162 réponses à ce sujet

[Snypy]

Siran wrote...

Snypy wrote...

You're assuming that the business success of ME3 was mainly due to the quality of the game itself. One could argue that many people bought it because the previous two games were amazing and players naturally wanted to see the conclusion of the story. False advertising might have had some impact on the sales as well.

To sum this up, ME3 sales were mostly influenced by the quality of the other games in the trilogy. Given recent
controversy surrounding the ending, which seriously damaged BioWare's
(EA's) reputation, it is logical to presume that a new game set in the
Mass Effect universe will face many challenges when it enters the
market. In other words, many people won't blindly buy the game as was
the case with ME3

You're countering my assumptions with assumptions of your own...

I certainly didn't buy ME3 because of any alleged "false advertising" and to me ME3 is just as amazing as ME1 and ME2. I just played ME1 and ME2 in order to have a different outcome for several things in ME3 and I was reminded of the shortcomings these two had - both weren't as perfect as many claim they are.

I don't think they'd develop any more SP DLC if Leviathan wouldn't have had good sales, so someone must have bought the DLC (hell, it was great, in many regards even better than LotSB!). Just look at all the fandom that's attracted to PAX, Dragoncon and the like. That's not a sign of an unsuccessful game or a dead franchise.

BioWare managed to appease many fans with the Extended Cut, myself among them, and I wouldn't hesitate buying another ME3. You're imagining some sort of "scorched earth" that just isn't there. Why always those absolutes? "I think ME3 is garbage, so everyone else thinks so and BioWare is in big trouble..."

Perhaps you should read my message again. I neither implied that ME3 is garbage nor that I hate it. In fact, I barely stated what my personal opinion on the matter is. You failed to understand my point, so let me clarify this. I was countering your argument that "ME3 on it's own was too successful sales wise [...]", because Mass Effect 3 wasn't [so] successful purely on its own. And this is not an assumption.

What BioWare said about the (original) ending was, by definition, false advertising. I didn't, however, claim what impact, if any, the action had on the sales. The fact that you weren't affected by BioWare's deceptive statements doesn't mean that other customers mightn't have been misled into buying the game.

Furthermore, there isn't an entity called BioWare anymore. BioWare is only a label; a trademark owned by Electronic Arts. You cannot dispute the fact that EA's reputation was damaged by the controversy over the ending of ME3. The company was awarded the title "Worst Company in America" in large part due to the conclusion of the trilogy. You may want to read this article.

As for the Extended Cut DLC, it did make the ending more enjoyable to many players. There's no doubt about that. Anyway, there hasn't been an official announcement of any new DLC yet, so we don't know how successful (in terms of sales) the Leviathan DLC was.

By the way, I'm rather unsure how accurately the attendance of several hundred fans at the venues you mentioned represents the opinion of over 1.5 million people who bought ME3.

[RainbowDazed]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer.

Ban this troll ASAP!

No but seriously, I like the fact that ME3 has MP. I hope the future Bioware products will have some form of MP aswell. But I hope they still keep the SP-focus on their products. MMOs are so last decade. 

Modifié par RainbowDazed, 09 septembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[Siran]

Snypy wrote...

Perhaps you should read my message again. I neither implied that ME3 is garbage nor that I hate it. In fact, I barely stated what my personal opinion on the matter is. You failed to understand my point, so let me clarify this. I was countering your argument that "ME3 on it's own was too successful sales wise [...]", because Mass Effect 3 wasn't [so] successful purely on its own. And this is not an assumption.

And I didn't say you claimed ME3 is garbage either, so perhaps you should read my answer again? Or just stop with the passive aggressive altogether. You misunderstood me when I wrote "ME3 on it's own was very successful". I meant that ME3 made $200 Million on its own in EA's 4th Quarter results. By how much this number was influenced by ME1 & 2 we'll never know, it'd be nice to know how many people started the game "fresh" and how many imported their characters.

What BioWare said about the (original) ending was, by definition, false advertising.

BioWare / EA never said ME3 had 16 different endings, this came from the IGN ending chart. If you are referring to something else, then please elaborate.

I didn't, however, claim what impact, if any, the action had on the sales.

Then why say "False advertising might have had some impact on the sales as well." if you don't mean it? You certainly wanted to imply something here.

Furthermore, there isn't an entity called BioWare anymore. BioWare is only a label; a trademark owned by Electronic Arts.

