3855 réponses à ce sujet

[DreamwareStudio]

Lord Aesir wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

Regardless the business, regardless the audience, if a company maintains a successful product by consistently expanding without truly differentiating from that product while also garnering and keeping the trust of their customers, those customers will not only return but refer others. This is what happened with the Elder Scrolls. That is what has happened with a myriad of products and what should have happened with the DA series. It's not limited to games. The same is true of books, movies, a restaurant, any type of business and product actually.

Offering consistent quality and building trust is the cornerstone of any business.

Then you may as well use a car company as a paralell, why use Bethesda?  The comparison is misleading if you only mean to make a comparison with busines strategy.  I have only been objecting to the comparison with skyrim on the merits of an RPG, you can't compare a product with one audience to a product with another because the demand for products of that type may simply not be the same.

Bioware made a few mistakes in DA2, but they were born of a genuine desire to improve and update the experience.  Yes, it was very different, but everything needs to evolve.  Consistancy is only part of the equation.  Did Bioware go too far?  Personally I considered it more a matter of bad implementation than how different it was from the previous game.  I don't think Bioware saw themselves as being inconsistant, they just didn't realize the backlash of their changes.  That's my personal opinion.

A car company could have been used just as easily. 

Consistency is the largest part of the equation. Yes, a product must evolve, but in stages. People rarely react positively to wholesale change, especially when that change follows a very successful and well-received product upon which people waited for years and one that was replaced (for want of a better word) so quickly, within a matter of eighteen months. The rush job, the repeated areas, the ninja drops, the waves, the questionable marketing practices, the forum bans, the negative exposure, so very many things added to one really humungous **** slap.  Some of that could have been negated had EA reacted better to the backlash. They made a bad problem much worse.

As for whether they believed they were being inconsistent, I don't think it ever crossed their minds, to be honest. If the idea had, they would have realized their inconsistency and the size of it. The leads changed, so the direction did without any forethought as to how the new direction might be negatively received. That's my take on it.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:38 .

[Leones Maneres]

marshalleck wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Yeah I dunno the whole "OMGZ SKYRIM" mentality. I mean, it's pretty and big. That's pretty much it's saving grace. :| Otherwise it's a fairly mediocore game at best.

That's like saying aside from story, Bioware games are just crappy [genre] games. Kind of embarassing for Bioware to be slipping up so badly on the writing with their last few efforts. 

My time spent in Skyrim: 400 hours
My time spent in DA2: 25 hours

This!  I still have the urge to go back, re-install DAO on occasion to replay it.  Never had that same urge for DA2 (nor do I think I ever will).

And as for ME3 - the SP I played through 3 times to see the different endings, and then again played through the last mission 3 times after the 'revision that wasn't a revision' just to see what changed.

BUT, I've played ME3 MP a ridiculously large number of hours - too embarrassed to admit, really.  It is addictive.  If a part of DA3 includes some type of community / MP component - that may well be its saving grace.

[Allan Schumacher]

Then they already lost, because that perception I talked about above is what will kill it.

In the end, its a self-fulfiling prophecy by the gaming community as a whole, not just BioWare, EA, or the fanbase as singular entities. If the fans thing EA sucks, they won't buy the games, despite it being good. If BioWare did things to the game that upset people, they won't buy the game. If Origin is blocking them from playing, they won't buy the game.

Fans are fickle. In the end if we make a game that they want, there's a pretty good chance they'll pick it up.

It reminds me of sports teams. When things aren't going the way the fans want, they get upset and slag the organization. Team starts threatening for a championship, and you'll find more people excited and even willing to overlook transgressions.

Note that I think it's fine for fans to behave like this as well.

[LinksOcarina]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Then they already lost, because that perception I talked about above is what will kill it.

In the end, its a self-fulfiling prophecy by the gaming community as a whole, not just BioWare, EA, or the fanbase as singular entities. If the fans thing EA sucks, they won't buy the games, despite it being good. If BioWare did things to the game that upset people, they won't buy the game. If Origin is blocking them from playing, they won't buy the game.

Fans are fickle. In the end if we make a game that they want, there's a pretty good chance they'll pick it up.

