144 réponses à ce sujet

[C9316]

 This.

Followed by this once it sinks in.

With a little of this

Modifié par C9316, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:19 .

[chunkyman]

Skelter192 wrote...

Chunky I will now call you Bill.

Lol, I'm basically Bill in real life.

[AtreiyaN7]

I would just make sure that I have an empty swimming pool - so that I can collect all the tears that would likely be shed by people on the forums who would undoubtedly rage, whine, and cry about it..

[Orian Tabris]

greengoron89 wrote...

And another one gone, and another one gone...

This equals truth.

[TobiTobsen]

My reaction?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

You can call me Diego.

[Allan Schumacher]

How come people always make Call of Duty references with respect to EA decisions?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How come people always make Call of Duty references with respect to EA decisions?

(Too lazy to photoshop something with Battlefield instead)

[Naughty Bear]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How come people always make Call of Duty references with respect to EA decisions?

Because just like CoD, EA also churns out the same yearly crap. Need For Speed, Fifa and every known sports game and we are all aware or should be that EA strives to get the CoD sales. Hence why every remake or game thy produce most likely contains mindless combat in some form or shape.

Or they forgot EA does not make CoD.

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 19 octobre 2012 - 06:17 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lol, it's nothing that deliberate. Just that a quick google search for Planescape: Torment photoshops with a Mass Effect, Battlefield or EA Sports theme did not come up with anything. It did however, come up with a CoD photoshop.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 19 octobre 2012 - 06:21 .

[darthnick427]

Johnnie Walker wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...




<----

This sums it up

[Allan Schumacher]

Naughty Bear wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

How come people always make Call of Duty references with respect to EA decisions?

Because just like CoD, EA also churns out the same yearly crap. Need For Speed, Fifa and every known sports game and we are all aware or should be that EA strives to get the CoD sales. Hence why every remake or game thy produce most likely contains mindless combat in some form or shape.

Or they forgot EA does not make CoD.

I think if we're honest with ourselves, though, the only reason why we wouldn't like soemthing like this is because it's not specifically the type of game WE want to play.

It's hard to fault Activision for pressing on the Call of Duty games, since they keep breaking sales records.  At what point do people step back and go "Activision is giving their customers exactly what they want, and the customers demonstrate this buy purchasing the game?"

Yes, EA does it with their sports games in particular.  I'll never understand the big deal, though, because a game like FIFA is very, very popular and if I don't feel there's significant change I just don't buy a particular version.  The last COD I bought was the first Modern Warfare, and the last sports game I picked up was NCAA Football last year.  I skipped out on all the sports games this year because they don't interest me enough.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 octobre 2012 - 07:16 .

[Arcadian Legend]

Project Eternity is already in development so I doubt it'll be affected much, but future games? There would be many a s***storm.

[Cultist]

[Dominus]

My passion for games doesn't lie primarily in Role-Playing - I'll always be a music game nut first and foremost. You could do far worse than EA, but there are various directions they take that I'm not a fan of. There are many EA-based games I enjoyed. There's also a ton I don't care for at all.

It'd be a sad day, but I don't think I'd give up video games entirely or anything. My reaction would be likened to a song by Faith No more.

It's sad, It happened, and It's a shame.

Modifié par DominusVita, 19 octobre 2012 - 10:43 .

[NWN_baba yaga]

nightmarish thought mate!

[Wozearly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think if we're honest with ourselves, though, the only reason why we wouldn't like soemthing like this is because it's not specifically the type of game WE want to play.

It's hard to fault Activision for pressing on the Call of Duty games, since they keep breaking sales records.  At what point do people step back and go "Activision is giving their customers exactly what they want, and the customers demonstrate this buy purchasing the game?"

Yes, EA does it with their sports games in particular.  I'll never understand the big deal, though, because a game like FIFA is very, very popular and if I don't feel there's significant change I just don't buy a particular version.  The last COD I bought was the first Modern Warfare, and the last sports game I picked up was NCAA Football last year.  I skipped out on all the sports games this year because they don't interest me enough.

There's some truth in that.

I think there's also a healthy amount of caution relating exactly to your point about sales. Call of Duty is an amazing franchise from a sales perspective, and as you rightfully say, Activision has nailed what its customer base is looking for - and that's also a fairly wide customer base.

That's fine, if everyone was content to leave Activision alone with their success formula...but naturally, that's not how things work in the business environment. The industry has seen a ton of "me too" shooters appear with mixed results. There's also been a spread of navel gazing around "Well, maybe it works because its so straightforward and simple, and only requires tactical and not strategic thinking. We should make our games more like that..." Not an approach all fans agree with.