I'm sure the studio founders and the whole Edmonton studio disagree, people who have been with BioWare for ten years and longer still work there. BioWare isn't a mere label, but the people who work their asses off to make good games.

You cannot dispute the fact that EA's reputation was damaged by the controversy over the ending of ME3. The company was awarded the title "Worst Company in America" in large part due to the conclusion of the trilogy. You may want to read this article.

You do know, that voting for this "price" started a week after ME3's release, right? The opening article doesn't even mention the ME3 ending "disaster". EA as a whole has been critizised due to it's standing on SOPA or their rather lax view of privacy regarding their Origin TOS and their DLC policy in general. So, I highly doubt the ME3 ending controversy had such a large impact. Here is another article that doesn't try to blame it on a single reason but make a rather extensive analysis.

As for the Extended Cut DLC, it did make the ending more enjoyable to many players. There's no doubt about that. Anyway, there hasn't been an official announcement of any new DLC yet, so we don't know how successful (in terms of sales) the Leviathan DLC was.

Mike Gamble pretty much announced new DLC on Twitter, SP and MP:

The teams in both YEG and YUL both working hard tonight on new content!
They do it because they're proud of their work and want the best!

By the way, I'm rather unsure how accurately the attendance of several hundred fans at the venues you mentioned represents the opinion of over 1.5 million people who bought ME3.

And I'm rather unsure of whether you know every opinion of said 1,5 Million people who bought ME3...  I for one don't know. BioWare made several surveys regarding said people's opinions for the EC, so they should know best. And BSN surely isn't the most unbiased source either.

Modifié par Siran, 09 septembre 2012 - 10:19 .

[Selene Moonsong]

99DP1982 wrote...

I am sorry, but the fact, that you have a seperate developers creating different parts of the game, does not change a fact, that the budget for the whole game is set in a one set of figures. Same goes for the sales, as you do not sell SP and MP parts seperately...

It is my understanding that MP was/is separately funded.

However, even if it came from a grand total sum for the ME 3 SP project, reallocating funds from one project within the core project to another in the same core project is not as simple as putting it back into the larger pot and reallocating it to other uses; the budget process is a thousand times more complex than that, and is tightly controlled in any company. 

[Icinix]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

99DP1982 wrote...

I am sorry, but the fact, that you have a seperate developers creating different parts of the game, does not change a fact, that the budget for the whole game is set in a one set of figures. Same goes for the sales, as you do not sell SP and MP parts seperately...

It is my understanding that MP was/is separately funded.

However, even if it came from a grand total sum for the ME 3 SP project, reallocating funds from one project within the core project to another in the same core project is not as simple as putting it back into the larger pot and reallocating it to other uses; the budget process is a thousand times more complex than that, and is tightly controlled in any company. 

Indeed.

I would love if all budgets went to single player IP - but the additional funding for MP development comes with its own set of expected returns and potential additional sales etc.

I've seen excel documents put together by auditors for these kind of things - they are insane.

[Loerwyn]

BioWare don't need to reboot, dissolve or anything so extreme.

What they need to do is work on their quality, efficiency and customer relations. Anyone who's been a member of the BSN since the start (or near enough) knows that BioWare have not been the most forward, open and honest hosts and have brought many things upon themselves.

Their games don't lack for money or sales, but what they do is fail to improve on previous iterations in any meaningful or logical way. DA2 could have been an improvement over DA:O, but with a smaller development period and some radical changes it never had the chance to live up to its potential. Mass Effect 2 was too big a diversion from Mass Effect 1, and the plot became too big for BioWare to handle through a trilogy. Too many choices, too many variables, too much retconning - it became a bit of a confused mess.

To improve their position, BioWare need to improve themselves. Better PC support, more patches (and if DLC is needed to fund these patches, then that's A-OK with me), less radical changes over a series/trilogy and a bigger focus on improvements and listening to their fans.

[BonFire5]

I redact some of my statements. As of lastnight (and a bit of this morning) I enjoy the Multiplayer a lot more. It seems that I finally had some luck and was only disconnected from the server trying to join a match. The Multiplayer also gets much more fun when you unlock a character you enjoy. Say a Turian or an N7 character.

I can safely say that I enjoy Multiplayer a bit more than Singleplayer (booyah, Space Magic teleporters!). I also find it fitting that my last match before I unlocked the Defender trophy was on a London Map.

Kind of hoping that if there is MP in Dragon Age III, that it's Gray Wardens or Dwarves taking on Darkspawn in the Deep Roads, Templars and Magisters fighting on fields and other cool locations. Maybe a form of Team Deathmatch that would have barely any connection to the story (so as not to poorly implement it).

