware's, it just means you own a game they got no money from you for and your still in the potential future customer list where you may actually pay the creators for their product instead of some 3rd party next time (imho).

[FedericoV]

Atakuma wrote...

It was 2000 and Bioware was an indipendent company. But that Bioware is no more. BG MP was nice but I don't think that's the direction they are going if they will add that kind of feature. Why? Because there's no money to be made with that model.

The primary purpose of multiplayer in a game like this is so that EA can do an online pass. If they were only interested in microtransactions, then Dead Space would not have gone from a seperate competetive multiplayer mode to fully integrated co-op.

What's the point of an online pass? If that's to fight piracy we allready know that it's not going to work (finally Ubisoft realized it). C'mon, they stated it loud and clear why they want MP in their games. There's a ton of quotes and interview to be found of the net about micro-transactions, MP and online gaming being the way of the future. I'm not supporting a conspiracy theory: EA bosses have been pretty candid on the issue.

And probably they changed Dead Space model just beacuse it was not successfull enough in economic terms.

Modifié par FedericoV, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:14 .

[deuce985]

FedericoV wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

It was 2000 and Bioware was an indipendent company. But that Bioware is no more. BG MP was nice but I don't think that's the direction they are going if they will add that kind of feature. Why? Because there's no money to be made with that model.

The primary purpose of multiplayer in a game like this is so that EA can do an online pass. If they were only interested in microtransactions, then Dead Space would not have gone from a seperate competetive multiplayer mode to fully integrated co-op.

What's the point of an online pass? If that's to fight piracy we allready know that it's not going to work (finally Ubisoft realized it). C'mon, they stated it loud and clear why they want MP in their games. There's a ton of quotes and interview to be found of the net about micro-transactions, MP and online gaming being the way of the future. I'm not supporting a conspiracy theory: EA bosses have been pretty candid on the issue.

And probably they changed Dead Space model just beacuse it was not successfull enough in economic terms.

Online pass is there so devs/publishers can get a pie of the used game. When Gamestop sells a used game, EA/Bioware get nothing from it. I don't see why that's a problem. It's not really used against piracy, it's more about generating revenue on a resold product.

[Lord_Valandil]

Now you sound like a corporate apologist, like if I'm reading some terms of service or something like that. And I'm not saying that EA or Bio get a penny for what I'm paying for XBL (I'm not complaning about having to pay for XBL BTW, I was just saying that in this case, MP isn't free), I know they don't.
I'll just stop here.

Modifié par Lord_Valandil, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:18 .

[Dragoonlordz]

[quote]FedericoV wrote...

So, they've added it to ME because it improved the storytelling? We've seen the result. They added it to milk customers dry with microtransactions and gain a steady cashflow from a SP game exploiting the compulsive nature of many (younger) gamers. 
[/quote]

MP does not require improving the SP game. It is a bonus when it does but it does not have too in order to be something worth having. MP is for those who enjoy such, SP is for those who enjoy that. They can both exist without ruining each other when done right. Again with your hyperbole comment, it was not created to milk your wallet, you do not have to spend anything additional to play it if buy the game new. Those who do wish to pay for things help keep the servers running but that is their free will and choice to do so. Who are you to belittle those who wish to spend money on something you do not?

[quote]
EA cares only about my money. And that's good and fine in principle. I want to pay money for a good gaming experience. I want good devs to be as rich as movie, sport or music stars. The thing gets dirty when they focus too much on how many ways they can use to spill money from my pocket with microtransactions, day1 DLCs, special item offer (etc. etc. etc.) and not in the satisfaction I get from the quality of the chore product. And that's unfortunately a consolidated trend since EA has come on board.
[/quote]

Good gaming experience is subjective and relies on personal taste, what you call bad gaming experience others might call good. DLC's cost money to produce so I see no reason to whine about them costing money if a developer wishes to charge for it. Some do and some do not but neither is right or wrong. You might want the developer to gain no money from this additional content others may wish to pay for it to support the developer in creating such.

Day one DLC is double edged, there is validity to having it costing same as normal DLC but the downside is perception from customers and what if was created prior to going gold aspect in which case it could of been part of the retail game. Personally I think all content created prior to launch if ready prior to going gold it should be included on the disc.

Microtransactions actually are very popular and that is why so many MMO's are now using it. It can (imho) also be applied to the retail products in future (if go down the digital route) as format of funding even though unlikely.

