133 réponses à ce sujet

[The Spirit of Dance]

No.

Why do we need special prizes in our single player experience when we play multi-player. I believe if MP is included that the only prizes we should get in MP are those that benefit the MP experience. I'm fine with the MP being DLC btw, that would give the devs enough time to work on the campaign mode before they have to ship it without being rushed.

[Maverick827]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

First, the game has to fit on discs. If MP content is built into the game, this eats into the limited disc space available, which can take the toll in terms of content, quality or even just the convenience of not having to switch discs out when playing a game's SP.

This is only an issue for the Xbox 360, and it won't extend into the next generation, so overall worrying about this is unnecessary.

Would this extra cost be something the developer is willing to take on the chin just because the SP campaign isn't up to snuff? Or would it cause the developer to say "put it together, force it out the door, we're losing money every day people aren't playing" and push out a sub-par project because the MP is ready, but the SP may not be?

This is irrelevant speculation and is defeated by proper software design management regardless.  The buzz word of today is "agile," meaning that staff isn't sitting around doing nothing.

Renmiri1 wrote...

If it came under the ME3 P&L accounts, it is the same as taking money out of the dev budget.

EA doesn't say "here's $30 million, build a game any way you like."  If BioWare somehow had the clout to say "we're not making a multiplayer portion," EA wouldn't respond "oh, okay, just spend the whole $30 mill on the single player, then."  The budget just wouldn't be $30 million anymore.  

Funds are greenlit for certain features.  Just because you take away one feature doesn't mean those funds still exist to be put into others.  If I hire a contractor to build me a house for $200,000 and a garage for $50,000, and the contractor says "we're not going to build you a garage, but we can install an indoor pool in the house for the same price," I'm going to say "I didn't ask for an indoor pool.  Just build me the damned house and I'll save the $50,000."

[Fast Jimmy]

Maverick827 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Would this extra cost be something the developer is willing to take on the chin just because the SP campaign isn't up to snuff? Or would it cause the developer to say "put it together, force it out the door, we're losing money every day people aren't playing" and push out a sub-par project because the MP is ready, but the SP may not be?

This is irrelevant speculation and is defeated by proper software design management regardless.  The buzz word of today is "agile," meaning that staff isn't sitting around doing nothing.

 

I am well aware of project management techniques. I pioneered the Change Control processes for my entire division (a multi-million dollar a year department consisting mostly of Fortune 500 Companies). If you are unfamiliar with Project Management terminology, Change Control is the process through which you ensure a project's objectives do not grow beyond the intended scope of the project and that it is finished on time and on budget.

So believe me when I say that it doesn't matter if you are using Scrum, Agile or more conventional forms of Project Management... if you complete one portion of a project that has cost dependencies (in this case, MP) and the team working on the other portion of a project wants to extend the schedule (like, say, getting more time to fix something as subjective as "story") there needs to be well-defined reasons for the delay and a cost analysis will be done. Saying "the story isn't ready yet" will not fly in many project management meetings, despite how true that statement was for ME3.

So it is not speculation on my part. If the MP component is ready to go before the SP, the developer will incur costs (or, at least, be paying money for non-utilized resources). Tying that level of co-dependency to the SP game leaves it open to the risk of this happening. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 avril 2013 - 09:51 .

[Dusk Wolf]

No.

Modifié par Lament for Thessia, 04 avril 2013 - 06:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So it is not speculation on my part. If the MP component is ready to go before the SP, the developer will incur costs (or, at least, be paying money for non-utilized resources). Tying that level of co-dependency to the SP game leaves it open to the risk of this happening.

Of course, those costs can be offset somewhat by releasing the MP component first.  Look how The Banner Saga has done it.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I think the only reason they did that with ME3 was because they thought no one would want to play the multiplayer otherwise.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So it is not speculation on my part. If the MP component is ready to go before the SP, the developer will incur costs (or, at least, be paying money for non-utilized resources). Tying that level of co-dependency to the SP game leaves it open to the risk of this happening.

Of course, those costs can be offset somewhat by releasing the MP component first.  Look how The Banner Saga has done it.

True, but this can only be done if the MP component is stand-alone in terms of software dependencies and can also be delivered early. For non-digital download (such as the console market), this is more difficult. In addition, whereas a Kickstarter has a known amount and identity of backers, a game such as DA3 does not know who will buy their game. Bioware could not know who will buy DA3, so their only option is to make the MP component available to everyone for free.