[Doveberry]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer.

I love Bioware in a way that is just slightly short of creepy. ME3 was by far the best game I have ever played. But I would have paid twice the price I paid for it if I could have gotten a game without MP, and instead with greater focus on companion interaction and congruous endings.

I think that the fact that Mass Effect 3 has multiplayer, paired with the things that seem to deeply concern loyal fans about this game, is exactly what has made a number of people (myself included) feel that MP has gotten in the way of a truly satifying gaming experience. And hearing that this will become an issue in upcoming titles as well makes me very, very worried for the future of my favourite game developer.

[StElmo]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

As far as I know, the folks who built multi-play are a separate developer project having a separate funding source. By comparison, little work was directly needed by the ME 3 development team beyond integration within the core game functions and would have likely added very little to ME 3 if used for other than that.

BioWare has built co-op and multiplayer functionality into games in the past so it wouldn't be something entirely new for them with a steep learning curve.

Therefore, the argument that MP funding should have been used to increase resources for SP is an non-valid argument. If MP had not been added, the resources for it would have likely gone elsewhere rather than for ME 3.

And if that was the case I would still be annoyed, because ME3 absolutely deserved more funding.

Also, the fact it was packaged with the full game was an attempt to add value, value which would have quite easily been added through a longer SP dev process and more polished SP experience by putting more money into the SP.

Simple.

Actually mine is a very valid point, buddy.

Modifié par StElmo, 10 septembre 2012 - 01:15 .

[ninemarrow]

 Lol Appreciate the risk you took to post this, I agree 100% whatever you need to do it well be ready.

[Loerwyn]

StElmo wrote...
And if that was the case I would still be annoyed, because ME3 absolutely deserved more funding.

Also, the fact it was packaged with the full game was an attempt to add value, value which would have quite easily been added through a longer SP dev process and more polished SP experience by putting more money into the SP.

Simple.

Actually mine is a very valid point, buddy.

We all want ME3's SP to be better polished, have less issues and so on. All of us. But it's undeniable that the MP is actually in BioWare's favour, and when you consider that a number of the item packs are paid-for DLC, it might be the case that the MP has paid for itself or will do so.

But the MP clearly hasn't taken away from the SP aspect as it's no worse than it has been in previous games without MP - it has issues carried over from ME2, for example, and it's not likely a budget increase would actually change that. What will change that is a shift in the ethos of the development team(s).

[Impulse and Compulse]

Well, to be honest, co-op is something I absolutely love, and something I always wanted from Mass Effect ever since its beginning. But if ME3's ending is any indication, it draws resources from the Single Player, and that's just horribly unacceptable.

[XxXSarenXxX]

While i would agree DA2 was obviously hendered by EA forcing bioware to rush the game i think they kind of learned their lesson by allowing bioware to take their time on ME3, ill agree ME3 although i like it... just didnt enthrall me like ME2 did. While Bioware being part of EA isnt something im not particularly crazy about think about the alternative, almost everyone gets snatched up by EA or Activision these days and ill take EA over bobby kodak and his "make me a million dollars on your first try or your all fired" policy just saying.

[Snypy]

[quote]Siran wrote...

[quote]Snypy wrote...

Perhaps you should read my message again. I neither implied that ME3 is garbage nor that I hate it. In fact, I barely stated what my personal opinion on the matter is. You failed to understand my point, so let me clarify this. I was countering your argument that "ME3 on it's own was too successful sales wise [...]", because Mass Effect 3 wasn't [so] successful purely on its own. And this is not an assumption.[/quote]

And I didn't say you claimed ME3 is garbage either, so perhaps you should read my answer again? Or just stop with the passive aggressive altogether. You misunderstood me when I wrote "ME3 on it's own was very successful". I meant that ME3 made $200 Million on its own in EA's 4th Quarter results. By how much this number was influenced by ME1 & 2 we'll never know, it'd be nice to know how many people started the game "fresh" and how many imported their characters.

[/quote]

Although I read your answer carefully, it seems you didn't do so.

"You're imagining some sort of "scorched earth" that just isn't there. Why always those absolutes? "I think ME3 is garbage, so everyone else thinks so and BioWare is in big trouble..."" 