[quote]
It affected both the storyline (the ending) and the gameplay (wich turned more in to a shooter and used a lot of MP maps/gameplay sections recycled for the SP game). Do you really believe that the number of assets was an error? C'mon that's simply ridiculous. Yep, just like "no autoattack for DA2"... how many errors dear Bioware...
[/quote]

You have it the wrong way around, SP maps were used in MP not MP used in SP. I also have no interest in discussion about your conspiracy theories of secret agenda's you think they have.

[/quote]

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:28 .

[Ianamus]

I don't think the reason EA is pushing for multiplayer in every game is the online pass, although I'm sure that is one advantage of it.

I think the reason is just a simple one: Games with multiplayer sell better on average than games without multiplayer. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, in fact I bet it is.

Modifié par EJ107, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:25 .

[bEVEsthda]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

You're still in denial about people hating Dragon Age 2? If you only listen to what the people on your friends list think about your game, you may not be seeing the consensus here.

This for example is a pointless post. If someone says they hate the game then nothing can be done about it, your wasting their time in posting such comments. Many people dislike parts of the game and liked other parts. Specifying what parts you like and do not and why for each is helpful and can be taken note of but saying hate entire game you accomplish nothing.

It is pointless from the natural perspective of what sort of response to expect. I concede that. It seems difficult for David to make a meaningful answer.

But otherwise I can think of many reasons why that is not a pointless post.
Even if Bioware/EA are stubbornly decided to develop and release yet another "DA2", I can still think of reasons why that post would still not be pointless. Bioware might not pay attention, may care for it, and it will not help them to make yet another "DA2" into a success this time. But that still doesn't make the post pointless from every perspective.

It's also considerably less pointless than making posts that pretend to imply that DA2 wasn't a disaster. It's also much less pointless than posting that DA3 will probably be a disaster.

My contribution would be: For a lot of people who liked DA:O and cared about the DA world and franchise, there is NOTHING to like about DA2. Zilch, nada. And that is constructive. If Bioware would insist on regarding only the small handful of people (who's posting names are so familiar to us), who liked DA2, as constructive (and I dunno, I kinda get that feeling sometimes that might be what they're doing, even though I don't believe it), well, then the market will call the judgement over them.

[Dragoonlordz]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

You're still in denial about people hating Dragon Age 2? If you only listen to what the people on your friends list think about your game, you may not be seeing the consensus here.

This for example is a pointless post. If someone says they hate the game then nothing can be done about it, your wasting their time in posting such comments. Many people dislike parts of the game and liked other parts. Specifying what parts you like and do not and why for each is helpful and can be taken note of but saying hate entire game you accomplish nothing.

It is pointless from the natural perspective of what sort of response to expect. I concede that. It seems difficult for David to make a meaningful answer.

But otherwise I can think of many reasons why that is not a pointless post.
Even if Bioware/EA are stubbornly decided to develop and release yet another "DA2", I can still think of reasons why that post would still not be pointless. Bioware might not pay attention, may care for it, and it will not help them to make yet another "DA2" into a success this time. But that still doesn't make the post pointless from every perspective.

It's also considerably less pointless than making posts that pretend to imply that DA2 wasn't a disaster. It's also much less pointless than posting that DA3 will probably be a disaster.

My contribution would be: For a lot of people who liked DA:O and cared about the DA world and franchise, there is NOTHING to like about DA2. Zilch, nada. And that is constructive. If Bioware would insist on regarding only the small handful of people (who's posting names are so familiar to us), who liked DA2, as constructive (and I dunno, I kinda get that feeling sometimes that might be what they're doing, even though I don't believe it), well, then the market will call the judgement over them.

I find is odd your trying to defend a post that cannot be used to create a better product in future by implying was not pointless...

Secondly on your last paragraph, your simply wrong and comes across sorry to say as a rather silly and asinine comment to make. I loved DAO, love the lore, the setting, the universe but even I am not so ignorant to not acknowledge even DA2 had some good parts even if I did not overall enjoy it all and every part of it. Anyone who says did not enjoy a single thing at all in the game is either lying for melodramatic purpose or never played it from start to finish. Also again I will say if provide no details on what aspects want to improve or how then goes back to being pointless.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:39 .

[Wulfram]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


You have it the wrong way around, SP maps were used in MP not MP used in SP.

No, the MP maps are clearly designed differently from those used solely for SP.  They're open maps for horde mode, not linear maps where you progress to an objective.

[David Gaider]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
You're still in denial about people hating Dragon Age 2? If you only listen to what the people on your friends list think about your game, you may not be seeing the consensus here.

I'm not in denial about not everyone liking DA2. If you're of the belief that there is consensus on that fact-- even here on the BSN-- then I'm afraid you're suffering from the same selective perception of which you're accusing me.