It reminds me of sports teams. When things aren't going the way the fans want, they get upset and slag the organization. Team starts threatening for a championship, and you'll find more people excited and even willing to overlook transgressions.

Note that I think it's fine for fans to behave like this as well.

I agree that fans are fickle, but even you have to admit fans of video games, in particular RPGs, are somewhat sensitive to this whole thing. 

Sports is different because a team making a play for a championship gives incentive for fans to support them. In this case there is no way to really get that sort of reaction unless if there is full transparency and the fans can see the inner workings of BioWare, something that will never happen.

the compromise to this is at least being transparent enough to show off art assets, characters, ideas and the way the game is different from Dragon Age II or Origins, but that can only go so far as well because in the end, the fans will likely still feel burned in the end over something they see as a betrayal.

I want it to not happen, but sadly my standing as a pseudo-journalist sort of makes me a tad jaded to the overall outcome. I hope you prove me wrong with Dragon Age III, but I am not expecting the moon and back at this stage, so there is little to prove to me personally.

[DreamwareStudio]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Then they already lost, because that perception I talked about above is what will kill it.

In the end, its a self-fulfiling prophecy by the gaming community as a whole, not just BioWare, EA, or the fanbase as singular entities. If the fans thing EA sucks, they won't buy the games, despite it being good. If BioWare did things to the game that upset people, they won't buy the game. If Origin is blocking them from playing, they won't buy the game.

Fans are fickle. In the end if we make a game that they want, there's a pretty good chance they'll pick it up.

It reminds me of sports teams. When things aren't going the way the fans want, they get upset and slag the organization. Team starts threatening for a championship, and you'll find more people excited and even willing to overlook transgressions.

Note that I think it's fine for fans to behave like this as well.

Fans are fickle. Customers are not and are more loyal by nature because they risk wasting their money when going with unknown entities. This is especially true of gamers. This is even more true of role-playing gamers. That loyalty changes when the customers feel they've been burned by an established relationship and often times it takes more than a single burning to lose their commitment. It happens, though, so there's not much you can do besides either try to reestablish that relationship or move on.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:59 .

[Heimdall]

google_calasade wrote...
A car company could have been used just as easily. 

Consistency is the largest part of the equation. Yes, a product must evolve, but in stages. People rarely react positively to wholesale change, especially when that change follows a very successful and well-received product upon which people waited for years and one that was replaced (for want of a better word) so quickly, within a matter of eighteen months. The rush job, the repeated areas, the ninja drops, the waves, the questionable marketing practices, the forum bans, the negative exposure, so very many things added to one really humungous **** slap.  Some of that could have been negated had EA reacted better to the backlash. They made a bad problem much worse.

As for whether they believed they were being inconsistent, I don't think it ever crossed their minds, to be honest. If the idea had, they would have realized their inconsistency and the size of it. The leads changed, so the direction did without any forethought as to how the new direction might be negatively received. That's my take on it.

I honestly think Bioware didn't consider their changes as drastic as their audience did.  They probably thought they were making up for time with the unusually long development cycle and dated design decisions (Which was a rather common criticism of Origins) of DA:O.  They also wanted to cut down the development time and unfortunately the result of those two factors led to a game that comes across as a bit slap dash.

What I've always noticed is that Bioware has a way of over correcting when they think something needs to be changed.

[tmp7704]

AlexJK wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Sure, but that still does nothing to address the original point. To use an analogy, that's like hearing someone say "strawberries and whipped cream are great" and telling them "i can name you ten fruits which taste great on their own".

No, it isn't. It's like hearing somebody say "strawberries are (always) better with whipped cream" and telling them "no, here are ten types of strawberry which do not come with whipped cream and (in my opinion of course) would not be improved by it."

And telling that to someone who happens to have a craving for strawberries with cream still isn't going to mean anything. The fact you like these strawberries standalone, heck even the fact they may like these strawberries standalone doesn't address the disappointment of not getting what one would prefer to get, instead.

So really, it's pointless to repeat it.

[marshalleck]

Lord Aesir wrote...

What I've always noticed is that Bioware has a way of over correcting when they think something needs to be changed.

Definitely. They use a chainsaw where they should be using a scalpel.

[topekaguy]

Us humans look all alike...