This pretty much implies that you think you know what my opinion on ME3 is. Anyway, it's true that EA will most likely never release concrete numbers of how many players imported their saves. I, for one, find it logical to assume that, because ME3 is the last game in the trilogy, many players bought it to see the conclusion of the journey they started years ago. The problem with video games in general is that the only way to really find out what the game is like is to buy it. However, once you buy a game, you can't return it.

[quote]
[quote]What BioWare said about the (original) ending was, by definition, false advertising.[/quote]

BioWare / EA never said ME3 had 16 different endings, this came from the IGN ending chart. If you are referring to something else, then please elaborate.
[/quote]

No, I wasn't referring to any IGN ending chart.

• “Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome”.
  
• “Along the way, your choices drive powerful outcomes, including relationships with key characters, the fate of entire civilizations, and even radically different ending scenarios.”

Source: Mass Effect.com; if I had more time, I would've looked up the statements made by Casey Hudson and Mac Walters.

You might want to read this article on the Better Business Bureau website as well.

[quote]
[quote]I didn't, however, claim what impact, if any, the action had on the sales.[/quote]

Then why say "False advertising might have had some impact on the sales as well." if you don't mean it? You certainly wanted to imply something here.
[/quote]

Yes, false advertising might have had some impact on the sales. The words might and some clearly express that it's theoretically possible that false advertising has affected the sales, although it's not very likely. And I didn't speculate on how significant the effect might have been.

[quote]
[quote]Furthermore, there isn't an entity called BioWare anymore. BioWare is only a label; a trademark owned by Electronic Arts.[/quote]

I'm sure the studio founders and the whole Edmonton studio disagree, people who have been with BioWare for ten years and longer still work there. BioWare isn't a mere label, but the people who work their asses off to make good games.
[/quote]

BioWare is a label. Dr. Ray Muzyka and Dr. Greg Zeschuk are EA executives (not BioWare executives). Specifically, Dr. Ray Muzyka is the Senior Vice President and General Manager of the BioWare Label of Electronic Arts.

[quote]
[quote]You cannot dispute the fact that EA's reputation was damaged by the controversy over the ending of ME3. The company was awarded the title "Worst Company in America" in large part due to the conclusion of the trilogy. You may want to read this article.[/quote]

You do know, that voting for this "price" started a week after ME3's release, right? The opening article doesn't even mention the ME3 ending "disaster". EA as a whole has been critizised due to it's standing on SOPA or their rather lax view of privacy regarding their Origin TOS and their DLC policy in general. So, I highly doubt the ME3 ending controversy had such a large impact. Here is another article that doesn't try to blame it on a single reason but make a rather extensive analysis.
[/quote]

"In an apparent biteback at EA's inconclusive ending to Mass Effect 3, voters at Consumerist declare that Electronic Arts is even worse than Bank of America. "

Excuse me, did you even read the article I was referring to? By the way, the final voting took place on April 2-3, i.e. roughly four weeks after the game was released.

I didn't say that the ending was the only reason why EA was awarded the Gold Poo prize.


[quote]
[quote]As for the Extended Cut DLC, it did make the ending more enjoyable to many players. There's no doubt about that. Anyway, there hasn't been an official announcement of any new DLC yet, so we don't know how successful (in terms of sales) the Leviathan DLC was.[/quote]

Mike Gamble pretty much announced new DLC on Twitter, SP and MP:

The teams in both YEG and YUL both working hard tonight on new content!
They do it because they're proud of their work and want the best!

[/quote]

I said an official announcement, not a twitter post.

[quote]
[quote]By the way, I'm rather unsure how accurately the attendance of several hundred fans at the venues you mentioned represents the opinion of over 1.5 million people who bought ME3.
[/quote]

And I'm rather unsure of whether you know every opinion of said 1,5 Million people who bought ME3...  I for one don't know. BioWare made several surveys regarding said people's opinions for the EC, so they should know best. And BSN surely isn't the most unbiased source either.
[/quote]

Again, I didn't say that I know every opinion of said 1,5 Million people who bought ME3, because I certainly don't. Many players would probably disagree with my assessment of the quality of the game. It's a pity, however, that BioWare didn't make surveys (while ME3 was in beta testing) concerning the reaction of players to the ending of the game.

Modifié par Snypy, 10 septembre 2012 - 08:44 .

[Siran]

Snypy wrote...

Although I read your answer carefully, it seems you didn't do so.

"You're imagining some sort of "scorched earth" that just isn't there. Why always those absolutes? "I think ME3 is garbage, so everyone else thinks so and BioWare is in big trouble..."" 