Which, in that case, it may be more like the social game Dragon Age: Legends than what many are thinking of when they say a "MP" component to a game. 

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Mr.House wrote...

NO!

ME3 MP having an affect on SP is why we got that horrible war asset system. MP should be its own thing and not connect to SP.

^This a trillion times over! 

[Fast Jimmy]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I think the only reason they did that with ME3 was because they thought no one would want to play the multiplayer otherwise.

I am fairly certain that is a poor reason to do anything. Unless you are talking about improving your MP component or advertising it more. 

Saying "no one will play this, let's push players to do it by tying it to something completely unrelated and arbitrary" is, on the whole, a poor idea. 

[Link Ashland 614]

It should ADD to SP, but not be mandatory for SP, like the ME3 MP was before the EC.

[Fast Jimmy]

Link Ashland 614 wrote...

It should ADD to SP, but not be mandatory for SP, like the ME3 MP was before the EC.

I would then pose the question of what adds to the SP via MP that is not mandatory?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Link Ashland 614 wrote...

It should ADD to SP, but not be mandatory for SP, like the ME3 MP was before the EC.

In that case, those additions need also to be optional.  Let us disable them.  My SP experience shouldn't have to be altered by my MP play, else you're forcing people who want an authentic SP experience never to play MP.

If BioWare wants me to play MP, they need to ensure that I can have my SP experience completely unaltered by my MP play.

Because I'll never play MP if it changes my SP game at all.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Link Ashland 614 wrote...

It should ADD to SP, but not be mandatory for SP, like the ME3 MP was before the EC.

In that case, those additions need also to be optional.  Let us disable them.  My SP experience shouldn't have to be altered by my MP play, else you're forcing people who want an authentic SP experience never to play MP.

If BioWare wants me to play MP, they need to ensure that I can have my SP experience completely unaltered by my MP play.

Because I'll never play MP if it changes my SP game at all.

What I think would be a smart move is to make any pre-order gear (like the Sir Isaac armor for the Dead Space 2 pre-order with DA2) available through regular pre-order means, but also obtainable through MP play.

If you play 100 hours of MP, you can unlock these other items if you did not pre-order the game (or did not pre-order at the right vendor, like Gamestop, etc.). This would still give people the bonus of the pre-order, but also give people access to the pre-order goods if they didn't pre-order, but which they would have to play a good amount of MP in order to unlock.

More MP means more chances they will cash in for some microtransactions. But, at the same time, you aren't tying any SP content (outside of optional gear) to the MP component of the game.

[Maverick827]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So believe me when I say that it doesn't matter if you are using Scrum, Agile or more conventional forms of Project Management... if you complete one portion of a project that has cost dependencies (in this case, MP) and the team working on the other portion of a project wants to extend the schedule (like, say, getting more time to fix something as subjective as "story") there needs to be well-defined reasons for the delay and a cost analysis will be done. Saying "the story isn't ready yet" will not fly in many project management meetings, despite how true that statement was for ME3.

I sitll don't see how you're connecting multiplayer development being completed early to having a game shipped before it's ready more so than any other component.  

How is it any different than when the artists complete their tasks before the sound guys have recorded all voice over?  How is it any different than when the tools programmers finish some engine upgrade that scene artists need to even begin working in the first place?  Either you can budget your resources and allocate them to other tasks/projects when necessary or you cannot.  It doesn't matter if it's multiplayer developers, tools developers, GUI developers, artists, sound engineers, or writers: if one componeeds more time, and a manager lets the "pressure" of other departments already being finished lead him to ship early, then the fault is with the manager, not the component.

If things worked the way you think they do, writers would be sitting around doing nothing for years inbetween games, because they're typically the first department to finish.  I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of them were working on Dragon Age 3 DLC that won't be released for months after the main game is released right now.

So it is not speculation on my part. If the MP component is ready to go before the SP, the developer will incur costs (or, at least, be paying money for non-utilized resources). Tying that level of co-dependency to the SP game leaves it open to the risk of this happening. 

The only instance where you would have resources just sitting around is if you 1) planned poorly (see above) or 2) have no other projects or tasks to put them on.  In the case of #2, you were most likely going to let them go when the project was finished anway (contractors?), so just let them go.

Modifié par Maverick827, 04 avril 2013 - 10:15 .

[K_Tabris]

It shouldn't exist at all. Hasn't EA learned their lesson yet? Apparently not.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I think the only reason they did that with ME3 was because they thought no one would want to play the multiplayer otherwise.

