575 réponses à ce sujet

[KDD-0063]

I don't think the toolset would be a first priority answer, we will have to wait and see.

DA is a series that surrounds its main campaign, like BG and Kotor. Most modders would work with existing story, unlike NWN or TES. Not all mods are the same. One well received mod for DAO was Alistair's royal wedding, which works with the existing main story. You hardly see this type of mods in NWN or TES.

Problem with working with existing story is that modders need to have resources. Inspirations. Fanfic, speculations, etc are all good resources. Imo, problem with DA2, if it had a toolset, will be that being a piece of turd, it doesn't offer enough resources for modders to work with. If DA3 is the same it would be in an awkward position.

Some games are raised from 5 to 9 by mods, such as BG2: ToB and Kotor 2, but the resources for their mods are cut content, and that the games are otherwise okay.

TL;DR: high quality games would attract better mods, should a toolset be available. Therefore making the game high quality should be the first priority, toolset, while nice, is not as important as the first.

[Fast Jimmy]

A modkit is not on the table for DA3. It has mostly to do with engine reasons. Reasons that would result in a toolkit not only being excessively expensive for them to make compared to other companies, but which would also result in a weaker, buggier toolkit. If you would like a long, detailed response/conversation of why, click here.

That being said, console hardware limitations have never been an issue for them having modkits. It is the online services of XBox Live and the Playstation network, which would not support large-scale downloading of content from their servers for free. So... even if a game has a free toolkit where modders are making content that could be used for either consoles or PCs, XBL and the PSN would not allow players to transmit/download them.

Fallout 3 had a number of mods for PC that users created and modified to also work for the XBox 360. However, to install them, one had to essentially download them onto your PC and do a direct transfer of data from your PC to your XBox... which is a bit of a pain.

Similarly, Bethesda has had enormous success with Skyrim's toolkit and pushed hard to make the modding available for XBox and PS3 players, but Microsoft and Sony both blocked their efforts to do so. Unless brand new policies and mindsets from these two companies accompany the new next gen console releases, this will not change anything.

So... to recap... making a modkit is NOT easy for Bioware to do at this juncture. If they did do it, it would result in an untested, buggy kit anyway that would not be nearly as effective as others on the market and, to boot, it will not open up any more of the console market, the biggest chunk of their fanbase sales for every Bioware game since KOTOR.

That's a lot of work, risk and obstacles just to give the PC Master Race something no one else can have/use.

[Zekka]

Would it really be that hard to make a toolkit? If i remember right Bethesda has had a toolkit for every TES game and fallout 3 and Bioware have had a toolkit for every gamr except for the mass effect series and DA2. Personally I think the reason there isn't a toolkit is because DICE says Frostbite 3 is too complicated, but that sounds like an excuse to not allow someone to modify their engine.

[Catroi]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't think toolkits are nearly as popular as you make them out to be, and I've yet to see any proven correlation between a toolkit and improved sales of the base game on any platform.

Hell, most people on this forum who want a toolkit aren't even making that argument. Their position has always been that it "extends the life of the game", which isn't something a developer necessarily wants.

I kinda agree, the only series which has proven to sell extremely well because of its toolkit is the Elder Scrolls, alot of Skyrim's sales are due only to the fact that people knew the game would be gorgeously awesome after fans modded it

[seraphymon]

Plaintiff wrote...

It's entirely irrelevent. We're talking about people who did not buy DA2. People who did buy DA2 are a completely different demographic. Looking at the people who did buy DA2 tells us nothing at all about the people who didn't buy it, because they are two totally disparate groups with no overlap.

It is entirely Revelant. Your just not getting it.  You argue that DA2 didn't sell because of people not liking DAO. This could be true. However he is arguing that it is OFFSET by the numbers that bought DA2 because they liked DAO and preordered DA2. It is a counter argument, and I would say a lot more people bought it for liking DAO, than those that didn't buy it because they didn't like DAO.

Plaintiff wrote...
You would, of course, know this, having polled every single person who played it. Nevermind that Bioware's telemetry shows that the vast majority of players didn't even complete it.

I don't believe he ever said every single person liked DAO. but on the majority scale it was well received. those who don't complete it is a odd thing to judge, it is a long game and people have lives, They can still love and not complete it. Also just cause they receive some numbers it doesn't tell the whole story. Some people can turn off the network and not show bioware that they actually have complete it.

Plaintiff wrote...
Vidoegames are an "experience good". Do you know what that means? It means you have to play them before you can judge their quality.

A lot of people bought DA:O, but that doesn't prove that they liked it. I'm not saying that nobody liked Origins, unlike you, claiming that everybody loved it. Statistically, some people had to dislike it, because there is no such thing as a universally-loved product.

