315 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

David Gaider wrote...

(And I'll try not to think of the sadomasochistic element of our relationship implied by that statement.)

You know when you kill off my favorite characters?

That does all sorts of wonderful things for me. 

(Good lord that hurt to type, if something bad happens to Morrigan I'm so done)

[David Gaider]

Filament wrote...
They reaffirmed it because people asked, and that was the official word until they were allowed to comment otherwise.

Exactly. As a publicly-traded company we are obligated to only give publicly available release dates. As I said earlier, until the public date changes we will always be "on track" for release. If that seems disingenuous, my advice would be to not ask for comments on release dates. There is only one answer we are permitted to provide.

[Angrywolves]

I agree they should have something before E3. I don't consider it a deliberate deception . Just a miscalculation. I wish they would say more about what is in the game. I believe they're having problems with it and can't say much as they may have to make further changes away from their original plan/design. Just my opinion.

[Rixatrix]

IanPolaris wrote...
we could have been let down gently

When has "letting the BSN down gently" ever worked?

The "game engine" bit is really a lot less than meets the eye without any game-play elements as well.  I think most people that follow such things realize this.  I also point out that giving yourself negative press at the same time as trying to mitigate it with positive press at something like E3 is tricky at best.  Far better IMO to be fully positive during E3 when you are making your public presentations.

You don't actually explain why these announcements should be separate.  Why is it tricky?  Releasing the delay information with an excitement-inducing trailer was done to soften the blow, hoping that the positive would overshadow the negative.  Besides, outside of the minority of gamers here, the unveiling at E3 was the most they'd heard about DA:I.  The release date presented wasn't a negative to non-BSN interested gamers, it was something to look forward to.  For the over-analyzers out there, as some on BSN tend to be (you know it's true), rather than separating the delay information and having who-knows-what be speculated, the trailer was an assurance that the game's development was still healthy and assured.  It's about making a substantial showing of what you're aiming for with the game with your announcement of delay, rather than just saying "we need more time."

The real issue was that DA:I was revealed far too soon.  I understand why this was done, but it was too soon.

Wouldn't you say that as a forum reader here, talking to BioWare employees, you assume the risk of finding out about development "too soon"?  There are a lot of people out there who don't bother, and they had the benefit of surprise at the trailer, if they chose to see it.

You don't want your customers thinking "WTF" because that generates negative buzz.  Get enough negative buzz too early, and you have problems.......

Firstly, I would question that this "negative buzz" is present anywhere outside of the BSN, so "enough negative buzz" may be a lot less than you think.  Secondly, despite the "negative buzz" here, considering we spend all this time reading and participating on a game company's forums, there is a good chance we will at some point buy or rent this game, so "negative buzz" likely isn't much of a concern.  Thirdly, when a game is definitely going to be released, any buzz can be good buzz.  All of this "news" doesn't actually address the quality and potential success of the game, it just gets people talking about it.  You really think that a substantial percentage of people who were planning on buying the game are now going to decide, "They didn't tell me the game was going to be delayed as soon they knew!  Psh, now I'm definitely not buying the game!" despite its potentially (and some might say "likely") high quality?

Yeah, doubtful.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 14 juin 2013 - 09:45 .

[Zeldrik1389]

David Gaider wrote...

Filament wrote...
They reaffirmed it because people asked, and that was the official word until they were allowed to comment otherwise.

Exactly. As a publicly-traded company we are obligated to only give publicly available release dates. As I said earlier, until the public date changes we will always be "on track" for release. If that seems disingenuous, my advice would be to not ask for comments on release dates. There is only one answer we are permitted to provide.

It's an off topic question but I'm kind of curious. Will there be any more DA related features this year? I mean the comic was just released recently, and the next thing I heard of is the new book, which will come out next april. So between now and next spring, we will have around 10 months. That's quite a long time to go without anything to keep fans hooked I think

Modifié par Zeldrik1389, 14 juin 2013 - 09:47 .

[ianvillan]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

You don't actually explain why these announcements should be separate.  Why is it tricky?  Releasing the delay information with an excitement-inducing trailer was done to soften the blow, hoping that the positive would overshadow the negative.  Besides, outside of the minority of gamers here, the unveiling at E3 was the most they'd heard about DA:I.  The release date presented wasn't a negative to non-BSN interested gamers, it was something to look forward to.  For the over-analyzers out there, as some on BSN tend to be (you know it's true), rather than separating the delay information and having who-knows-what be speculated, the trailer was an assurance that the game's development was still healthy and assured.  It's about making a substantial showing of what you're aiming for with the game with your announcement of delay, rather than just saying "we need more time."

You don't want your customers thinking "WTF" because that generates negative buzz.  Get enough negative buzz too early, and you have problems.......

Firstly, I would question that this "negative buzz" is present anywhere outside of the BSN, so "enough negative buzz" may be a lot less than you think.  Secondly, despite the "negative buzz" here, considering we spend all this time reading and participating on a game company's forums, there is a good chance we will at some point buy or rent this game, so "negative buzz" likely isn't much of a concern.  Thirdly, when a game is definitely going to be released, any buzz can be good buzz.  All of this "news" doesn't actually address the quality and potential success of the game, it just gets people talking about it.  You really think that a substantial percentage of people who were planning on buying the game are now going to decide, "They didn't tell me the game was going to be delayed as soon they knew!  Psh, now I'm definitely not buying the game!" despite its potentially (and some might say "likely") high quality?