Which is an example for all the absolutes people state on BSN, the "I" in that sentence was merely to accomodate for the direct speech. I think I should know best, what I wanted to say or not, don't you? 

No, I wasn't referring to any IGN ending chart.

• “Experience the beginning, middle, and end of an emotional story unlike any other, where the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome”.
  
• “Along the way, your choices drive powerful outcomes, including relationships with key characters, the fate of entire civilizations, and even radically different ending scenarios.”

Source: Mass Effect.com; if I had more time, I would've looked up the statements made by Casey Hudson and Mac Walters.

You might want to read this article on the Better Business Bureau website as well.

If you want to discuss advertisements, fine - I'd say curing or sabotaging the genophage and making peace between Geth and Quarians or letting one race die instead or hell, deciding to merge all organics and synthetics or destryoing every synthetic being are pretty radically different scenarios, don't you think?

Yes, false advertising might have had some impact on the sales. The words might and some clearly express that it's theoretically possible that false advertising has affected the sales, although it's not very likely. And I didn't speculate on how significant the effect might have been.

So, you might have wanted to imply some theory of yours, now I get it!

BioWare is a label. Dr. Ray Muzyka and Dr. Greg Zeschuk are EA executives (not BioWare executives). Specifically, Dr. Ray Muzyka is the Senior Vice President and General Manager of the BioWare Label of Electronic Arts.

I'm talking about the BioWare spirit, which is still present in that same building in Edmonton. Or do you think, the people that make up BioWare have been replaced by robots with an EA sign imprinted on them? 

Excuse me, did you even read the article I was referring to? By the way, the final voting took place on April 2-3, i.e. roughly four weeks after the game was released.

I did read it, but thanks for implying I didn't. Makes your argument that much more valid. The article merely states a speculation. Or do you think they asked each and every voter why they voted? To get into the finals, EA had to "win" against such companys as Sony etc in the first rounds, so of course you have to take into consideration the rounds preceding the finale, where the ending wasn't that big an issue, as is apparent in the opening article I linked.

I didn't say that the ending was the only reason why EA was awarded the Gold Poo prize.

No, you said it was the main reason. Which I highly doubt and gave facts to support that.

I said an official announcement, not a twitter post.

I guess you can believe the DLC producer Mike Gamble,  when he says on Twitter, that his team is working on new content, which is what I tried to prove to you. Of course they can't announce that right away, it's been the same with Leviathan and many of the MP DLCs before. They wait until they have something concrete to show. But if you want to deny that new content is coming until there's an "official" announcement, be my guest.

Modifié par Siran, 10 septembre 2012 - 09:14 .

[Snypy]

 

Which is an example for all the absolutes people state on BSN, the "I" in that sentence was merely to accomodate for the direct speech. I think I should know best, what I wanted to say or not, don't you?  

You clearly used that example to convey your opinion that I'm in the group of people who think that ME3 is garbage.

If you want to discuss advertisements, fine - I'd say curing or sabotaging the genophage and making peace between Geth and Quarians or letting one race die instead or hell, deciding to merge all organics and synthetics or destryoing every synthetic being are pretty radically different scenarios, don't you think?  

What else would you like to discuss when we're talking about false advertising? The decision to broker peace between Geth and Quarians has little impact on the story. Most decisions in the game are turned into numbers which don't really affect anything. Basically, once players have at least 3100 EMS, virtually all other decisions are absolutely meaningless when it comes to the ending. BioWare slightly addressed this issue with the Extended Cut DLC, though.

“The decisions you make completely shape your experience”, there is no indecision in that statement. It is an absolute. Even you can't deny that the statement is deceptive.

So, you might have wanted to imply some theory of yours, now I get it! 

No, it's not a theory of mine. I was merely stating the fact that false advertising in general may have effect on sales. After all, that's why companies use such practices.

Siran wrote...

Snypy wrote... 
Furthermore, there isn't an entity called BioWare anymore. BioWare is only a label; a trademark owned by Electronic Arts. 

[...]

I'm sure the studio founders and the whole Edmonton studio disagree, people who have been with BioWare for ten years and longer still work there. BioWare isn't a mere label, but the people who work their asses off to make good games. 

I'm talking about the BioWare spirit, which is still present in that same building in Edmonton. Or do you think, the people that make up BioWare have been replaced by robots with an EA sign imprinted on them?  

I'm sure the founders wouldn't disagee with my assertion that BioWare is a label and this was the thing we were talking about initially. By the way, all those people at BioWare Edmonton are on EA's payroll. As for the spirit, games (DA2, ME3) released in the last few years indicate that it's slowly disappearing. The BioWare I knew wouldn't release ME3 with its original ending.