[marshalleck]

topekaguy wrote...

Us humans look all alike...

and you're a blight. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Deleted some posts that were off topic.

In any case, the point of my post is that ultimately fans want games that they like. If I didn't feel it would be possible to win back some of the fans that felt scorned by DA2, then I'd just be wasting my time. Likewise, if a fan that felt scorned by DA2 is still hanging around talking about DA3, I get the impression that they WANT to be brought back into the fold as well. Otherwise they'd have just moved on.

[DreamwareStudio]

Lord Aesir wrote...

google_calasade wrote...
A car company could have been used just as easily. 

Consistency is the largest part of the equation. Yes, a product must evolve, but in stages. People rarely react positively to wholesale change, especially when that change follows a very successful and well-received product upon which people waited for years and one that was replaced (for want of a better word) so quickly, within a matter of eighteen months. The rush job, the repeated areas, the ninja drops, the waves, the questionable marketing practices, the forum bans, the negative exposure, so very many things added to one really humungous **** slap.  Some of that could have been negated had EA reacted better to the backlash. They made a bad problem much worse.

As for whether they believed they were being inconsistent, I don't think it ever crossed their minds, to be honest. If the idea had, they would have realized their inconsistency and the size of it. The leads changed, so the direction did without any forethought as to how the new direction might be negatively received. That's my take on it.

I honestly think Bioware didn't consider their changes as drastic as their audience did.  They probably thought they were making up for time with the unusually long development cycle and dated design decisions (Which was a rather common criticism of Origins) of DA:O.  They also wanted to cut down the development time and unfortunately the result of those two factors led to a game that comes across as a bit slap dash.

What I've always noticed is that Bioware has a way of over correcting when they think something needs to be changed.

I don't know...I go back and forth on it, truly, between them not seeing the drastic nature of those changes and them believing those changes were drastic but would be better received. I look at DA 2 and DA:O and the vast divide separating them and I fail to see how they could not recognize the differences.  I think probably they got caught up in the success that was DA:O and with the lead changes and the short development cycle there was never really an opportunity to evaluate much of anything in regards to the new direction. It came about so fast, it's almost like it was shoved down their throats. Unfortunate. The thought of success was also unrealistic. They were surprised, I think, which is why they seemed so shocked when DA 2 was not well received. It's fairly obvious from their reaction they had no contingency plans if the game did not sell like hotcakes.

[Vicious]

Likewise, if a fan that felt scorned by DA2 is still hanging around talking about DA3, I get the impression that they WANT to be brought back into the fold as well. Otherwise they'd have just moved on.

Nailed it.

Modifié par Vicious, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:25 .

[Heimdall]

google_calasade wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

google_calasade wrote...
A car company could have been used just as easily. 

Consistency is the largest part of the equation. Yes, a product must evolve, but in stages. People rarely react positively to wholesale change, especially when that change follows a very successful and well-received product upon which people waited for years and one that was replaced (for want of a better word) so quickly, within a matter of eighteen months. The rush job, the repeated areas, the ninja drops, the waves, the questionable marketing practices, the forum bans, the negative exposure, so very many things added to one really humungous **** slap.  Some of that could have been negated had EA reacted better to the backlash. They made a bad problem much worse.

As for whether they believed they were being inconsistent, I don't think it ever crossed their minds, to be honest. If the idea had, they would have realized their inconsistency and the size of it. The leads changed, so the direction did without any forethought as to how the new direction might be negatively received. That's my take on it.

I honestly think Bioware didn't consider their changes as drastic as their audience did.  They probably thought they were making up for time with the unusually long development cycle and dated design decisions (Which was a rather common criticism of Origins) of DA:O.  They also wanted to cut down the development time and unfortunately the result of those two factors led to a game that comes across as a bit slap dash.

What I've always noticed is that Bioware has a way of over correcting when they think something needs to be changed.