As you say, DA2 sold significantly less units than DA:O, which means a good number of people didn't even give it a chance. It's impossible to know how good a game will be before you play it, so what are they basing it on? Information released by Bioware is part of it, yes, but DA2 is a sequel, meaning people's preconceptions about it will be coloured by their experience of its predecessor.

But oh, no! That can't be right! I forgot, you love DA:O, so that means everybody does.

Again a good number of people also bought DA2 due to liking what can be considered a masterpiece that was DAO, it was cashed in on its success and lots of pre orders, once it was finally out, the sales dropped and dropped fast.

Modifié par seraphymon, 15 mai 2013 - 12:15 .

[Sanunes]

leslie2233 wrote...

Would it really be that hard to make a toolkit? If i remember right Bethesda has had a toolkit for every TES game and fallout 3 and Bioware have had a toolkit for every gamr except for the mass effect series and DA2. Personally I think the reason there isn't a toolkit is because DICE says Frostbite 3 is too complicated, but that sounds like an excuse to not allow someone to modify their engine.

Yes it is extremely hard, for Bethesda has been using the same game engine since Morrowind and just trying to modify it to work with the new consoles and hardware.  If it was easier I think Bethesda would have made a new game engine to try and work better with the consoles instead of creating a game that runs really poorly on a platform that normally dwarfs the sales of the PC.  The other thing to really consider is the cost of making a game engine and the tools, Dragon Age: Origins took six years to develop, but Dragon Age 2 took 18 to 24 months.

[Sanunes]

seraphymon wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
You would, of course, know this, having polled every single person who played it. Nevermind that Bioware's telemetry shows that the vast majority of players didn't even complete it.

I don't believe he ever said every single person liked DAO. but on the majority scale it was well received. those who don't complete it is a odd thing to judge, it is a long game and people have lives, They can still love and not complete it. Also just cause they receive some numbers it doesn't tell the whole story. Some people can turn off the network and not show bioware that they actually have complete it.

True, its hard to make numbers based on information that isn't 100%, but at the same time BioWare released metrics that show that Dragon Age: Origins was their least completed game, even behind Mass Effect 3.  Do that mean it didn't attract some people to the game, no it probably did bring some people to the game and increased sales, but the question to me is did it bring enough to justify the cost of developing a game engine and all the tools required in house to make it work.

source

seraphymon wrote...

Again a good number of people also bought DA2 due to liking what can be considered a masterpiece that was DAO, it was cashed in on its success and lots of pre orders, once it was finally out, the sales dropped and dropped fast.

Using your logic Skryim was just as bad because it dropped 70%* after the first week compared to Dragon Age 2's 67%* and that is because soley the people that pre-ordered were so disappointed in the game. So just saying sales dropped off doesn't mean that it was because of the amount of disappointed people only.  Yes a lot of the first week sales are pre-orders just like any modern game for they try and get people to buy it day one for that is when both the retailers and publishers will make the most money.  The thing is after first week sales they stay pretty consistant form what I have seen.

(*Using VGChartz which is about as accurate as my picking the numbers with a random number generator.)

Edit: To fix bad wording.

Modifié par Sanunes, 15 mai 2013 - 12:53 .

[efrgfhnm_]

I'm pretty sure other people have made threads arguing that a toolkit would mean better sales, and it always ends with people saying that there is really nothing to indicate that. From what I remember PC and PS3 sales are around the same for the DA games, while Xbox 360 sells the most. Since it would be very hard to pull off a console modding program - I think the closest is Halo's forge mode or the design you own missions in in the latest Hitman and Infamous 2 - it would take up a load of resources for probably not much gain.
As far as I can tell DA2 sold a lot less because the word of mouth that so helped DA was simply not there, if anything it worked against the second one. So to improve sales they simply need to iron out the flaws of the previous game, rather than put in a feature that attracts only a limited number of fans

[thebigbad1013]

I think there are a great many ways for them to "win back lost fans" but I'm not convinced that a toolset would get the job done. Also, I would have to wonder about those people if there are indeed those who would quit or buy a game entirely based on whether or not a toolset is included.

Focus on making a great game and plenty of people will buy it, toolset or no.

[Noctis Augustus]

DomRod95 wrote...

Just out of curiosity, is there a place where I can find the exact number of people who bought DA:O compared to the people who bought DA2? I hear talks of the numbers but I haven't actually seen them myself.

[Fast Jimmy]

leslie2233 wrote...

Would it really be that hard to make a toolkit? If i remember right Bethesda has had a toolkit for every TES game and fallout 3 and Bioware have had a toolkit for every gamr except for the mass effect series and DA2. Personally I think the reason there isn't a toolkit is because DICE says Frostbite 3 is too complicated, but that sounds like an excuse to not allow someone to modify their engine.

