32 réponses à ce sujet

[horacethegrey]

Aside from the announcement of the game in December and some sporadic updates, there hasn't been much promotional media regarding DA3.

Meanwhile, here's CDProjekt, who's been releasing a bunch of candid interviews about The Witcher 3 through Game Informer. So far they've released screenshots, revealed a number of game features and teased on the story. All in all, they've managed to satisfy the curiosity of Witcher fans like myself.

But wait a minute, I'm a Dragon Age fan as well. So where are the news? Where are the screenshots? Where be the interviews? Come on Bioware, you want us to buy your game, keeo us informed.

[David Gaider]

horacethegrey wrote...
Aside from the announcement of the game in December and some sporadic updates, there hasn't been much promotional media regarding DA3.

Meanwhile, here's CDProjekt, who's been releasing a bunch of candid interviews about The Witcher 3 through Game Informer. So far they've released screenshots, revealed a number of game features and teased on the story. All in all, they've managed to satisfy the curiosity of Witcher fans like myself.

But wait a minute, I'm a Dragon Age fan as well. So where are the news? Where are the screenshots? Where be the interviews? Come on Bioware, you want us to buy your game, keeo us informed.

DA3 has been announced. We have not yet, however, done the game's reveal... the part where we show it off and talk about it. The Witcher 3 did both (albeit their reveal has been of limited scope), and that's great for them. Companies will do it differently.

Our hand was a bit forced in DA3's case, but until the reveal you're simply not going to hear much about it from us. The moment we start talking about it, fans are going to want to know everything, so we'll wait until we can show something that answers as many questions as it prompts. If you're impatient, then tune out and wait until the reveal happens. We're not asking you to buy the game at the moment, or even think about it. Once the reveal happens, that will change rather quickly I'm sure.

[David Gaider]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I would have thought that, if anything, Bioware would want more feedback not just of past games, but the game in actual development while they still have time to course-correct.

Fans are not, however, part of the development process.

And I say that carefully, because of course you are-- to an extent. Feedback is invaluable, and we've been collecting it for a long time now. But if you're looking for an equal seat at the table, as in we come here and talk about what we've been thinking and asking for suggestions and so forth of the development-in-progress... no, that's not going to happen, not until the reveal occurs at the very least, as it's impossible for us to ask for feedback without also explaining what it is we're doing. No doubt we will ask for feedback after the reveal, but it will be on select things that are still up in the air. The fundamental game design is not, however, up for debate outside of the development team.

And before anyone suggests it: no, I'm not saying that's the only way it can be done. Nor is it something I have input into; I'm simply explaining how it is (and pretty much how it has always been with how BioWare works).

[David Gaider]

SilverMoonDragon wrote...
It's the calm before the storm....yes it is painful to wait for DA3 info , but once those flood gates open, once the pressure cooker bursts...us fans will be squeeing and discussing all the delicious info until the game comes out, it's gonna be AWESOME! And worth waiting for 

Hopefully. What typically happens is that fans are starved for information and complain (I won't even mention the years-long period that was the dry spell prior to DAO's reveal) and then, when the reveal occurs and the marketing machine kicks into overdrive, they instead pay attention to every piece of information that's released and complain that they've already heard about it.

Such is the Circle of Life in these parts, I think.

[Fiddzz]

 I agree with David's post, we haven't had a reveal yet, just the announce.  We are listening to fans and have taking their input into consideration, and will continue to do so through out the development cycle.

I don't understand the recent trend in marketing for games where they show you a design document and some concepts, then cut to a bunch of developers standing around a PC screen going "man that's cool" Leaves too much room for backlash if you change something, have to cut something, etc etc.  But those are the things the big marketing guys have to figure out.  

I like our plan of we are not going to show anything till its awesome and will blow you away.


On a less serious note, reading through this thread made me think of this.  If we followed everything everyone said on the BSN for how to make the game... we'd end up with this.



 i kid.

Modifié par Blair Brown, 21 février 2013 - 05:16 .

[David Gaider]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'm not asking for Bioware to seek fan feedback about how the series should move forward or anything, but something along the lines of what you all had been spitballing in terms of certain mechanics or features and asking us what we think could be productive. Not a design-by-committee type of feedback, but a "well, if you all are thinking about going this route, here are my thoughts and here's what I think my work/not work/what I've seen in other games."

There's already plenty of that, especially with the comparisons to other games.

