225 réponses à ce sujet

[Babaganoosh013]

FaWa wrote...

Would Activision be better than EA for Bioware?

Ask Zork.

Also, the only thing resembling RPGs come from Blizzard. I don't think any good could ever come out of a Activision/EA buyout or merge, ever.

[HolyAvenger]

I love the ME3 MP. Please more good MP, BioWare.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Okay, it seems that there are people going "Of course BG is remembered fro its multiplayer. " I admit my statement was anecdotal, In my experience, people talk about the characters, the quests, the AD&D ruleset, but not the multiplayer.

I actually don't remember Baldur's Gate *for* it's multiplayer. Although the characters themselves didn't become more memorable until Baldur's Gate 2 in my opinion.

I just shared my anecdote because I was introduced to the game (and the company) as a consequence of it having multiplayer.

I played Baldur's Gate blissfully unaware that a multiplayer option existed. The current trend appears to be throwing it in your face and forcing you to try it in order to get a good result in the single player campaign..*coughme3cough*

[abaris]

I'm not interested in multiplayer either.

I loved DAO for it's single player adventure and am way beyond the age of getting kicks from randomly finding people to battle on some server.

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Uproar makes share prices drop.

To borrow from others, don't conjure up economical motivations for being upset. Just be upset and talk about why you don't like stuff.

I have seen enough misunderstanding of what a company's share price even represents the past year that I encourage people to not use it as a meaningful metric of "getting back at the company."


Share price has very little to do with what Electronic Arts would or would not be able to do. The only people that care about a dwindling stock price are shareholders, of which the overwhelming majority of EA's stock belongs to mutual funds.

Now dwindling stock price will present some pressure to the executives, as the Board of Directors will look at the price and act on behalf of the investors and inquire as to what the problem is, and how to remedy a downward price.

So if you think that removing the executives from EA is a worthy goal, then I suppose downward pressure by the stock will help, though it's not a guarantee either.


What a low stock price does is increase the likelihood of some sort of a takeover. So someone like Activision, or some private equity firm, could come along and purchase all the outstanding stock at a particular price point (typically above what it's being traded for). From there, a whole bunch of question marks happens, as some divisions and brands would remain intact, stuff seen as not worth the time would get axed, a decent chunk of people would likely lose their jobs, while perhaps some other people will come in and fill the void.

Investors will typically agree to such a buyout if they don't believe that a recovery in the stock price is likely.


So EA being bought out means that Dragon Age becomes a question mark, with the entity that purchased it being free to determine if it should be pursued further, or if it should just be mothballed.

Hmm the possibility of salvation or mothballing, vs the certainity of mandatory multiplayer and welded on social media nonsense, with added 'awesome button'.  Hard choice actually.  Pretty sure EA going under would be pretty much the best thing that could happen to gaming however....

Modifié par Vilegrim, 10 décembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[Gazardiel]

Count me as another vote against integrated/necessary multiplayer. There are plenty of multiplayer RPG-type games out here already, but with Diablo III requiring "always online" verification (ostensibly to prevent hacking, which only is a problem in multiplayer), it feels like features of single player games are being sacrificed for multiplayer functionality. It also vastly changes the story dynamics if you include multiple independent PC protagonists.

I suspect that there is a belief that if you make something multiplayer, you'll be more likely to recruit friends into playing as well. But that leads to a shift towards simplified mechanics to make it more approachable to newbies... and next thing we're cooking without a fire or spices.

Could it be fun to have a DLC where you could do some multiplayer with friends? Sure. But please don't make it part of the main game.

[Heimdall]

Shinian2 wrote...

I played Baldur's Gate blissfully unaware that a multiplayer option existed. The current trend appears to be throwing it in your face and forcing you to try it in order to get a good result in the single player campaign..*coughme3cough*

A single instance does not a trend make.

Besides, there are other less obtrusive ways for multiplayer to be integrated.  I get that people don't like how ME3 did it, but it should be recognized that it's necessity to achieve certain endings is an extreme case.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 10 décembre 2012 - 09:45 .

[Iakus]

 Yeah, less obtrusive ways.

Like requiring an internet connection even for single player.  Requiring Origin to be installed...

[abaris]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Besides, there are other less obtrusive ways for multiplayer to be integrated.  I get that people don't like how ME3 did it, but it should be recognized that it's necessity to achieve certain endings is an extreme case.

But it's the most lucrative way. The magic word being microtransactions.

And that's what really makes me concerned.

[Heimdall]

abaris wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Besides, there are other less obtrusive ways for multiplayer to be integrated.  I get that people don't like how ME3 did it, but it should be recognized that it's necessity to achieve certain endings is an extreme case.

But it's the most lucrative way. The magic word being microtransactions.

And that's what really makes me concerned.

I don't think you should be.  I mean, yes on the micro transactions, but if chaining endings to it were so lucrative they wouldn't have eliminated the necessity post release.  Multiplayer in ME3 thrives because of its own popularity at this point, that's the goal for making multiplayer.

creating bonus items for single player as incentives would help draw single players in, serving the same purpose.

[abaris]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Multiplayer in ME3 thrives because of its own popularity at this point, that's the goal for making multiplayer.

creating bonus items for single player as incentives would help draw single players in, serving the same purpose.

Yet the only incentive for a thriving multiplayer is making money. Otherwise they would only sacrifice bandwith and costs by offering free MP DLCs and servers.

So, yes, Microtransactions are the incentive.

[Heimdall]

abaris wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Multiplayer in ME3 thrives because of its own popularity at this point, that's the goal for making multiplayer.

creating bonus items for single player as incentives would help draw single players in, serving the same purpose.

Yet the only incentive for a thriving multiplayer is making money. Otherwise they would only sacrifice bandwith and costs by offering free MP DLCs and servers.

So, yes, Microtransactions are the incentive.

I know.  I'm just saying that chaining the endings to multiplayer is not a micro transaction.  It only provides incentive for players to engage in multiplayer.  That incentive can be replaced with things that garner less criticism. 

[Pelle6666]

MP in a DA game? Seriously? Pathetic. I played DA:O for the story and the characters, I played DA2 because DA:O was awesome, don't waste effort on a multiplayer mode for DA3, you need to redeem the singleplayer first!

[mickey111]

iakus wrote...

 Yeah, less obtrusive ways.

Like requiring an internet connection even for single player.  Requiring Origin to be installed...

My version didn't have these requirements.

[Sanunes]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

I played Baldur's Gate blissfully unaware that a multiplayer option existed. The current trend appears to be throwing it in your face and forcing you to try it in order to get a good result in the single player campaign..*coughme3cough*

A single instance does not a trend make.

Besides, there are other less obtrusive ways for multiplayer to be integrated.  I get that people don't like how ME3 did it, but it should be recognized that it's necessity to achieve certain endings is an extreme case.

Yeah, they integrated it so much you don't need to play it, its only another way to get your War Assets high enough.  They fixed the issue around not having enough War Assets with The Extended Cut, so multiplayer isn't needed for anything in Mass Effect 3.

[7isMagic]

tishyw wrote...

"Bioware's behaviour in regards to SP players not having access to enough points to get one of the endings was appalling, denial, misleading stickys, insulting posts, locking/moving/hiding threads about the problem, sulky silence and then finally, and very quietly, fixing it in the EC 6 months after it had initially been reported!

This treatment of it's fans is the main reason why I won't be pre-ordering another Bioware game again, I'm going to wait for player feedback before giving them my money.

Ditto.  Pre-ordering Bioware games is a thing of the past for me.   Will be waiting for player feedback too when DA3 is released.

Modifié par 7isMagic, 11 décembre 2012 - 08:12 .

[TCBC_Freak]

7isMagic wrote...

tishyw wrote...

"Bioware's behaviour in regards to SP players not having access to enough points to get one of the endings was appalling, denial, misleading stickys, insulting posts, locking/moving/hiding threads about the problem, sulky silence and then finally, and very quietly, fixing it in the EC 6 months after it had initially been reported!

This treatment of it's fans is the main reason why I won't be pre-ordering another Bioware game again, I'm going to wait for player feedback before giving them my money.

Ditto. Pre-ordering Bioware games is a thing of the past for me. Will be waiting for player feedback too when DA3 is released.

You know, that's like saying I'll never eat at Taco Bell because KFC treats its customers poorly. They are owned by the same people, they operate under the same umbrella but the crews and the people who head up there QA and customer interactions are completely different. The Mass Effect people are not the same as the Dragon Age people. And also, even if you consider the two inseparable because they both work for Bioware, to ignore their full game history of great customer service and base all future interaction on one game and a poorly handled situation out of such a long history is kind of childish in my opinion. I have a friend who refuses to eat at any Taco Bell, Denny's Dinner, or Burger King in the entire country (the whole USA) because he got food poisoning at a Dallas, Texas Taco Bell, got food poisoning at a Flagstaff, Arizona Denny's and got food poisoning at a El Paso, Texas Burger King. He will not set foot in any of their establishments any more; to me, that's just childish, and so is this kind of attitude. If you like the way the game looks and the insensitive for pre-ordering or you want to be sure and get a collector's edition then get it, if you don't like that stuff then don't. You should decide these things on a case-by-case basis, not based on a completely different game that was made and handled by different people some two+ years before. Judge DA3 on it's advertising and own merit; if you want to wait for fan feedback, that's okay; but do that for a legitimate reason, like you don't pre-order any game or you aren't really intrigued just from advertising or the like; not just because of what happened with ME3.

Edit: I would like to note this is not a personal attack. We can all be childish at times, I myself have been guilty of it, here on these very forums no less.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 11 décembre 2012 - 09:45 .

[Uccio]

Please no MP. Make it a dlc or something.

[pseudhn]

I could see them going the The Old Republic route, meaning you could share conversations and so forth with other players. Makes even more sense now that they're working with the Frostbyte tech.

I'd say it's the natural evolution of the Bioware rpg.

Edit:
This was not a troll post in any way, and to elaborate, I  wanted to add that I fully expect the next DA game to have a long list of online features integrated to the core game itself. Here's hoping for no "tacked-on" cheap MP ala ME3. The move to a robust online tech (Fb2) certainly gives hope. I'd of course love to see another Origins-quality SP-only campaign, but I guess that's a long-shot now considering what's been coming out of EA.

Modifié par pseudhn, 11 décembre 2012 - 11:24 .

[Sanunes]

pseudhn wrote...

I could see them going the The Old Republic route, meaning you could share conversations and so forth with other players. Makes even more sense now that they're working with the Frostbyte tech.

I'd say it's the natural evolution of the Bioware rpg.

Edit:
This was not a troll post in any way, and to elaborate, I  wanted to add that I fully expect the next DA game to have a long list of online features integrated to the core game itself. Here's hoping for no "tacked-on" cheap MP ala ME3. The move to a robust online tech (Fb2) certainly gives hope. I'd of course love to see another Origins-quality SP-only campaign, but I guess that's a long-shot now considering what's been coming out of EA.

Gaming has been going downhill since the PS2 when people started demanding higher production values for the same price. Games used to be considered a success selling only 100,000 copies, but recently the one THQ UFC game needed to sell around 2,000,000 copies to break even.  With gamers demanding photo-realism, impressive audio, indepth story, and perfect gameplay something is going to give.  Yes games would be great if they could spend six years developing the game like Dragon Age: Origins, but besides being attractive to a  specific market the game doesn't attract an audience big enough to support the game and unless you want a game that is only three hours long or over a $100, for a company can't bring a game to market if they are going to go broke during development and if I remember my internet articles correctly that nearly happened with BioWare when they were making Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age: Origins and why they setup the partnership with Pandemic.

[Heimdall]

Sanunes wrote...

Yeah, they integrated it so much you don't need to play it, its only another way to get your War Assets high enough.  They fixed the issue around not having enough War Assets with The Extended Cut, so multiplayer isn't needed for anything in Mass Effect 3.

I know.  I fact that was part of my point earlier.  It couldn't be such a lucrative strategy if they decided to remove it.

[lunamoondragon]

 Much as I'm against multiplayer, I'll be happy to give it a try as long as it's not forced. I don't like needing a gold membership I barely use.

If it were integrated I would enjoy it being for extras, such as super-awesome armor/weapons that you can't get in single-player. It wouldn't affect your story, but you still get some shiny new goodies as an incentive. We're rumored to get a castle, so maybe add-ons for the castle could be multiplayer "prizes."

[jpbreon]

Reznik23 wrote...

Like a lot of other people I don't want multiplayer in Dragon Age, but I do accept it is coming.

