144 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfspawn]

I would be indifferent until EA REALIZED they had bought Obsidian.
Like how EA did with Bioware.

Modifié par bob_20000, 20 octobre 2012 - 11:03 .

[nightscrawl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

All of your EA stuff was very interesting.

However, I do not agree with the toolkit for the DA franchise. Rather, I do agree that it would extend the life of the game for a long time, like Neverwinter Nights, but I don't have any interest whatsoever in user generated content for Dragon Age.

I downloaded a lot of content for NWN. Several campaigns worth of content from authors I looked to time and again because it was quality work and very enoyable. That said, Neverwinter Nights, being set in the Forgotten Realms, was very open. Module creators could do anything they wanted and there was really no lore that would be affected. This is not the case with Dragon Age, an IP that Bioware developed. I have no interest in playing through any stories in Thedas that are written by someone who is not Bioware. In my eyes it's the same as fanfic: not a legitimate part of the universe, therefore pointless to play.

[FieryDove]

MushroomMagic wrote...


That's all fine and dandy but you left out one very important factor, that console gamers usually buy their games.  You know, actually buy them using money that they earned, crazy idea huh?  It's kind of hard to believe but this is actually a business we're talking about here and console games tend to sell better than PC games.  That says something to an industry that desires to make money off the games they make.
It's crazy how PC gamers demand the industry do things THEIR way yet they're the most diehard defenders of piracy holding it in such high regard you'd think they were talking about the civil rights movement of the 21st century.  Piracy is a borderline religion to them.

A huge amount of revenue from the likes of gamestops is used console games and used movies. The publishers and developers don't see a dime on used sales. Not the same as piracy but talk to any big publisher and they want used games to die...yesterday. Console titles also get pirated all the time before release even.

I don't support piracy. There is NO excuse for it. People deserve to be paid for the work. If one can't afford it...then one should find other entertainment that is not costly.

[Fast Jimmy]

Nightscrawl wrote...

That's a fair enough opinion, but there were a LARGE number of DA:O mods created and distributed. Some of them were story based, some were cosmetic, some were just the ability to skip things (like the 'Skip the Fade/Deep Roads' mods). I have never seen a comparison of the number of NWN mod downloads vs. DA, though.

And, to be honest, given the complete LACK of canon introduced in DA:O's DLC (looking at Return to Ostagar, Leliana's Song, Darkspawn Chronciles, Witch Hunt and Golems of Amgarrak), I'd say the official DLC are already knocking at the door of fanfic.

That being said, if there was a way to go from mods being a work of love for fans to a way to generate real money using the toolkit, I think you'd see an increase in the quality and even competition in the mods that came out. Heck, some of them may even be succesful/good enough for Bioware to re-finish and re-release them with professional voice work and polish? I don't know, I'm just spitballing ideas and possible outcomes.

Point being - I'd rather Bioware experiment with this type of feature than to incorporate a horde/death match feature, or a co-op feature that doesn't really bring a lot to the table, other than to just have multiplayer for the same of multiplayer.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 octobre 2012 - 01:44 .

[legion999]

Snake91 wrote...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Beat you to it, brah.

[MushroomMagic]

FieryDove wrote...

MushroomMagic wrote...


That's all fine and dandy but you left out one very important factor, that console gamers usually buy their games.  You know, actually buy them using money that they earned, crazy idea huh?  It's kind of hard to believe but this is actually a business we're talking about here and console games tend to sell better than PC games.  That says something to an industry that desires to make money off the games they make.
It's crazy how PC gamers demand the industry do things THEIR way yet they're the most diehard defenders of piracy holding it in such high regard you'd think they were talking about the civil rights movement of the 21st century.  Piracy is a borderline religion to them.

A huge amount of revenue from the likes of gamestops is used console games and used movies. The publishers and developers don't see a dime on used sales. Not the same as piracy but talk to any big publisher and they want used games to die...yesterday. Console titles also get pirated all the time before release even.

I don't support piracy. There is NO excuse for it. People deserve to be paid for the work. If one can't afford it...then one should find other entertainment that is not costly.