Such comparisons are inevitable, because what other context does the fan have to offer their opinions? They know how things worked in DAO and DA2. They know how things work in the Witcher series, or in Skyrim, or whatever else they're drawing their experiences from. All perfectly valid. They will never have the context of a developer, however-- even if we tried to explain it until we were blue in the face, the majority of fans will still only relate to whatever we say by what's gone before-- and thus there's only so much consultation that's useful... ignoring the idea that fans want so many different things it'd be impossible to get a consensus now more than before. And that's putting aside the idea of any such consultation possibly starting a war in the fanbase which is, let's face it, pretty polarized on some issues.

We have a good idea what fans want. We also get early feedback from select groups, both locally and through focus groups-- in batches of people who self-identify as "I'm a DA fan", "I'm an RPG fan but not a fan of DA specifically" or "I'm a gamer, but not one who plays RPG's regularly"-- and, beyond that, we have our QA people. They're the people who give us feedback throughout development, and have the context of knowing not only what went before but what we're doing now, in full.

When it comes time for the reveal, we'll no doubt still want feedback on some things we haven't already decided (or which we have time to course-correct on, would be perhaps better to say). But if you want to give thoughts on the development process, basic design stuff-- that "equal seat at the table" I mentioned earlier-- then what you want to be is a developer. Otherwise, that's just not how it works, even if you think it should be. Not for us, and as I mentioned above, not necessarily a good idea for the DA fanbase even so.

Modifié par David Gaider, 21 février 2013 - 06:36 .

[Fiddzz]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Brockololly wrote...


Especially if you're talking high level concept stuff, I think discussing that sort of thing early on can alleviate and squash any potential backlash because you're likely not going to change core tenets of your game's design.

I agree with most of this statement, and wanted to single this out in particular.

And I disagree, I think it is a poor marketing idea, but thats just my opinion, and why i'm happy we are doing what we are.  But hey, thats for the people with the MBA in marketing to figure out :happy:

[Fiddzz]

Sanunes wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...

It is really interesting about Kickstarter. I actually do have a MBA in marketing and I really look forward to seeing the results of the fans effectively turning into investors. I suspect much of the rage and entitlement we see in the gaming industry stems from this model of developers keeping fans in the loop during planning and production and maintaining an unusually strong connection with the consumers. It's pretty much unheard of in other industries, even within the entertainment segment, and I wonder if demands and expectations will rise or fall when involving the fans even further.

Exciting times, for sure.

I have helped fund three Kickstarter games and the boards turn nasty because the players believe they have the right to tell the developer what to do, or they get extremely upset if its not exactly like they envisioned.  It will be interesting when DoubleFine Adventure and Project Eternity are finished and the reaction to the final product is from the people that invested in them, both positive and negative.

That's the double edged sword of kickstarting games, because you could make a VERY valid argument that the fans actually do have the right to tell a developer what to do.  It's their money that is directly funding the game.  And investors expect returns on their investments.

I'm also very interested in watching what happens with these.  How will the reactions be from fans when these games get released.  What happens if a game gets delayed?  Or cancled after a year of development? or all the other wonderfully fun things that happen with game development. Exciting times indeed.

[Allan Schumacher]

I have helped fund three Kickstarter games and the boards turn nasty because the players believe they have the right to tell the developer what to do, or they get extremely upset if its not exactly like they envisioned. It will be interesting when DoubleFine Adventure and Project Eternity are finished and the reaction to the final product is from the people that invested in them, both positive and negative.

I stopped visiting the Wasteland 2 developer forums for this reason. My general gist of what I see from Project Eternity's updates is "this is neat" because they're trying to show the process (which is part of what they promised), but the discussion over whether or not it's a good idea is less productive IMO.

I remember some of the first concept releases, which were basically examples of some of the iterative process, and the overwhelming majority of the feedback was "These don't really look very good" with a lot of "Wasteland 2 had some sweet concept stuff. I want more of that sort of stuff." Which is funny, because the Wasteland 2 concept stuff being shared is more akin to marketing materials (it looks good, but doesn't show much into the game, and helps generate a marketing buzz with some oohhh ahhhh visuals). Project Eternity showed work in progress stuff (because IMO an advantage is not needing to go around with marketing materials) and in my opinion, the majority of the fan feedback was for more marketing material type of updates. They just didn't realize that they were asking for that because they weren't using those words.

What I like about kickstarter is that it's letting some developers make the game that they want to make, and I think that that is an important ingredient in making a good game. There was a lot of heated discussion over what makes an "infinity engine game" and at some point I just want Chris, Josh, and Tim to make they game that they want to make because I am confident that it'll be one I enjoy.

[Allan Schumacher]

I really miss companies who thought fans were worth listening to through out the entire process of the game development. Interplay for example took multiple fan ideas from the forums and the very beginning of the process and they made it right into the game. Sex appeal, night owl, those perks in FO2 were direct fan contributions. What a more simple and glorious time then one we now inhabit.