I am fairly certain that is a poor reason to do anything. Unless you are talking about improving your MP component or advertising it more. 

Saying "no one will play this, let's push players to do it by tying it to something completely unrelated and arbitrary" is, on the whole, a poor idea. 

If that was indeed the case, it was unnecessary. People really liked it and EA made a lot of money off suckers people who used the microtransactions.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 04 avril 2013 - 10:29 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Maverick827 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So believe me when I say that it doesn't matter if you are using Scrum, Agile or more conventional forms of Project Management... if you complete one portion of a project that has cost dependencies (in this case, MP) and the team working on the other portion of a project wants to extend the schedule (like, say, getting more time to fix something as subjective as "story") there needs to be well-defined reasons for the delay and a cost analysis will be done. Saying "the story isn't ready yet" will not fly in many project management meetings, despite how true that statement was for ME3.

I sitll don't see how you're connecting multiplayer development being completed early to having a game shipped before it's ready more so than any other component.  

How is it any different than when the artists complete their tasks before the sound guys have recorded all voice over?  How is it any different than when the tools programmers finish some engine upgrade that scene artists need to even begin working in the first place?  Either you can budget your resources and allocate them to other tasks/projects when necessary or you cannot.  It doesn't matter if it's multiplayer developers, tools developers, GUI developers, artists, sound engineers, or writers: if one componeeds more time, and a manager lets the "pressure" of other departments already being finished lead him to ship early, then the fault is with the manager, not the component.

If things worked the way you think they do, writers would be sitting around doing nothing for years inbetween games, because they're typically the first department to finish.  I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of them were working on Dragon Age 3 DLC that won't be released for months after the main game is released right now.

What are a team of support specialists, who are on staff to provide technical assistance for those experiencing online problems with the game, supposed to do? What are the extra servers leased months in advance supposed to do? What are teams who do balancing or build changs, whose vast majority of work results from observing how players do unexpected activities and require ongoing changes, supposed to do?

This isn't like an artist or a writer that can just be re-assigned. These are all product-specific assets and resources that will either sit unused, burning a hole in your budget, or will need to be utilized.

So it is not speculation on my part. If the MP component is ready to go before the SP, the developer will incur costs (or, at least, be paying money for non-utilized resources). Tying that level of co-dependency to the SP game leaves it open to the risk of this happening. 

The only instance where you would have resources just sitting around is if you 1) planned poorly (see above) or 2) have no other projects or tasks to put them on.  In the case of #2, you were most likely going to let them go when the project was finished anway (contractors?), so just let them go.

When creating project milestones and timelines, there is no way to budget or schedule time for work that isn't good. During your resource evaluation and assignment phases in the Initation and Planning portions of your project, you can check and double check that the employees, vendors and resources you have on the project are as good as they can be, but if they wind up doing shoddy work that needs to be redone, there is nothing you can do. It isn't a matter of planning, it is a matter of failing. 

Dependent tasks are ones that cannot be started until previous ones are completed. Animation work can't be fully completed until voice recording is done to ensure lip sync. Voice work can't be done until the writing is complete. And if the writing is shoddy and it isn't realized until all the other work is done, you're talking about going back to step one, the first dependent task, and beginning again. 

This is a regrettable, but extremely possible, outcome in any project. And one which requires you to extend out the lifetime of the project at hand.

But if you are running parallel tasks of the project and one completes their portion and has numerous resources, assets and personel at the ready and engaged as per the original schedule, but the other task is now set behind, you are looking at a serious sunk, non-recoupable cost. 

In construction, if you have a building nearing completion and you have hired staff and attendees that are on the payroll and ready to go, but then a freak storm happens and causes your plumbing to be out of code, you have to fix said plumbing, while eating the cost of those employee's wages. This is because there are building codes that prevent you from opening your building with improperly installed and functioning facilities. In that case, you would have no choice but to bite the expense bullet.

In game development, if they are looking at paying out money for MP staff, resources and assets that will do nothing because the game won't go gold for another three to six months, then project leaders will need to meet, look at the numbers, look at what the product/project's current state is and say "is what we have good enough?" 

I'm not saying I know for sure that this is what happened with ME3, but it is an inherent risk when developing any game that ties strongly into online play. Proper staffing, server storage and communications need to be engaged for a MP component to launch successfully. If all of those resources are already engaged and incurring expense, it risks pushing the entire product out the door before it is ready. That is one of the downfalls of parallel tasks in project management.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 04 avril 2013 - 10:38 .