I did read it, but thanks for implying I didn't. Makes your argument that much more valid. The article merely states a speculation. Or do you think they asked each and every voter why they voted? To get into the finals, EA had to "win" against such companys as Sony etc in the first rounds, so of course you have to take into consideration the rounds preceding the finale, where the ending wasn't that big an issue, as is apparent in the opening article I linked. 

Funny thing is that the author of the article you referred to also merely specualted on what caused the dissatisfaction with EA which ultimately led to the company winning the prize. He didn't provide any hard evidence, either.

No, you said it was the main reason. Which I highly doubt and gave facts to support that.

No, I said "in large part due to the conclusion of the trilogy". The use of phrase in large part in the context means that it was an importat reason but [possibly] not the main reason.

I guess you can believe the DLC producer Mike Gamble,  when he says on Twitter, that his team is working on new content, which is what I tried to prove to you. Of course they can't announce that right away, it's been the same with Leviathan and many of the MP DLCs before. They wait until they have something concrete to show. But if you want to deny that new content is coming until there's an "official" announcement, be my guest. 

It's very likely that they're working on new DLC. However, I don't really believe everything people say on Twitter anymore, especially after several PR statements by BioWare employees turned out to be false.

Modifié par Snypy, 10 septembre 2012 - 10:24 .

[99DP1982]

Icinix wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

99DP1982 wrote...

I am sorry, but the fact, that you have a seperate developers creating different parts of the game, does not change a fact, that the budget for the whole game is set in a one set of figures. Same goes for the sales, as you do not sell SP and MP parts seperately...

It is my understanding that MP was/is separately funded.

However, even if it came from a grand total sum for the ME 3 SP project, reallocating funds from one project within the core project to another in the same core project is not as simple as putting it back into the larger pot and reallocating it to other uses; the budget process is a thousand times more complex than that, and is tightly controlled in any company. 

Indeed.

I would love if all budgets went to single player IP - but the additional funding for MP development comes with its own set of expected returns and potential additional sales etc.

I've seen excel documents put together by auditors for these kind of things - they are insane.

One basic question. How do you measure the financial result of SP part and MP part as seperate items on the sale of the game?

Do you decide that MP success is based on revenue stream solely from MP microtransactions and MP DLCs?  IMO the ME3 project had a one global budget with allocations to the SP development team and MP development team (directly product related) + there was probably a portion of the global marketing budget allocated for this particular project.

I am not sitting in the EA controlling so I have no idea how they allocate marketing campaign and other overhead expenses directly related to the production of the title, and how their budgeting process goes as far as their products are concerned. They surely measure their revenue streams, but I have no idea how they allocate production costs to those streams and then check the results against budget and target. To me it just sounds unreasonable to break down it more than to a "content" level (i.e. the game, DLCs)

[Icinix]

99DP1982 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Selene Moonsong wrote...

99DP1982 wrote...

I am sorry, but the fact, that you have a seperate developers creating different parts of the game, does not change a fact, that the budget for the whole game is set in a one set of figures. Same goes for the sales, as you do not sell SP and MP parts seperately...

It is my understanding that MP was/is separately funded.

However, even if it came from a grand total sum for the ME 3 SP project, reallocating funds from one project within the core project to another in the same core project is not as simple as putting it back into the larger pot and reallocating it to other uses; the budget process is a thousand times more complex than that, and is tightly controlled in any company. 

Indeed.

I would love if all budgets went to single player IP - but the additional funding for MP development comes with its own set of expected returns and potential additional sales etc.

I've seen excel documents put together by auditors for these kind of things - they are insane.

One basic question. How do you measure the financial result of SP part and MP part as seperate items on the sale of the game?

Do you decide that MP success is based on revenue stream solely from MP microtransactions and MP DLCs?  IMO the ME3 project had a one global budget with allocations to the SP development team and MP development team (directly product related) + there was probably a portion of the global marketing budget allocated for this particular project.

I am not sitting in the EA controlling so I have no idea how they allocate marketing campaign and other overhead expenses directly related to the production of the title, and how their budgeting process goes as far as their products are concerned. They surely measure their revenue streams, but I have no idea how they allocate production costs to those streams and then check the results against budget and target. To me it just sounds unreasonable to break down it more than to a "content" level (i.e. the game, DLCs)

Who knows? There are so many ways and views on doing it. They probably stack them up against their own projections of micros in game - which in turn are based on what other titles have earned as a percentage of total sales. They have a point they want to reach that they're happy with where income is greater than expenditure. As long as it stays above that - they keep supporting MP.