Console titles do get pirated but at least most console gamers condemn such practices.  PC gamers hold piracy up as a virtuous act fighting against the fascist tyranny of the evil DRM oppressors.  They think they're Robin Hoods dancing around in their Guy Fawkes masks, totally smug.
As for used games.  At least used games help keep retail stores like Gamestop in business and retail chains sell new games as well so if it weren't for used game sales then there would be fewer venues for people to buy new games.  Plus used games can be traded in to buy new games.  It's not just as bad as piracy.

[Khayness]

MushroomMagic wrote...

Console titles do get pirated but at least most console gamers condemn such practices.  PC gamers hold piracy up as a virtuous act fighting against the fascist tyranny of the evil DRM oppressors.  They think they're Robin Hoods dancing around in their Guy Fawkes masks, totally smug.
As for used games.  At least used games help keep retail stores like Gamestop in business and retail chains sell new games as well so if it weren't for used game sales then there would be fewer venues for people to buy new games.  Plus used games can be traded in to buy new games.  It's not just as bad as piracy.

Busomjack, is that you my homie?

[MushroomMagic]

Khayness wrote...

MushroomMagic wrote...

Console titles do get pirated but at least most console gamers condemn such practices.  PC gamers hold piracy up as a virtuous act fighting against the fascist tyranny of the evil DRM oppressors.  They think they're Robin Hoods dancing around in their Guy Fawkes masks, totally smug.
As for used games.  At least used games help keep retail stores like Gamestop in business and retail chains sell new games as well so if it weren't for used game sales then there would be fewer venues for people to buy new games.  Plus used games can be traded in to buy new games.  It's not just as bad as piracy.

Busomjack, is that you my homie?

No, I just share his views on piracy.

[legion999]

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

legion999 wrote...


Well then Zjar... WELCOME TO DIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Hey man! Quit stealing my catchphrases!

NO! 

[Sundance31us]

FieryDove wrote...

I don't support piracy. There is NO excuse for it. People deserve to be paid for the work. If one can't afford it...then one should find other entertainment that is not costly.

Well said and I agree.

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

Bethesda owns Obsidian. There may be some that say this is just as bad as EA....but please look at the reality of what you're saying by taking a step back and analyzing it.

[MushroomMagic]

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

Bethesda owns Obsidian. There may be some that say this is just as bad as EA....but please look at the reality of what you're saying by taking a step back and analyzing it.

If Bethesda owns Obsidian then how come THQ is publishing the upcoming South Park game which is being developed by Obsidian?

[Allan Schumacher]

Bethesda does not own Obsidian.

[FieryDove]

MushroomMagic wrote...

 PC gamers hold piracy up as a virtuous act fighting against the fascist tyranny of the evil DRM oppressors.  They think they're Robin Hoods dancing around in their Guy Fawkes masks, totally smug.

That's as bad as the people who think all console players are...droolers.

As for used games.  At least used games help keep retail stores like Gamestop in business and retail chains sell new games as well so if it weren't for used game sales then there would be fewer venues for people to buy new games.  Plus used games can be traded in to buy new games.  It's not just as bad as piracy.

I think publishers and devs are being put out of biz by a large amount due to *used* sales. Why the rush to digital/social/mp everything? To cut them out so they can profit and grow without leeches who sell used games. Those companies make millions off the blood, sweat and tears of those that do the work/spend the resources in the first place.

/soapbox

[slimgrin]

BUSOM IS BACK!!

Hopefully PE will allow Obsidian to get on their feet and connect with a decent publisher. Warner Brothers wouldn't be a bad choice. They seem to have treated Rocksteady and CDPR alright.

Modifié par slimgrin, 20 octobre 2012 - 09:17 .

[legion999]

slimgrin wrote...

BUSOM IS BACK!!

Hopefully PE will allow Obsidian to get on their feet and connect with a decent publisher. Warner Brothers wouldn't be a bad choice. They seem to have treated Rocksteady and CDPR alright.

No he/she hates the Dreamcast. Can't be him.

Isn't CDPR owned by a different company?