I certainly do agree that the people who don't like it are the loudest, but that's hardly unexpected given human nature. If one expects that we're going to listen to them and only them moving forward, however, and everyone else must be "people on our friends list LOL" then we've really not much to discuss. We're making a lot of changes and improvements which we'll discuss at length when we're ready. I'm fairly certain, however, that no matter what we do there will be people who'll feel they aren't getting the exact game they wanted. Which of course will mean we never listen to anyone. So be it, you know?

As for multiplayer-- of any kind-- in a future Dragon Age title, I'd simply suggest that those who have an opinion as to its form should feel free to offer it. When Mark and Mike et. al. are ready, they'll no doubt be talking more about that and many other things beside and asking for more specific feedback at the same time.

Until then, take care!

Modifié par David Gaider, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Wulfram wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


You have it the wrong way around, SP maps were used in MP not MP used in SP.

No, the MP maps are clearly designed differently from those used solely for SP.  They're open maps for horde mode, not linear maps where you progress to an objective.

Being some open and some being more linear does not indicate one or the other being designed MP or SP. All their games have some with wider areas and some with more narrow linear parts. This is no different in ME3. Did you forget ME2 had many larger open areas yet had no MP? 

I'll leave it there for now since got RL work to do.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:42 .

[thats1evildude]

If multiplayer involved controlling a force of ghasts, I'd be for it.

[deuce985]

I haven't seen Mike post on these forums in like, a year. Did he get tired of the forums? Or just busy? Only time I've seen him post is in a few feedback threads. I remember he used to regularly interact on the forums...

Modifié par deuce985, 06 septembre 2012 - 08:49 .

[finalcabbage]

deuce985 wrote...

I haven't seen Mike post on these forums in like, a year. Did he get tired of the forums? Or just busy? Only time I've seen him post is in a few feedback threads. I remember he used to regularly interact on the forums...

I'm surprised that any devs post on this board.  It's one thing to express dislike of a feature.  It's another matter entirely to scream and scream about how bioware has wronged the world.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Why would anyone post on the BSN forums... when there's Twitter?! The PREFERRED method of communication with the fans!

[finalcabbage]

I have a legal contract with a good buddy of mine that stipulates he take a bat to my knees the moment I start tweeting in any fashion. We also have similar arrangements concerning a number of reality television shows and fad diets. Sometimes dignity must be maintained by force.

Modifié par finalcabbage, 06 septembre 2012 - 09:02 .

[FedericoV]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

MP does not require improving the SP game. It is a bonus when it does but it does not have too in order to be something worth having. MP is for those who enjoy such, SP is for those who enjoy that. They can both exist without ruining each other when done right.

In a best case scenario, MP drags resources from the SP game. In a worse case scenario, it changes the nature of the experience and the gameplay. Point is, in pure gaming terms, there's no point to shoehorn MP to every SP game. "When done right" takes a lot for granted. Tell me, when is done right? How? I need some example. I can't get a lot and the few that comes to mind (non invasive MP like AC or RDR) is about game that have A LOT to offer in term of content. Something that Bioware is not known for lately (or any studio under the direct controll of EA for that matter).

Again with your hyperbole comment, it was not created to milk your wallet, you do not have to spend anything additional to play it if buy the game new.

Sorry, I don't want to get nasty but do you relly believe what you have written there? F2P games makes a lot of money because they are builded from the start to milk walet with microtransactions. They are not charity organizations builded to "keep the server up".

Those who do wish to pay for things help keep the servers running but that is their free will and choice to do so. Who are you to belittle those who wish to spend money on something you do not?

I'm not criticizing the persons who spend money but the people who exploits them. Because they treat players like pigeon in a skinner box.

Good gaming experience is subjective and relies on personal taste, what you call bad gaming experience others might call good. DLC's cost money to produce so I see no reason to whine about them costing money if a developer wishes to charge for it.

And you talk about hyperbole. What I'm criticizing is selling games in bits and chunks and focusing too much on the business side of thing wich is important off course but should never dominate the creative side of things and the relation of trust between fan and developer. Btw, I'm not whining: I've simply stopped to buy them or support the whole idea.

Good or bad gaming experiences are indeed subjective. That fact does not invalidate my opinion when I say that Bioware's game developed under EA are bad games because they are (forced or not) focusing too much on the business and not as much on the creative side of things, wich is what it makes them great once.

Some do and some do not but neither is right or wrong. You might want the developer to gain no money from this additional content others may wish to pay for it to support the developer in creating such.

I want the developer to make money but they have to deserve my money. There's nothing bad in the idea of DLC. But now they they are part of a business model I'm not going to support anymore.