I do believe that the MP budget was outside the ME3 budget. However, its cheaper to piggy back the MP component onto ME3 than to release a whole new MP ME shooter game. They also gain the bonus of anyone purchasing ME3 BECAUSE it has MP.

The argument gets made that why didn't they just throw the budget from the MP to the single player and make an amazing single player experience - and the fact is that part of the budget probably would never have existed because it floats from a budget they allocate to growing online markets or some such. Gone are the days of singular bottom line amounts - and singular game sales figures.

A game may sell bad - but they could clean up in digital micro transactions or content packs. Especially with something like MP ME3 which was midget when it started - but the money they make off of it feeds further growth and in affect its probably paying for its own development and continuing to stick a profit for them.

Anyway - I've had a couple of drinks - I honestly think the whole process includes many analysts putting together many different projections and expectations then hoping they execute well enough to match those projections.

[Loerwyn]

I think Icinix has the right of it. I would think the MP was factored into ME3's budget from the start (or near enough as to make no difference).

But would it have made much of a difference anyway? If you think about it, the MP largely reuses assets from the SP anyway. Armour sets, models, voices (mostly), animations, enemies, maps, etc. Half of it's been around since ME2, if not ME1 in some cases. It's not like they built huge amounts of it from scratch.

[Siran]

Snypy wrote...

Which is an example for all the absolutes people state on BSN, the "I" in that sentence was merely to accomodate for the direct speech. I think I should know best, what I wanted to say or not, don't you?  

You clearly used that example to convey your opinion that I'm in the group of people who think that ME3 is garbage.

No. Only that you argued in the same absolutes.

What else would you like to discuss when we're talking about false advertising? The decision to broker peace between Geth and Quarians has little impact on the story. Most decisions in the game are turned into numbers which don't really affect anything. Basically, once players have at least 3100 EMS, virtually all other decisions are absolutely meaningless when it comes to the ending. BioWare slightly addressed this issue with the Extended Cut DLC, though.

Of course, they have impact. Sorry, but when I broker peace between Geth and Quarians, I myself think of that as a great achievement. I don't need to be reminded of it all the time. They both join the final battle, I'd say that is a major impact on the story. If you boil ME3 down to mere numbers and don't believe in the universe and its surroundings being alive, then I can't help you. ME2 must have been a pure numbers game for you, too, since that is what the Suicide Mission boils down to as well...

“The decisions you make completely shape your experience”, there is no indecision in that statement. It is an absolute. Even you can't deny that the statement is deceptive.

Wow, there is an absolute in an advertisement, now that's totally unheard of! You can't tell me that you or anyone else bought ME3 just because of that statement...

No, it's not a theory of mine. I was merely stating the fact that false advertising in general may have effect on sales. After all, that's why companies use such practices.

So, you say that ME3 had false advertisement. Then you claim, that it may have effected sales - how is that not a theory?

I'm sure the founders wouldn't disagee with my assertion that BioWare is a label and this was the thing we were talking about initially. By the way, all those people at BioWare Edmonton are on EA's payroll. As for the spirit, games (DA2, ME3) released in the last few years indicate that it's slowly disappearing. The BioWare I knew wouldn't release ME3 with its original ending.

So having EA on your payment slip instead of BioWare suddenly makes you develop "worse" games? I for one thought ME3 was just as brilliant as ME2 and ME1, better in several aspects even, a bit weaker in others. Btw, ME2 was developed under the same "label" - does this make it "worse"? So, no - I don't think BioWare's spirit is disappearing. As for DA2 I really can't say anything as I haven't played it yet.

Funny thing is that the author of the article you referred to also merely specualted on what caused the dissatisfaction with EA which ultimately led to the company winning the prize. He didn't provide any hard evidence, either.

So neither of us can say which was the main reason for EA's "winning the price". Thanks for agreeing with me

No, I said "in large part due to the conclusion of the trilogy". The use of phrase in large part in the context means that it was an importat reason but [possibly] not the main reason.

Really, you're arguing semantics now? You didn't give any other reasons, that might have been "larger" which they had to for this not being the "main" reason.

It's very likely that they're working on new DLC. However, I don't really believe everything people say on Twitter anymore, especially after several PR statements by BioWare employees turned out to be false.