I have literally passed on more than a mere handful of ideas I have read on this very forum to the point where I am probably annoying Mike with spam.

[Fiddzz]

MerinTB wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...
snip

snip

I wasn't saying thats what I thought, I was making a case that fans could feel even MORE entitiled to have a say/demand things because they feel, hey i'm investing in this product.  vs. a triple A game company.

I currently haven't backed any kickstarters, and don't plan to (for now).  I don't like the idea of a) having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up. the complete uncertentiy that you might not get what you thought you were going to.  But that's just me.

[Fiddzz]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Seriously though, just a screen shot of a wired skeleton just waving would be awesome, or an eyeball, or even a screenshot of a dirt road! Anything!

Please?
I can remain patient though...

https://pbs.twimg.co...Alw4p.png:large

Modifié par Blair Brown, 22 février 2013 - 05:05 .

[Fiddzz]

Also, this whole "we'll tell you stuff in spring" isn't set in stone, unless i'm mistaken and someone has a link to a quote from mike/mark? I just keep seeing it pop up and each time it seems to get posted more and more as a fact/gospel.

[Fiddzz]

I see, still, it's "spring at the earliest". that is not a firm date.

Like i said i'm seeing it appear in almost every thread at some point and each time it gets more and more, "THIS IS THE DATE!" Don't want people to have huge expectations and then be dissapointed.

[Allan Schumacher]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Good God! I've never seen anything in more dire need of an eye drop!

HAHA!  My frist reaction was "Get some visine!"

[Allan Schumacher]

I know you guys browse the forums even if you don't post anything, but this particular statement is heartening in that, for me at least, it often seems like any "new ideas" aren't really new, and any posts like "what about such-and-such method for this problem players have had?" are largely ignored. So it's nice to see.

It's a lot of "here's some interesting perspectives" as well as some additional commentary for me for how I think it might be a good idea. Ultimately it's just feeding into the pool for how Mike motivates his decisions.

I do have a bias in that the perspective must be somewhat novel (showing Mike the 2344th thread about a group of people saying the same thing they said the previous 2343 threads isn't really productive). I also have a bias of picking the things I like (for better or worse. I doubt I can every fully remove this too).

[Allan Schumacher]

Again, I think you are seeing it in the wrong light. When you say "I don't like the idea of having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up" you are clearly seeing Kickstarter as a store where you are ordering a product. It isn't, and you aren't.

Buying a product is primarily about you, the purchaser, getting something for yourself. Pledging or donating to a fund raiser is primarily about the project, backing something you believe in and want to support.

They are absolutely not the same thing.

Actually, the way Kickstarter is being used is very much like a store. They have provided tiers that provide different level of benefit based on the amount you contribute.

At it's root, most video games have it work as a preorder - You contribute to the kickstarter, we'll give you a copy of the game in exchange. In essence, they are selling the reward tiers for increased contribution. Failure to deliver on those reward tiers will result in backlash (justifiably so). Imagine Wasteland 2 or Project Eternity makes a fantastic game, but delivers on none of the reward tiers. People are going to be upset, because the developer didn't uphold their part of the transaction. This has nothing to do with the quality of the game either (this is the part where I agree, fans will just have to accept that the game may not be all they had hoped for.  That's the risk one has by contributing to a kickstarter)

Remove the rewards from Kickstarter, and I'm skeptical that it's as successful. For most people, it is an investment, not a charitable donation. They are investing money (and the opportunity cost that goes with it) to ultimately receive the rewards at the tier that they contributed to. This is very different than cutting a cheque to a local charity with no strings attached.

If you would be okay with not receiving anything in exchange for your kickstarter contribution, that's fine. I think there would be excessive outrage, even if the people that contributed just suddenly had to buy the game after release.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 22 février 2013 - 08:11 .

[Fiddzz]

MerinTB wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...
I currently haven't backed any kickstarters, and don't plan to (for now).  I don't like the idea of a) having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up. the complete uncertentiy that you might not get what you thought you were going to.  But that's just me.

It certainly is your call for doing so, and pledging at Kickstarter or no doesn't make you a good or bad person.  It is a choice if you want to do that.

I've backed a ridiculous amount of KS projects simply because I like the format.  I like supporting people directly for creating what I think looks promising.  I don't think of it as "buying" a product or pre-ordering.

Again, I think you are seeing it in the wrong light.  When you say "I don't like the idea of having to wait 1-2years after i've payed for something for it to show up" you are clearly seeing Kickstarter as a store where you are ordering a product.  It isn't, and you aren't.