I don't know...I go back and forth on it, truly, between them not seeing the drastic nature of those changes and them believing those changes were drastic but would be better received. I look at DA 2 and DA:O and the vast divide separating them and I fail to see how they could not recognize the differences.  I think probably they got caught up in the success that was DA:O and with the lead changes and the short development cycle there was never really an opportunity to evaluate much of anything in regards to the new direction. It came about so fast, it's almost like it was shoved down their throats. Unfortunate. The thought of success was also unrealistic. They were surprised, I think, which is why they seemed so shocked when DA 2 was not well received. It's fairly obvious from their reaction they had no contingency plans if the game did not sell like hotcakes.

Well, I think they realized there were large changes but I think they changed very little of what they believed consisted the essence of DA:O.

[silentassassin264]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Deleted some posts that were off topic.

In any case, the point of my post is that ultimately fans want games that they like. If I didn't feel it would be possible to win back some of the fans that felt scorned by DA2, then I'd just be wasting my time. Likewise, if a fan that felt scorned by DA2 is still hanging around talking about DA3, I get the impression that they WANT to be brought back into the fold as well. Otherwise they'd have just moved on.

Pretty much.  I felt completely betrayed by DA2 but I have not given up on Bioware and Dragon Age.  I really want Dragon Age 3 to be great.  I am still apprehensive because of DA2 but hopeful.

[DreamwareStudio]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Deleted some posts that were off topic.

In any case, the point of my post is that ultimately fans want games that they like. If I didn't feel it would be possible to win back some of the fans that felt scorned by DA2, then I'd just be wasting my time. Likewise, if a fan that felt scorned by DA2 is still hanging around talking about DA3, I get the impression that they WANT to be brought back into the fold as well. Otherwise they'd have just moved on.

Many have moved on judging by who I saw in the forums when I was here months ago and who I see now. Too, some just enjoy the banter of the forums. I would not necessarily assume anyone wants to be back in the fold, because assumptions are dangerous and that assumption might elude to the ongoing perception of feeling like they've been taken for granted. My impression is they are waiting and seeing if the fold continues down the path where they perceived it to go wrong.  I would imagine this comes very much into play with those who were fiercely loyal to Bioware for a number of years.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:33 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I would not necessarily assume anyone wants to be back in the fold, because assumptions are dangerous and that assumption might elude to the ongoing perception of feeling like they've been taken for granted.

When I say "back in the fold" I mean "I'm sure they'd love to pick up a future BioWare game and say 'I really like this game!'"

Whether or not we will based on the quality of the game and the decisions that we make is a completely different matter.

Unless you'd prefer that I not assume that it's possible to get those fans back, which would mean even considering to go back to DAO is just a waste of time. Might as well establish consistency and go with more of DA2 style, right?

[Vicious]

Might as well establish consistency and go with more of DA2 style, right?

/vader nooooooooooo

[upsettingshorts]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Unless you'd prefer that I not assume that it's possible to get those fans back, which would mean even considering to go back to DAO is just a waste of time. Might as well establish consistency and go with more of DA2 style, right?

Sounds good to me.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't think fans are reacting the way they are because of just the racial choice alone. I feel it is more the canary in the coal mine, so to speak.



To go completely off topic, but to try and get back by the end...

People hear about musical stars who have a list of demands that is so outrageous and ridiculous that you think these people are complete snobs and lunatics. Orders like a bowl full of M&M's with all of the brown ones removed, or sixteen different types of bottled water, or every album of the Barry Mannilow collection in their dressing room (because, honestly... who doesn't get teary eyed listening to Mandy? People with no souls, that's who).

There is a reason for this, though. And the reason is BRILLIANT.

Back in the 80's, just like today, musicians made most of their money not from record sales (where record companies took most of the profits) but from live shows and ticket sales to said shows and concerts. However, back in those days, there weren't the same level of regulations regarding facilities. Things like electrical wiring, stage structural support, power capacity, parking for semi's that carried tour equipment... NONE of it was standardized. This led to many bands only playing major gigs and towns, or cases where there were SERIOUS health risks and hazards.

Enter Van Halen. They devised a way they could go and play shows in smaller towns, in places no one had ever really gone to before. To State Fairs, to podunks, to Middle America. You send out a contract, outlining EXACTLY what you need. I'm talking about PA systems, wiring requirements, tour bus parking, stage weight limits... EVERYTHING. The venue provider needed to sign off and agree to all of these requirements before you'd ever book a show.