Similarly, the concept of annual releases in an established franchise is a well-known model to get repeat revenue. However, it does require a game that doesn't change much from year to year and some people get narky at being asked to pay full price for this. The other slightly insidious effect of franchising is the "set up any conclusion to be open-ended, that way we can do a sequel or add DLC". Not an approach all fans agree with.


Essentially, I think the worry is that these particular models which work well in some genres may be forced upon others if people in the big ivory tower end of decision making decide that its a great way to make more money, and that fans will definitely like it.

A bit like the mutterings from senior EA execs that "everything should have a social or multiplayer element. I'm proud not to have green lighted anything which didn't", or "I can see a day in the future where all games will use the freemium model".

Those comments don't seem to have resonated positively with all fans - again, because sometimes those are the right options and sometimes they're categorically not. And its also possible to get multiplayer, social elements and freemium pricing incredibly badly wrong even when they are the right option. Talking about anything as if its a miracle cure is always going to set rational people on edge.

The one saving grace is that every time EA get pushed on this, they do seem quick to add "Well, obviously, we wouldn't do something like that with Mass Effect" or "Bioware is a bit of a different case", which does at least suggest there are a few brain cells still functioning at the Exec Suite in the Evil Empire.

[NWN_baba yaga]

companies who force the mainstream of the game scene based purely on sales numbers will in the long run eliminate what made computer games so unique back then. It´s more like a mass production of titles that will produce high sales like coca cola as a soft drink. Good that a certain trend shows the exact opposite of their thinking...

do you know that the always "critical like" counter here on top is very very manipulative? that´s what gaming is not about sorry!

Modifié par NWN_baba yaga, 19 octobre 2012 - 11:31 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think if we're honest with ourselves, though, the only reason why we wouldn't like soemthing like this is because it's not specifically the type of game WE want to play.

It's hard to fault Activision for pressing on the Call of Duty games, since they keep breaking sales records.  At what point do people step back and go "Activision is giving their customers exactly what they want, and the customers demonstrate this buy purchasing the game?"

Yes, EA does it with their sports games in particular.  I'll never understand the big deal, though, because a game like FIFA is very, very popular and if I don't feel there's significant change I just don't buy a particular version.  The last COD I bought was the first Modern Warfare, and the last sports game I picked up was NCAA Football last year.  I skipped out on all the sports games this year because they don't interest me enough.

There is no problem with EA's shooters or sports games doing this. Sure, it seems insanely stupid to me to buy a new Madden game for the new year just because it has an updated roster with no different mechancis at all (if I want to do that, I just play Fantasy Football), but its fine for EA to do because its what sells. 

The problem is, as others have said, when EA says "Wow, these games really make money. Why can't other genres make money just as successfully?" Because, after all, if five different genres of sports games and half a dozen FPS IPs can make money by pumping out sequels, why not RPGs? Or strategy games? Or [insert favorite series/genre here]?

Which may be a paranoid fear... except that the track record of EA buy outs of developers that weren't sport sims or FPS has been noticeably dark. Studios that previously had put out commercially and critically successful IPs that, post-buyout, performed much worse than anticipated due to design changes in the series that were not well-received and rushed time tables, or companies that were bought for one IP and whose entire studios were shut down and the IP milked ad nauseum.

Examples are Origin Systems, maker of almost a dozen Ultima games which were widely well received. After the EA buyout, attempts at making the game more "actiony" in Ultima 8 and 9 made them the worst receveived games in the series, after the insanely popular and well received Ultima 7. Pandemic studios put out the popular Mercernaries and Destory All Humans! games prior to their buy out of EA in 2007, after which they were closed permanently in 2009. DICE studios were bought out in 2004 for their Battlefield 1942 IP, and were soon closed in all but name, resulting in nearly 15 Battlefield sequels, just since 2004... with no other games coming out of the studio's name. And then this has spread like wildfire recently with EA's mobile gaming acquisitions, which are numerous.

EA has a very bad name in the industry, both with other developers and with gamers. Its not 100% based in fact, but there are enough facts to make gamers rightfully cautious (if not out and out suspicion). EA has taken no steps to help itself in this regard, especially with mission statements and press releases talking about online transactions, forced social media integration and statements like those about the new Ultima MMO game, that players don't want "boring and tactical" they want "fast and actiony!" That, to me, says EA is looking at what they think makes their other games/genres successful and is saying "Okay! Gamers like THESE things, so let's put them everywhere!"

Italian restaurants may be selling really well. That doesn't mean I want Taco Bell or Dunkin Donuts to start selling pasta. A person who regularly goes to a Mexican restaurant will likely have TOTALLY diffferent tastes than someone who goes to an Italian restaurant. Someone who regularly goes to Taco Bell to get their food through a drive thru will likely have very different tastes than someone who goes to an authentic, mom-and-pop Mexican restaurant and doesn't mind waiting thirty minutes for their order.