It would be hard, yes.

No. Not even hard. It is not possible to make a toolkit like Bethesda.

Bethesda creates their games on their own engine with their own tools. Everything created is made in house.

Bioware is not like that. Even back with DA2, when they had their own engine, they were using other people's tools to make their games. Because Bioware is not a sound software company. Or an animation company. Or a bug reporting software company. Or a compiler development firm. They are a VIDEO GAME company.

Other companies make better tools than they do. They make better tools than CDProjekt and Bethesda do, as well, for the record. These are cutting edge tools that offer better quality right out of the box and cost less to rent a license for than it would be to make on their own (not to mention much faster).

So, that's where we are. Bioware uses other people's software to make their games. And Bioware cannot give away other people's software. It is very illegal. And they can't charge players for the toolkit - it would only tick players off and the cost of these license can range from hundreds to even thousands of dollars per license - which wouldn't even begin to offset their costs.

Their only option would be to, essentially, create a separate set of tools that does some of the same things. These tools they would own the rights to and could give away for free. But this essentially would be them building an entire game creation set of software FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of giving it away for free.

This is a huge losing proposition - it is like paying thousands of dollars to rent a bulldozer to do work on your house, then spending thousands of dollars more to build another one so your kids can play with it in the backyard. It would be wasteful and not at all worthwhile, not to mention your hastily cobbled together bulldozer would be not well made, not work as well as the "real" bulldozer you are renting to do construction and would likely break a lot since it was never tested properly as a bulldozer, meaning your kids would be pestering you about it non-stop.

That's what Bioware is looking at. Essentially building a second set of tools they will never use, but will own just so they can give it to PC players. That's not a smart move for anyone involved. Bioware has made the decision to used third party software licenses and will hopefully be able to make greater content of higher quality because of it. But they are in no position to provide a toolkit like some other developers are. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 mai 2013 - 02:59 .

[cJohnOne]

If I can't finish a game I sort of don't like the game. Assuming they got stuck in DAO.

[cJohnOne]

If that chart were true DA2 would never have sold 2 milllion. I don't think it's right.

[Fast Jimmy]

cJohnOne wrote...

If that chart were true DA2 would never have sold 2 milllion. I don't think it's right.

That isn't true. DA:O sales are estimated to be over four million, but it sold just two million in the first 10 weeks. DA2 could have followed that same rough trajectory, just with a shallower curve. 

[cJohnOne]

Wut the chart for DA2 shows decreasing sales it would never have sold another million according to the chart.




Also it isn't very likely that DAO would sell 2 million more according to the chart, which I think is wrong.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 15 mai 2013 - 03:09 .

[Dutchess]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

leslie2233 wrote...

Would it really be that hard to make a toolkit? If i remember right Bethesda has had a toolkit for every TES game and fallout 3 and Bioware have had a toolkit for every gamr except for the mass effect series and DA2. Personally I think the reason there isn't a toolkit is because DICE says Frostbite 3 is too complicated, but that sounds like an excuse to not allow someone to modify their engine.

It would be hard, yes.

No. Not even hard. It is not possible to make a toolkit like Bethesda.

Bethesda creates their games on their own engine with their own tools. Everything created is made in house.

I thought that Bethesda did have to pay other companies for the rights of their products to get the toolset out. Wasn't the 30-day DLC exclusive for x-box not part of the deal with Microsoft they had to make for the toolset?

[Sanunes]

renjility wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

leslie2233 wrote...

Would it really be that hard to make a toolkit? If i remember right Bethesda has had a toolkit for every TES game and fallout 3 and Bioware have had a toolkit for every gamr except for the mass effect series and DA2. Personally I think the reason there isn't a toolkit is because DICE says Frostbite 3 is too complicated, but that sounds like an excuse to not allow someone to modify their engine.

It would be hard, yes.

No. Not even hard. It is not possible to make a toolkit like Bethesda.

Bethesda creates their games on their own engine with their own tools. Everything created is made in house.

I thought that Bethesda did have to pay other companies for the rights of their products to get the toolset out. Wasn't the 30-day DLC exclusive for x-box not part of the deal with Microsoft they had to make for the toolset?

Bethesda owns all their tools, to me its part of the reason why they haven't replaced their outdated engine yet.  Microsoft doesn't really have anything to offer except for their developer kit for their consoles just like Sony.

[Fast Jimmy]

I thought that Bethesda did have to pay other companies for the rights of their products to get the toolset out. Wasn't the 30-day DLC exclusive for x-box not part of the deal with Microsoft they had to make for the toolset?