Buying a product is primarily about you, the purchaser, getting something for yourself.  Pledging or donating to a fund raiser is primarily about the project, backing something you believe in and want to support.

They are absolutely not the same thing.

But, as I stated at the start, I'm not judging you for not wanting to do it.  I'm simply trying to correct your misconception.  And if you reply again that you understand this, your language isn't portraying that you do.  Your words read like you don't.

For clarification, I like the kickstarter format.  It's a great way for people to get a specific type of game out that probably wouldn't have been able to be made.  I just haven't found anything for me yet.  Maybe never will.

The thing that interests me most out of Kickstarter, is what is going to happen in the future, after these games are made.  They have already sold the product to 90+% of the people that would buy it anyways and used all that money to make the game.  How do they fund the next one?  Do they just keep kickstarting?  I don't know, it'll be interesting to see.

[Fiddzz]

Reznore57 wrote...

I used Kickstarter once for a music album (Amanda Palmer) and it wasn't different than pre order from Amazon (ok it was way funnier ).
But anyway when I pledge it was clear the album was already recorded ...
I paid for a cd , got a cd and some goodies.

From the customer point of view it adds nothing , I was just happy that she could get the money and decide what she wants to do with it.
Something that doesn't happen with record company , where artist don't get much and have to fight for their "artistic integrity".

So for me Kickstarter is just a way to choose where my money go .

You don't invest in a project and have a say in it , you just buy something (pre order) so creators do not need to be funded by X company.

And from what I saw from the Amanda kickstarter , there is a backlash if the customers feel the artist/creator doesn't do what the fan base want.
Which is strange , people paid people got their product , nobody complained about the actual album (what they funded ) .
People complained about the tour....Because everyone assumed (wrongly) the Kickstarter made her rich...which is funny because she gave great details about how the money was spend before her campain .

I've followed her career for quite a while and was stunned people thought thats how she got rich... she got rich because shes worked VERY hard, for a VERY long time.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Remove the rewards from Kickstarter, and I'm skeptical that it's as successful. For most people, it is an investment, not a charitable donation.

I hate to break it to you, but that's how charitable donations work, too.  Donors are buying an outcome.

Donors don't generally believe this to be true, but fundraisers know that donor behaviour responds to incentives.

Donors typically do not receive something tangible (a product) in exchange for their donation.  At best they receive something symbolic (a certificate, or some other form of acknowledgement).  In many cases it's simply a thank you.

Occasionally they do, in the form of a lottery or something like that (not uncommon in my neck of the woods), but then Kickstarter game devs isn't saying "contribute and you'll be in the lottery to get copies of our game."

People that contribute to a Kickstarter aren't just contributing to a game being developed (the outcome), but they're also contributing to receive the goods that were promised to them in exchange for their preorder.  Even if the game sucks, people are still going to expect that they receive what their tier indicates that they should get.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 22 février 2013 - 08:43 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Which is absolutely the wrong mindset and creates very angry backers and developers. I myself consider it charity and I absolutely expect results from both charity and Kickstarter. It isn't "no strings attached" at all. If the charity (or developer) uses my donation to fund his new deck or backyard pool I will be really angry. Might even look into legal remedies for it.

So if you contribute $250 for a tier that gives you some collectibles, a hard copy of the game with a cloth map, and in the end all that happens is a game gets developed that ultimately you still have to pay for to play (with no hard copy, no map, and no collectibles).

Sorry.  If Kickstarter is to truly be a charity, reward tiers need to be removed altogether and just let people donate what they want.  Appropriate use of funds can be dealt with the same way charities deal with it.  In this case, it's nothing more than donating for the hope of getting a game, with no return expected.

As long as rewards are offered for particular amounts of contribution, I have no problems with people expecting that the rewards promised get received.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 février 2013 - 12:21 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Firky wrote...

Everything I've ever given to on Kickstarter - only games and one gaming mag - has been the minimum tier required to get the product. (Except Feminist Frequency in which I didn't select a reward.) Then, I've walked away fully satisfied with backing the dream, whether or not I ever see any result at all.

I contributed to two Kickstarter games, at the tier to get a copy of the game too. I understand that the project may fall flat on its face and I won't get anything. That's part of the risk I took.

If the game comes out, however, and they decide to not give me the copy of the game that was originally promised to my tier, I'm going to be upset. I'd be surprised if you aren't as well, but maybe you're just a better person than I am.

They're much more likely to donate if they do.

This is how matching gift campaigns work. In those cases, the thinking the donor gets is the feeling of empowerment from having compelled some larger, richer entity to donate as the donor sees fit.