[Fast Jimmy]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I think the only reason they did that with ME3 was because they thought no one would want to play the multiplayer otherwise.

I am fairly certain that is a poor reason to do anything. Unless you are talking about improving your MP component or advertising it more. 

Saying "no one will play this, let's push players to do it by tying it to something completely unrelated and arbitrary" is, on the whole, a poor idea. 

If that was indeed the case, it was unnecessary. People really liked it and EA made a lot of money off suckers people who used the microtransactions.

Trying to get a product to stand on its own merits without trying to trick the player into some SP requirement or a type of DRM?

Madness.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Saying "no one will play this, let's push players to do it by tying it to something completely unrelated and arbitrary" is, on the whole, a poor idea.

If that was indeed the case, it was unnecessary. People really liked it and EA made a lot of money off suckers people who used the microtransactions.

Yes, but would EA have made that money if no one played the MP?  The point here is that the MP was bad, so that players had to be forced to play it.  The point here is that the MP was good, but players may not have even bothered to try it (given BioWare's lack of a MP trackrecord) had there not been some SP benefit to doing so.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Saying "no one will play this, let's push players to do it by tying it to something completely unrelated and arbitrary" is, on the whole, a poor idea.

If that was indeed the case, it was unnecessary. People really liked it and EA made a lot of money off suckers people who used the microtransactions.

Yes, but would EA have made that money if no one played the MP?  The point here is that the MP was bad, so that players had to be forced to play it.  The point here is that the MP was good, but players may not have even bothered to try it (given BioWare's lack of a MP trackrecord) had there not been some SP benefit to doing so.

Word gets around. If something is good, people will know about it and probably play it at some point.

[Fast Jimmy]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Saying "no one will play this, let's push players to do it by tying it to something completely unrelated and arbitrary" is, on the whole, a poor idea.

If that was indeed the case, it was unnecessary. People really liked it and EA made a lot of money off suckers people who used the microtransactions.

Yes, but would EA have made that money if no one played the MP?  The point here is that the MP was bad, so that players had to be forced to play it.  The point here is that the MP was good, but players may not have even bothered to try it (given BioWare's lack of a MP trackrecord) had there not been some SP benefit to doing so.

Word gets around. If something is good, people will know about it and probably play it at some point.

Which makes one wonder why Bioware set ME3 up like that in the first place.

[Nimrodell]

Of course not, I have nothing against multiplayer and players that want to play it, but also as one that doesn't want any multiplayers or MMO's in her life anymore... I surely hope that BW will keep DA3 single player experience intact (yes, I'm completionist too, with many playthroughs 'cause I love seeing the story in whole, all outcomes, all tiny bits)... Please, no more vanilla ME3 multiplayer things anymore... There has to be some respect left for those who'll do everything in single player, or just don't want for their gameplay and payed game to be affected by multiplayer.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Saying "no one will play this, let's push players to do it by tying it to something completely unrelated and arbitrary" is, on the whole, a poor idea.

If that was indeed the case, it was unnecessary. People really liked it and EA made a lot of money off suckers people who used the microtransactions.

Yes, but would EA have made that money if no one played the MP?  The point here is that the MP was bad, so that players had to be forced to play it.  The point here is that the MP was good, but players may not have even bothered to try it (given BioWare's lack of a MP trackrecord) had there not been some SP benefit to doing so.

Word gets around. If something is good, people will know about it and probably play it at some point.

Which makes one wonder why Bioware set ME3 up like that in the first place.

I imagine they just weren't very confident in the MP component. It wasn't original and didn't have much going for it other than the progression system and unlocks. Maybe they thought the microtransactions wouldn't go over well. Which is funny considering how that was the most successful part of it.

I don't know why Bioware does half the stuff they do that is just plain stupid. I remember reading all the previews and hands-on impressions on DA2 leading up to it's release, and with every single one I was disappointed. It seemed like they were going out of their way to take the stuff I actually did like about Origins and make it worse.

[SaidRael]

worst idea ever...

[Sylvius the Mad]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, but would EA have made that money if no one played the MP?  The point here is that the MP was bad, so that players had to be forced to play it.  The point here is that the MP was good, but players may not have even bothered to try it (given BioWare's lack of a MP trackrecord) had there not been some SP benefit to doing so.

Word gets around. If something is good, people will know about it and probably play it at some point.

Not always.

In fact, if that were always true, then there would be no need for marketing in the world.

Many good products die because not enough people know about them.