Day one DLC is double edged, there is validity to having it costing same as normal DLC but the downside is perception from customers and what if was created prior to going gold aspect in which case it could of been part of the retail game. Personally I think all content created prior to launch if ready prior to going gold it should be included on the disc.

Agreed.

Microtransactions actually are very popular and that is why so many MMO's are now using it. It can (imho) also be applied to the retail products in future (if go down the digital route) as format of funding even though unlikely.

Even cocaine is popular, that's not making it good. That's an hyperbole .

You have it the wrong way around, SP maps were used in MP not MP used in SP.

Yep, the way those segments played (horde mode) were pure SP goodness... Btw, who said so?  

I also have no interest in discussion about your conspiracy theories of secret agenda's you think they have.

Well, that's just unfair and a little bit childish. But believe what you will. I've not the patience to find all the quotes of EA's bosses talking about the future of the business in the last 5 years. But google it and you could be surprised.

Btw, those EA bosses talks only about the business. They never talk about what's really good about gaming. Have they ever played a game in their entire life?

Modifié par FedericoV, 06 septembre 2012 - 09:09 .

[Wulfram]

Best case scenario is that hoped for income derived from MP subsidises SP.

I don't particularly believe that's likely, but it's the best case scenario

[bEVEsthda]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

It is pointless from the natural perspective of what sort of response to expect. I concede that. It seems difficult for David to make a meaningful answer.

But otherwise I can think of many reasons why that is not a pointless post.
Even if Bioware/EA are stubbornly decided to develop and release yet another "DA2", I can still think of reasons why that post would still not be pointless. Bioware might not pay attention, may care for it, and it will not help them to make yet another "DA2" into a success this time. But that still doesn't make the post pointless from every perspective.

It's also considerably less pointless than making posts that pretend to imply that DA2 wasn't a disaster. It's also much less pointless than posting that DA3 will probably be a disaster.

My contribution would be: For a lot of people who liked DA:O and cared about the DA world and franchise, there is NOTHING to like about DA2. Zilch, nada. And that is constructive. If Bioware would insist on regarding only the small handful of people (who's posting names are so familiar to us), who liked DA2, as constructive (and I dunno, I kinda get that feeling sometimes that might be what they're doing, even though I don't believe it), well, then the market will call the judgement over them.

I find is odd your trying to defend a post that cannot be used to create a better product in future by implying was not pointless...

I understand that. So much could be concluded already from your first post.

Secondly on your last paragraph, your simply wrong and comes across sorry to say as a rather silly and asinine comment to make. I loved DAO, love the lore, the setting, the universe but even I am not so ignorant to not acknowledge even DA2 had some good parts even if I did not overall enjoy it all and every part of it. Anyone who says did not enjoy a single thing at all in the game is either lying for melodramatic purpose or never played it from start to finish. Also again I will say if provide no details on what aspects want to improve or how then goes back to being pointless.

And yet I phrased it so carefully...

"For a lot of people who liked DA:O and..."  (not all)

"...cared about the DA world and franchise."    That part is important. DA2 exists in a relation to DA:O. It has taken the place of (and thus removed) a true sequel to DA:O. It has also replaced the DA:O world with childish drivel.

I also must point out that, you are trying to argue your case by making claims about my person, or any persons like me. What we must be, according to your grasp of the world. I also choose to make the statement that it seems DA2 defenders do that a lot, almost habitually.
Finally, that you reiterate your "pointless" -posture, which you already did twice, still changes nothing. I can still think of many reasons why it's not pointless. I did not, however, offer any of those reasons to you.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 06 septembre 2012 - 09:17 .

[FedericoV]

Wulfram wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


You have it the wrong way around, SP maps were used in MP not MP used in SP.

No, the MP maps are clearly designed differently from those used solely for SP.  They're open maps for horde mode, not linear maps where you progress to an objective.

Ding!

[devSin]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Being some open and some being more linear does not indicate one or the other being designed MP or SP. All their games have some with wider areas and some with more narrow linear parts. This is no different in ME3. Did you forget ME2 had many larger open areas yet had no MP?

You may not have much experience with other multiplayer games, but the fake N7 mission maps were unmistakable in their layout.

It was crystal clear that their design had one purpose only—mutliplayer arena.

Spamming horde mode in single-player with the thinnest patina of story is not very satisfying; it was a bad idea, only digestible because the likelihood is they would have simply removed that content from the single-player game entirely (there probably was never a chance of getting honest single-player maps created for the N7 missions, with the time and resource constraints they had, in addition to the multiplayer mandate).