But then... so what? Anyone can sign a piece of paper. And, if your lead singer gets his face burned off by poorly rigged pyro-technics, a breach-of-contract lawsuit is going to be the LEAST of your worries.

So they devised a system - in the contract, wedged between your stage size and your security staff needs let's say, you ask for something crazy. Like a bowl of M&M's with the brown M&M's removed. Or two parakeets of different species in a blue cage. Or something equally ridiculous. Nothing that was ever truly cost prohibitive, but just that would require effort and paying attention to what was in the contract.

Because then, when you get to the location, you check for the M&M's. You check for the parakeets. And if they aren't there and aren't up to code, its a warning sign - a warning that you need to check out everything. That things could be TERRIBLY set up and that, because they messed up this one seemingly insane request, they could have messed up EVERYTHING. In some cases, the M&M's were the only thing missing. In some cases, it meant the venue provider didn't even look at it and things were going to need to be worked from the ground up or the show would be cancelled. Either way, it led to less shows of poor quality due to bad equipment and, more importantly, the band being safe and not getting hurt.


The racial choices are our M&M bowl. We see that, and it sets off warning flags that everything we've put in our theoretical contract with Bioware, a contract they signed in our imagination by saying they have listened to the feedback and concerns of both DA2 and the ME series, is questionable. Not to say this isn't a case where the brown M&M's were just something they couldn't make happen, but that everything else is kosher. But it does mean we are checking every other detail to make sure it is up to spec. Before we start the show and get to rockin', we're going to need to see some more assurances.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:45 .

[marshalleck]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Likewise, if a fan that felt scorned by DA2 is still hanging around talking about DA3, I get the impression that they WANT to be brought back into the fold as well. Otherwise they'd have just moved on.

Don't underestimate the allure of schadenfreude. 

[upsettingshorts]

marshalleck wrote...

 Don't underestimate the allure of schadenfreude. 

"People who hang around the BSN in order to amuse themselves through what they view as hilariously incompetent mistakes" is not a market demographic I'd target.

I'd probably just ignore them completely, and that's being generous.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:47 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I would not necessarily assume anyone wants to be back in the fold, because assumptions are dangerous and that assumption might elude to the ongoing perception of feeling like they've been taken for granted.

When I say "back in the fold" I mean "I'm sure they'd love to pick up a future BioWare game and say 'I really like this game!'"

Whether or not we will based on the quality of the game and the decisions that we make is a completely different matter.

Unless you'd prefer that I not assume that it's possible to get those fans back, which would mean even considering to go back to DAO is just a waste of time. Might as well establish consistency and go with more of DA2 style, right?

They are wanting that, to be sure, to buy a future Bioware game and find themselves ecstatic with the purchase. Whether they will or not...like you said, depends on the quality of the game and the directions you take.

The last question:

"Might as well establish consistency and go with more of DA2 style, right?"

Looking at it from a business standpoint, seeing as how DA:O was more popular and sold better, I would say stick with DA:O. It's the smarter move and fits in with Bioware's niche to a greater degree.

That said, seeing the tightrope you'll be walking between the DA:O and DA 2 factions, yeah, I think EA would be better off going strictly in one direction or the other regardless whether it's DA:O or DA 2 and unequivocally stating that. People then would know what to expect.

Also...

From what I've seen neither the DA:O crowd or that of DA 2 are interested in a compromise, so offering them a mixture of features from the two games is risky at best. By going in one direction or the other, at least you have a better chance of pleasing one crowd rather than having two really irked and spewing negativity because what they've gotten is not what they wanted.

Modifié par google_calasade, 26 octobre 2012 - 04:52 .

[marshalleck]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

 Don't underestimate the allure of schadenfreude. 

"People who hang around the BSN in order to amuse themselves through what they view as hilariously incompetent mistakes" is not a market demographic I'd target.

I'd probably just ignore them completely, and that's being generous.

I'm not suggesting those people should be marketed to...I'm trying to point out what could be an erroneous assumption.

[upsettingshorts]

google_calasade wrote...

From what I've seen neither the DA:O crowd or that of DA 2 are interested in a compromise, so offering them a mixture of features from the two games is risky at best. 

That depends upon which feature you're talking about.