There exists remarkably robust empirical data detailing exactly the extent to which incentives drive donations (from new donors - existing donors appear to give out of a sense of loyalty).

Exactly, they donate with the expectation of getting something. As you concede, providing incentives to donate improves donations. I agree. If you start not honoring the incentives, it burns bridges.

People have an expectation, rightfully so, if they are told they are to receive something in exchange for the contribution.

[Allan Schumacher]

When I donate to PBS or NPR I might get a mug, tote bag, or even a magazine for donating more, and of course if I go for the higher tier, I expect the little gift. But my main goal is always to help with something I think it is valluable. Why is kickstarter any different ?

I think the difference is on the age of donnors, us old geezers are perfectly fine with donating $250 and getting a coffee mug and then giving away the coffee mug. But young donors at kickstarter think it is a game preorder and that is misleading to both the donnor and the charity.

So basically if you donated $250 to Project Eternity to kickstarter, which states the following:

Previous reward tier + you get your COLLECTOR'S EDITION BOX signed by CHRIS AVELLONE, TIM CAIN, JOSH SAWYER, and the rest of the development team + full color printed PROJECT ETERNITY COLLECTOR'S BOOK + an elite version of the PROJECT ETERNITY CLOTH PATCH. The book will be a full color book that includes concept art, player's handbook, monster manual, exclusive information about the campaign setting and characters, and a special behind the scenes look at making the game.

So if you donated to get that, and didn't get any of it after release (and were even asked to still purchase the game), and you have no problems with it, then you're a better person than I am.  If you were to get upset, I would hold nothing against you.  People suggesting that $250 contributors that don't get this have no reason to get upset are living in a fantasy world as far as I'm concerned.



Aside: I loathe the age argument. It's condescending and I'm now actually irate. You basically just called me young and immature because I disagree with your perspective, and imply that because Obsidian promised me a copy of their game for helping finance their game, that I expect them to honor that part of the agreement is unreasonable. I'm almost 32 years old, and would rather my age not be brought into the equation. I'd rather you just say I'm more selfish than you are.

Kickstarter worked for me because I'm contributing to a for profit business (not a charity) to make a product that I want. By which they make an appeal to potential customers as means of financing the game through different means. To entice additional contributions, they offer additional incentives for larger contributions.

As a kickstarter contributor, I understand that the game may not be to my liking. I understand that the game may never get made. I understand that I have no real recourse, no would I bother with pursuing any.

If, however, the game is released, and they decide to not honor the reward tier based on my contribution without darned good reason, I'm going to be upset. The reason why I contributed was because I knew I would get something in return (since Obsidian isn't a charity), and that the opportunity cost of me making my contribution was worth it. Even if they took my contribution and decided to put it towards some sort of charity, I'm still going to be upset because I have my own charity preferences that I prefer to donate to based on what I value as being important, and all I get is frustration in knowing that my money was mismanaged even if it did go to a good cause. Actions like this will prevent me from using Kickstarter in the future.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 février 2013 - 12:46 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Okay, now it appears we agreed all along.

How did you do that?

I suspect there's some confusion over what exactly is being delivered.

As a kickstarter contributor, you accept the risk that the product may not be to your liking.  Someone that preorders a game assumes this same risk.

We also disagree because I think that it's fair for someone to see it as an "investment" because, based on reward tiers, they are perfectly justified in having some level of expectation based on their contribution.  The game may suck (poor return on investment), or the game may be super amazing (great return on investment).


From wikipedia: "In finance, investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, usually over a longer term."

People have put their money into a game.  I personally don't want to have any say in how my money gets used (since I know it's such a small piece of the pie), but I can totally understand how someone may think it is.  It's just that the return is different than a pure financial one.




Although this is starting to get off topic (I didn't have a huge issue, since something like kickstarter's approach is valid when discussion product visibility, which is what media silence is really about).

To bring it back: I'm sure there are some that donated because of assurances the developer makes of being kept up in development, even if they don't have any expectations to influence it.  As a result, failure to deliver on updates regarding development would result in a poorer return on investment based on what they were expecting to get from a Kickstarter project.

[David Gaider]

ElitePinecone wrote...
Gaider is presenting at GDC, not PAX East, but for some inexplicable reason they're being held at the same time. His talk is in the context of briefing other game developers on topics in the industry, so it's about sexism/sexuality's effects on the public perception of the company, sales, etc.

Indeed. GDC is a developer conference where I'll be talking to other developers. If someone doesn't care for the topic, my suggestion would be to not pay attention to it (if GDC talks are even available to the public; I'm not sure they are). GDC certainly wouldn't be the place to go and advertise upcoming releases, at any rate.