To sum up this meandering, rambling rant, EA gets a bad rep and gets lumped in with the "Call of Duty" wave because they seem to want to turn every gaming franchise that they touch into a manufacturing operation - predictable, across-the-board uniformity that maximizes production-to-revenue margins. Which is a neccessary aspect of the gaming industry... but EA has shown time and time again that it errs much more strongly on the "making money is MORE important than the game itself" side time and time again. Which, given the repetive nature of a franchise like CoD or Battlefield, is a figurehead of EA's decision policies.

[AllThatJazz]

Sorry, nothing to add here apart from to say how great I think Fast Jimmy's post above me is. Really good read, and excellent points.

Er, also, on-topic. BIG SAD FACE if that were ever to happen. Regardless of how one feels about EA and other big-name publishers, the Independent companies are vital to the progression and, I think, the survival of the industry. They have the creative freedom to push boundaries in a way that 'play it safe to maximise profit' subsidiaries generally don't. Sadly, they often lack the resources, but with projects like Kickstarter having success, hopefully change is on its way

Modifié par AllThatJazz, 19 octobre 2012 - 12:36 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

I'd say:

"Well, I guess Bioware is shutting down"

[Fast Jimmy]

Not to hop right back in here with another rants, but... well, I think I'm going to hop back in here with another rant.


Games like sports sims or shooters have very large replay value.

Sports games are inherently fun to play (if you enjoy them, that is), so it doesn't matter if you are playing game 1, or game 100, its still roughly the same level of enjoyment. Doing something like winning the national championship tournament doesn't "end" the game... as many games give you the option of just continuing into the next season. Features like "build my player" add to this as well, where you can feel progression across playing dozens, if not hundreds, of games which can run 20-40 minutes of game time each run.

Shooters are usually known for fairly small single-player campaigns, but have large, long-running multiplayer functionalities. Recently, these have included equipment upgrades, a leveling mechanism, achievements, etc., so that the player isn't just death matching for the 100th time, but rather they are grinding towards the top of the Leader Board, or are trying to get that next unlockable.

RPGs don't have these types of draws. You can't do a turn-based or pause-and-play combat multiplayer. And combat, in general, is looked down on by many fans on these forums, who would ask for a Super Casual mode or a no-Combat mode that let's them get to what they REALLY care about - conversations and dialogue.

Which is hard for Bioware. If they can't extend their shelf life by adding in a low-resource feature like combat multiplayer, and adding content that let's you play the game nearly infinitely would cost more money than it would ever generate, how then can they compete?

The answer is simple. Its not adding Multiplayer to a DA game, or having tons of random dungeons that only offer loot, combat and no story (like what a Diablo game does). The answer is to allow the story to keep going. To have more dialogue be made, quests be generated, characters be written and stories continued at no extra cost to Bioware... keeping the players engaged, lowering the costs of "needing more content" for the next game and possibly making some money in the process.

How could such a thing happen?

Simple. Toolkits. Mods. User generated content.

If Bioware made a wildly divergent, deeply engaging 30 hour game (short by Bioware/RPG standard) that offered lots of choice, lots of good story and interaction and included a mod kit where players, at no cost to Bioware, could generate tons of content that people would then play and continue to gain interest out of the game, then the average Bioware RPG could rival a FPS' multiplayer, or a sport sim's longevity.

Instead of pushing these solutions for other genres into genres where they don't belong, why not use the methods already developed to make the gaming model more profitable? If Bioware could put out a game with a 20-30 hour single player campaign (and it would have to be EXCEPTIONALLY good 20-30 hours, with lots of replay value itself) and then included mod tools that they fully supported, I don't know why Bioware couldn't generate a game every 18 months, with new content and updates to the mod kit.

Bioware could even charge a developer's fee for the mod kit, or do a transaction counter when downloading the mod, to give the modder and Bioware a small cut. I wouldn't mind paying $1 or $2 for a good mod. And if the developer got half and Bioware got the other half, I think it would be a great way to both incentivize modders to create great content quickly, it would also help pay for the toolkit for Bioware (and add a little profit padding as well).

Is this a perfect, rainbows and sunshine solution? No. Many gamers will cry foul. But we are already calling foul about many of the design decisions made (action combat, voice protagonist, forced multiplayer in future titles, social media integration), so why not make a choice that gives gamers what they have been requesting (a toolkit) with some caveats about price and then not try and mimic what other genres have been doing in an attempt to garner a larger audience or make more money?

End rant #2.