This is convoluting two different things. Bethesda was in discussions with both Microsoft and Sony to allow mods to be created and used on the 360 and the PS3. These talks failed.

What Bethesda provides for their PC customers is, quite frankly, none of Microsoft's business. The deal with DLC was so Microsoft would pay Bethesda more money to give them DLC exclusives.

[Fast Jimmy]

cJohnOne wrote...

Wut the chart for DA2 shows decreasing sales it would never have sold another million according to the chart.




Also it isn't very likely that DAO would sell 2 million more according to the chart, which I think is wrong.

...? Really? You don't think in the 200+ weeks since DA:O came out and the 150+ weeks since DA2 came out that there could be 1000 units of DAO sold a week, or 600 units of DA2? Worldwide? Including price increases, DLC promotions, sales, etc.? Across every platform? 

That seems... short sighted. 

[hexaligned]

cJohnOne wrote...

If that chart were true DA2 would never have sold 2 milllion. I don't think it's right.

That chart also doesn't account for digital sales, of either game.  Even assuming it's accurate to begin with as far as hard copy sales goes.

[Sanunes]

relhart wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

If that chart were true DA2 would never have sold 2 milllion. I don't think it's right.

That chart also doesn't account for digital sales, of either game.  Even assuming it's accurate to begin with as far as hard copy sales goes.

That is part of the reason why I can't trust any number that isn't part of a company boasting how many sales they have. We as a consumer will never know the exact sales of a game, just significant milestones.

[cJohnOne]

I'm talking about the trend line of the DA2 sales on the chart. It's going too far down according to the chart. It just doesn't make sense.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sanunes wrote...

relhart wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

If that chart were true DA2 would never have sold 2 milllion. I don't think it's right.

That chart also doesn't account for digital sales, of either game.  Even assuming it's accurate to begin with as far as hard copy sales goes.

That is part of the reason why I can't trust any number that isn't part of a company boasting how many sales they have. We as a consumer will never know the exact sales of a game, just significant milestones.

Company numbers are also purposefuy inaccurate. They usually (purposefully) count the number of units SHIPPED, which could be be far less than the number SOLD. Retailers often ship back and get refunds from the publisher any units not purchased or returned copies they can't sell as Used. So the retailers would be the best to ask... but there are a huge number of them, all with different accountig practices and who may or may not be willing or able to provide that level of detail to the public. So groups like VGChartz tally the numbers up that are publicly available from these retailers and make their projections thusly. The reason they don't count digital sales isn't because they are trying to push some agenda... it is because those digital distributors, like Valve or EA, don't give out those numbers.

As I've said before in previous discussions, VGChartz is the best metric available to get a rough estimate. If a developer or publisher has a problem with consumers, reporters and analysts using those numbers, then they need to step up be more transparent. Because you'll never get a "real" number, at least not publicly. I'm sure there is an internal document that accurately tallies the amount of copies shipped, how many were returned, how many were sold at a discount, how many were sold digitally... but the publisher and developer require a lot of info gathering to get this information, usually well after the fact. And they won't reveal said numbers to the public, since it paints a rosier picture for them to simply use the "units shipped" metric.

So there you go. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 mai 2013 - 04:04 .

[Fast Jimmy]

cJohnOne wrote...

I'm talking about the trend line of the DA2 sales on the chart. It's going too far down according to the chart. It just doesn't make sense.

You are having visual bias. You assume that since the sales dropped so quickly, that they would continue to do so. This is not the case. 

The ten-week time frame is used for most games to capture two things - initial sales (a large volume) and the expected level of sales for the near-future. Likely, the drop off from Week 5 to Week 10 sales will be insanely huge from the drop off from Week 10 to Week 15. Yes, Week 10 had around 75% less sales than Week 5, but more than likely Week 15 had somewhere more along the lines of 5-10% less sales than Week 10. Sales numbers decrease; but they still remain fairly steady for the months following. While the drop in the first two months/10 weeks is exponential, after that point, the drops are usually geometric. 

This is true in the vast majority of entertainment industries and other markers where products are revealed, sold (usually only once) and consumed in a short time frame. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 15 mai 2013 - 04:12 .

[Dominari]

n7stormrunner wrote...

I'm not a programmer so I don't know this but how hard is it to make a toolkit?

There will be one made because it is needed to make the game.  That part is a given.  If you make your own engine and tools, you can do whatever you want with them.  

If you are using someone else's engine and tools to build your game, you are limited because you do not own those tools.  You pay to use a 3rd party's tools and they don't usually like you giving away thier stuff.

So i the end it is not a question of how hard since the build tools will be made in order to make the game.  It is a question of legal use and ownership.