[Dreadstruck]

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

Bethesda owns Obsidian. There may be some that say this is just as bad as EA....but please look at the reality of what you're saying by taking a step back and analyzing it.

Looks like somebody hasn't done his homework.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm not an expert on DICE as a company. In my two 500+ word posts on page 2, I barely mentioned them as one of three developers that have become a cautionary tale in the gaming world (again, the amount of truth attached to it is a little irrelevant, what is relevant is that is how they are perceived, which is answering your original question of why people think EA is in the business of CoD style game making).

I was really hoping some of my other ideas or suggestions would gain traction, rather than the timeline of one individual developer I mentioned in passing.

No but you did, and since DICE is the closest thing to an EA company that makes "COD games" coupled with some inherent skepticism that it was simply added in an attempt to try to add to the argument by trying to pad yoru examples, it really stuck out for me. Maybe I'm just paying it forward since my University Profs always nailed me for doing the same thing, but it's what stuck out.

Origins is one that I was disappointed about too (and Westwood), and EA certainly seemed to have the moniker "devourer of companies" in the late 90s. Though neither of those companies serve the "EA wants all games to be Call of Duty" mantra very well.  The DICE one just seemed to be the best analogue.

the amount of truth attached to it is a little irrelevant, what is relevant is that is how they are perceived

I don't know, determining whether or not the perception is valid seems pretty important to me. People have shown that they're more than willing to see what they want to see (Sid Meier's 2010 GDC keynote described gamers as paranoid in that they typically assume bad things mean the game is out to get them. Perhaps this carries over into more than just their gaming perceptions?) though, so I'll agree with you in that assessment.


I suppose I should have been clearer and just straight up said "Why do people always equate EA with an Activision product?" since that's all I was really asking.


Interesting things regarding Garriott is his fascination with persistent online gaming. His new company he founded is, in his own words, effectively Ultima Online II. Although many point to the shots at EA within Ultima VII, I find it baffling that Garriott would decide to sell the company to EA if those perceived shots are actually true.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 20 octobre 2012 - 09:53 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Cultist wrote...

For once, me and Cultist agree on something.

Mages, tempalrs, demons, the blight... there are bigger evils out there.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't know, determining whether or not the perception is valid seems pretty important to me. People have shown that they're more than willing to see what they want to see (Sid Meier's 2010 GDC keynote described gamers as paranoid in that they typically assume bad things mean the game is out to get them. Perhaps this carries over into more than just their gaming perceptions?) though, so I'll agree with you in that assessment.

I am always of the mind the perception is reality. The only difference between a perception based in facts and a perception based on false data is that one perception should be more easily to break (although that's not usually the case). Perception, accurate or not, can drive sales, determine elections, control success and affect relationships. They are emotional mindsets, a gross, overall determination of a cerebrum that finds categorizing and compartmentalizing information once for easy future reference easier than doing a careful evaluation every time we encounter a concept/entity we've encountered previously.

Determining if the perception is based in fact is a useful exercise, but it is not relevant to determining its influence.

That being said, of your actual comment was meant to highlight the misnomer of CoD as an EA property... then I guess that's egg on my face.

Interesting things regarding Garriott is his fascination with persistent online gaming. His new company he founded is, in his own words, effectively Ultima Online II. Although many point to the shots at EA within Ultima VII, I find it baffling that Garriott would decide to sell the company to EA if those perceived shots are actually true.

Money is really hard to resist? Lol I don't know. Maybe he saw a way to provide more stability for his fellow employees, maybe he was tired of being the guy at the top, maybe he even believed that EA really wouldn't make them change the fundamental core of their games to try and appeal tow different/larger crowd. Regardless, it seems like he didn't enjoy the experience.

[Dean_the_Young]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I don't know, determining whether or not the perception is valid seems pretty important to me. People have shown that they're more than willing to see what they want to see (Sid Meier's 2010 GDC keynote described gamers as paranoid in that they typically assume bad things mean the game is out to get them. Perhaps this carries over into more than just their gaming perceptions?) though, so I'll agree with you in that assessment.

[HoonDing]

My reaction: