406 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Riccitiello's EA Shifts From 'Defense' To 'Offense'.

"He said the publisher is integrating its development teams with marketing and monetization."

Your reading more into that than will turn out to be I am sure. EA will never hand over all the marketing to the developers, more control does not equal full control. They are and always will be the publishers, the people who "publish" the games. To me all that statement means is developers will have more freedom but not full control.

EA marketing the games for example, some input from studios sometimes but not always, studios market some things on their own like DLC, merchandise and such. Without the publisher doing it's job and publishing the games then they are mere bank managers, doll out the money. I cannot see that ever being the reality of it or way would happen.

Now maybe I am wrong, maybe a Bioware team member will correct me and tell me that Bioware handled all the marketing for ME3 but I somehow doubt that will happen because I don't think that is what happened or will happen. Until that time I will continue to believe that EA published ME3, they marketed ME3 and Bioware are not responsible for what EA says in their adverts.

I also asked a question which will ask again. Why you feel the urge to somehow convince yourself that Bioware are to blame for the choices of EA? Each make choices and each have their roles, each are accountable to what they do not both are accountable for what either of them do. I don't blame a brother of an idiot for the idiotic thing his brother might do yet they are both related, they may even live together but each is accountable to their own actions, no different here. Bioware and EA are not the same, they fulfill different roles and have different responsabilities.

Do you honestly believe EA are to blame for what Bioware does and Bioware are to blame for what EA does? Because you said they are one and the same so you have to by that logic blame both for what either does. My stance on the other hand is that each are accountable for what each does not both accountable for what either does. I am not saying EA is bad and Bioware good or vice versa, I am saying they are not the same and they are not both to blame for what the other does.

BioWare is a label. A trademark. The company is called EA. And I rather trust Riccitiello than you.

[LinksOcarina]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Riccitiello's EA Shifts From 'Defense' To 'Offense'.

"He said the publisher is integrating its development teams with marketing and monetization."

The obvious question is why is this a bad thing? We have seen companies do this somewhat successfully when they moved over to a service model. Nintendo and Valve being primary examples. 

What is stopping EA from being successful? Granted they have a lot to change to make it there, but if they just outright copied everything positive from other service models why should they not be successful or allowed to do it?

[AngryFrozenWater]

LinksOcarina wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Riccitiello's EA Shifts From 'Defense' To 'Offense'.

"He said the publisher is integrating its development teams with marketing and monetization."

The obvious question is why is this a bad thing? We have seen companies do this somewhat successfully when they moved over to a service model. Nintendo and Valve being primary examples. 

What is stopping EA from being successful? Granted they have a lot to change to make it there, but if they just outright copied everything positive from other service models why should they not be successful or allowed to do it?

Why do you assume I think this is a bad thing? This all started because I was saying that BW didn't consider ME3 to be an RPG on their official ME3 website. The term is nowhere to be found there. Given the topic that's interesting, not? Somehow Dragoonlordz doesn't like that and puts "the blame" on EA. He tends to forget that BW and EA are the same company. Also the ME3 team seems to be responsible for the game's marketing. This conversation is becoming very odd. It's time to get out of this thread.

[clarkusdarkus]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Riccitiello's EA Shifts From 'Defense' To 'Offense'.

"He said the publisher is integrating its development teams with marketing and monetization."

The obvious question is why is this a bad thing? We have seen companies do this somewhat successfully when they moved over to a service model. Nintendo and Valve being primary examples. 

What is stopping EA from being successful? Granted they have a lot to change to make it there, but if they just outright copied everything positive from other service models why should they not be successful or allowed to do it?

Why do you assume I think this is a bad thing? This all started because I was saying that BW didn't consider ME3 to be an RPG on their official ME3 website. The term is nowhere to be found there. Given the topic that's interesting, not? Somehow Dragoonlordz doesn't like that and puts "the blame" on EA. He tends to forget that BW and EA are the same company. Also the ME3 team seems to be responsible for the game's marketing. This conversation is becoming very odd. It's time to get out of this thread.

im amazed you lasted aslong as you did.......kudos to your patience.

[Dragoonlordz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Riccitiello's EA Shifts From 'Defense' To 'Offense'.

"He said the publisher is integrating its development teams with marketing and monetization."

The obvious question is why is this a bad thing? We have seen companies do this somewhat successfully when they moved over to a service model. Nintendo and Valve being primary examples. 

What is stopping EA from being successful? Granted they have a lot to change to make it there, but if they just outright copied everything positive from other service models why should they not be successful or allowed to do it?

Why do you assume I think this is a bad thing? This all started because I was saying that BW didn't consider ME3 to be an RPG on their official ME3 website. The term is nowhere to be found there. Given the topic that's interesting, not? Somehow Dragoonlordz doesn't like that and puts "the blame" on EA. He tends to forget that BW and EA are the same company. Also the ME3 team seems to be responsible for the game's marketing. This conversation is becoming very odd. It's time to get out of this thread.

Like or dislike is nothing to do with it, I merely find it inaccurate. I said EA did the marketing for ME3 Bioware only did partial amounts at most. You then went on and on about how Bioware and EA are the same and Bioware is to blame for what EA does and EA are to blame for what Bioware does (it can be no other way if you believe they are one and the same). Just because Bioware is part of EA, intergrated into the organisations structure does not make them the same. They still have different roles and responsabilties. EA does not make the games, the studios do, the studios do not handle most of the marketing or financing, the publisher does. You say Bioware does not class ME3 as an RPG but clearly they do given the fact they use the term constantly in interviews relating to ME3 refering to what they are trying to do with the genre and how they want to improve it.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 09 décembre 2012 - 01:14 .

[AresKeith]

Raul Menendez should have been best Character, one of greatest villains ever

[Ninja Stan]

Not ME3 story or campaign related.

End of line.