I still do and have no reason not to. Sorry to hear, that you gave up on that.

Modifié par Siran, 10 septembre 2012 - 11:26 .

[voteDC]

To be fair there was one resource that the mutliplayer took away from the single player and that is disc space.

With the Xbox 360 the multiplayer section is duplicated on both discs. Could that space have been used to give less eaves-dropping quests by giving us places to actually land and explore?

Could that space have been used to offer a middle dialogue option instead of steam-rolling us into good or bad.

Perhaps the space could have been used to have proper conversations with the crew each time instead of the passive 'Zaeed' style ones that are all too often used.

Since the 360 was seemingly the primary platform for the game, we could have lost great extra content that may have been on the disc if it hadn't been for the multiplayer.

[LilyasAvalon]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

I think Icinix has the right of it. I would think the MP was factored into ME3's budget from the start (or near enough as to make no difference).

But would it have made much of a difference anyway? If you think about it, the MP largely reuses assets from the SP anyway. Armour sets, models, voices (mostly), animations, enemies, maps, etc. Half of it's been around since ME2, if not ME1 in some cases. It's not like they built huge amounts of it from scratch.

I'm not against MP if it fits in. That being said, I'm surprised ME3 wasn't given a bigger budget or a longer development time overall. (Then again, it is EA....)

I'm still having trouble imaging a game like Dragon Age being mutliplayer... then again... *Looks at SWTOR*

Modifié par LilyasAvalon, 10 septembre 2012 - 12:20 .

[Snypy]

Siran wrote...

[...]

No, I'm not going to comment on your last reply anymore. It would be meaningless.

Time will tell what happens to BioWare... I still have utmost respect for the label and the Mass Effect trilogy, but I seriously doubt that I'll find BioWare's future games very interesting. I guess that one of the last few things EA cares about is fans of existing IPs. I find the second part of this statement by EA spokesman after the company was awarded the trophy rather disturbing:

"We’re sure that British Petroleum, AIG, Philip Morris, and Halliburton are all relieved they weren’t nominated this year. We’re going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide."

Modifié par Snypy, 10 septembre 2012 - 12:28 .

[LilyasAvalon]

Snypy wrote...

Siran wrote...

[...]

No, I'm not going to comment on your last reply anymore. It would be meaningless.

Time will tell what happens to BioWare... I still have utmost respect for the label and the Mass Effect trilogy, but I seriously doubt that I'll find BioWare's future games very interesting. I guess that one of the last few things EA cares about is fans of existing IPs. I find the second part of this statement by EA spokesman after the company was awarded the trophy rather disturbing:

"We’re sure that British Petroleum, AIG, Philip Morris, and Halliburton are all relieved they weren’t nominated this year. We’re going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide."

PR would be to take it in good humour. But I'm not gonna lie, tis' almost like they're PROUd of it.

[Icinix]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

I think Icinix has the right of it. I would think the MP was factored into ME3's budget from the start (or near enough as to make no difference).

But would it have made much of a difference anyway? If you think about it, the MP largely reuses assets from the SP anyway. Armour sets, models, voices (mostly), animations, enemies, maps, etc. Half of it's been around since ME2, if not ME1 in some cases. It's not like they built huge amounts of it from scratch.

I'm not against MP if it fits in. That being said, I'm surprised ME3 wasn't given a bigger budget or a longer development time overall. (Then again, it is EA....)

I'm still having trouble imaging a game like Dragon Age being mutliplayer... then again... *Looks at SWTOR*

Yeah - EA is really pushing the year round IP mentality - they've seen the AC series, they've seen the COD series, they want that fan base market of picking up a $100 game every 12 months. So the sooner they get ME3 out - the sooner they get DA3 out - the sooner they get that out - the next IP or what not comes out. That churn rate that keeps the coffers open to income.

Bad for games, good for business.

The second thing that is super important in games / technology market is the best way to lose a fight is not to show up. Doesn't matter how the game is, as long as its out, you're getting some kind of return. Every canned game is money lost. Every released game is a return, even limited.

EA failed to execute release on a number of titles over the last few years - that would have hurt them and left them scared. Now they're over compensating.

On the MP side of things, yeah , I have no issue with it being in the game - but you cannot drop focus on your single player IP. THAT needs to be 100% otherwise the MP focus could kill your IP. Which I think is the danger EA is in right now with BioWare, who consistently pull out amazing IP, EA's greenlight on online only mentality I think will stifle new IP from developing into the levels we have seen previously.