If it does affect the single player campaign; I'm out. I've always said that if there is a decent preorder incentive (art book, cd soundtrack etc..) I'll preorder DA:I. Otherwise, I'll wait to see what it's like first. If multiplayer is forced upon us in a way that affects the single player game I simply won't buy it.

I play games to escape the world & other people, not to include them.
All I want is a good, immersive story based experience that will move & involve me - that's why I play Dragon Age. Something that I can play in my own way in my own time. Not having to worry about logging in, server availability & finding decent people to play with, just to enjoy what should be a solo experience.

I was going to respond, but you stated my feelings exactly. 

I love single player games, and Dragon Age is my favorite. MP in Mass Effect felt so forced, like it had to be there to justify someone to buy the game.  This whole attitude never existed before, where it was okay to have a game with no MP (or SP, for that matter) but now there seems to be this idea that it's better to have a mediocre MP in a SP game than it is to have an excellent SP game with no MP. ME3 literally was "You must play MP to get the whole story, which means you have to buy the Gold membership as well. CHA-CHING!" and that's why I played through the game once, never bought the DLC, and it sits on the shelf. I'm still playing ME1/2 still though.

[Adugan]

jpbreon wrote...

Reznik23 wrote...

Like a lot of other people I don't want multiplayer in Dragon Age, but I do accept it is coming.

If it does affect the single player campaign; I'm out. I've always said that if there is a decent preorder incentive (art book, cd soundtrack etc..) I'll preorder DA:I. Otherwise, I'll wait to see what it's like first. If multiplayer is forced upon us in a way that affects the single player game I simply won't buy it.

I play games to escape the world & other people, not to include them.
All I want is a good, immersive story based experience that will move & involve me - that's why I play Dragon Age. Something that I can play in my own way in my own time. Not having to worry about logging in, server availability & finding decent people to play with, just to enjoy what should be a solo experience.

I was going to respond, but you stated my feelings exactly. 

I love single player games, and Dragon Age is my favorite. MP in Mass Effect felt so forced, like it had to be there to justify someone to buy the game.  This whole attitude never existed before, where it was okay to have a game with no MP (or SP, for that matter) but now there seems to be this idea that it's better to have a mediocre MP in a SP game than it is to have an excellent SP game with no MP. ME3 literally was "You must play MP to get the whole story, which means you have to buy the Gold membership as well. CHA-CHING!" and that's why I played through the game once, never bought the DLC, and it sits on the shelf. I'm still playing ME1/2 still though.

Ouch, I hadnt even thought about Xbox people. I play on PC and just having to go through the slog of getting 100% is too much for me. I am a completionist and I want the feeling of having ALL my war assets ready for the war. But buying a membership on top of that is just plain evil. Damn.

[Babaganoosh013]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

You know, that's like saying I'll never eat at Taco Bell because KFC treats its customers poorly. They are owned by the same people, they operate under the same umbrella but the crews and the people who head up there QA and customer interactions are completely different. The Mass Effect people are not the same as the Dragon Age people. And also, even if you consider the two inseparable because they both work for Bioware, to ignore their full game history of great customer service and base all future interaction on one game and a poorly handled situation out of such a long history is kind of childish in my opinion. I have a friend who refuses to eat at any Taco Bell, Denny's Dinner, or Burger King in the entire country (the whole USA) because he got food poisoning at a Dallas, Texas Taco Bell, got food poisoning at a Flagstaff, Arizona Denny's and got food poisoning at a El Paso, Texas Burger King. He will not set foot in any of their establishments any more; to me, that's just childish, and so is this kind of attitude. If you like the way the game looks and the insensitive for pre-ordering or you want to be sure and get a collector's edition then get it, if you don't like that stuff then don't. You should decide these things on a case-by-case basis, not based on a completely different game that was made and handled by different people some two+ years before. Judge DA3 on it's advertising and own merit; if you want to wait for fan feedback, that's okay; but do that for a legitimate reason, like you don't pre-order any game or you aren't really intrigued just from advertising or the like; not just because of what happened with ME3.

Edit: I would like to note this is not a personal attack. We can all be childish at times, I myself have been guilty of it, here on these very forums no less.

I'm not pre-ordering because of DA 2. A game I paid waaaaay too much for IMHO. I was expecting DA Origins 2, not DA Final Fight. The Dietz ME novel, and the disapointment that was ME3 just reinforces that.