Yeah, doubtful.

When Bioware announced that they were making DAI it was advertised on most of the main gaming websites and the majority of comments from general gaming fans were about DA2 being bad and about ME3 ending and how they had no intention of getting DAI because of these and a few more reasons. So why on the first major release of information since that time why didn't Bioware come out big time about the main changes to the game and how they have listened.

[Steppenwolf]

David Gaider wrote...

Filament wrote...
They reaffirmed it because people asked, and that was the official word until they were allowed to comment otherwise.

Exactly. As a publicly-traded company we are obligated to only give publicly available release dates. As I said earlier, until the public date changes we will always be "on track" for release. If that seems disingenuous, my advice would be to not ask for comments on release dates. There is only one answer we are permitted to provide.

If you can't mention a change of release window then just don't say anything at all. Why reaffirm a false time frame at all?

[Allan Schumacher]

But I think one of the reasons some people feel lied to is because, as recently as a few weeks ago, the higher ups from Bioware were still pushing the targetted for a fall 2013 release date line. The picture that Allan and others have painted so far makes it seem that a fall 2013 release date has completely been out of the question for some time now so persumably they've been repeatedly pushing the fall 2013 target date knowing full well the game wouldn't be out for a long time after that.

Part of it is because the specifics of the delay (specifically how long. When discussing pushing the date back, Fall 2014 wasn't the only time frame provided).

There's also issues with being a publicly traded company. I don't know what they all are (it's not really my concern), but I remember asking "Why don't we just tell people?" when DAO's release was being pushed back just a few months a couple weeks after I started, and basically the response was that there are restrictions and procedures that a publicly traded company has to adhere to.

So for DAO I towed the official line because I wasn't allowed to (in large part for my own protection). Once I knew of the release date shift for DAI, I tended to not chime in on the discussion outside of trying to break off arguments that people were having, and I tried to maintain more neutral terms, but that still poses a risk to myself.

Here's some problems with deciding to not answer: speculation. If someone keeps getting asked the question (and they had no issues answering), refusal to answer becomes an answer. Changing how you answer becomes an answer. By maintaining the line of currently publicly released information, it guarantees that I won't disclose non-publicly released knowledge and won't compromise myself or my employer (which extends to not compromising myself again). And for any that want to go digging through my posts, you'd probably successfully find situations where I fail to strictly adhere to this. If you wish to call me out on this, just understand what this will likely mean in how I behave on the BSN.

https://en.wikipedia...SEC_regulations

This gives a very brief gist. Now, I knew a delay was coming, but I know that various windows were being discussed. In some cases, it definitely wasn't even guaranteed.

My prediction, is it's case of being VERY conservative to prevent any sort of violations which will result in any sort of prosecution or penalty. Which can suck for you, sure, but it's not a simple case of coming onto BSN and saying "delayed!" Or, by my limited understanding, even just issuing a press release (I suspect a press release from a publicly traded company gets thoroughly looked over and takes a non-trivial amount of time to prepare, but that's just me guessing)

If any sort of release window has been announced, expect that window to be repeated even if you suspect it's going to move. Which is sucky, and it's why I personally, as a gamer, try to always recognize that a game's release date may change even if I heard otherwise from a company representative just hours earlier.


I'd prefer to not field a ton of questions about the specifics of this, nor the scrutiny or any potential cracks in my explanation because I'm frankly just making an assessment on what I think, and wouldn't at all be surprised if there's a lot of stuff that I don't even know about, and certainly more that I don't understand.

The picture that Allan and others have painted so far makes it seem that a fall 2013 release date has completely been out of the question for some time now so persumably they've been repeatedly pushing the fall 2013 target date knowing full well the game wouldn't be out for a long time after that

Which is why it's sometimes safer for me to keep my mouth shut. At some point, if you're going to take the things that I otherwise didn't bother needing to say, but tried to explain because, on some level, I felt a bit of empathy for people that were frustrated, as extra ammunition to use against myself or BioWare, it puts me on edge. It reinforces the notion that I need to be extra careful about what I say (something I probably didn't even do in this very post).

To borrow from David Foster Wallace's "This is Water" commencement speech, we as people can choose how we react to information, by extrapolating plausible reasoning. In most of our interactions with people, we will never actually know the reasoning behind the circumstances. We have a tendency to, when feeling inconvenienced, to ascribe negative traits to that which we feel inconvenienced by. So that person that speeds past you at 140 km/h on the highway is just driving like an idiot. Or, he has a son in the back that splashed some toxins in his eye, and the only thought on the father's mind is to get his son to a place to treat it (I use this example because I was that son a few decades ago, screaming in agony because I splashed some bad substances into my eyes by mistake while on a camping trip in the mountains).

My point with this is to ask yourself a question. You have now learned that the decision to move the release date conflicts with some messaging that came, likely after we already knew the release date changed. Do you think that any of those answers were done intentionally as an aim to deceive. Are we just obstinate, laughing somewhere that someone may feel cheated because of this? What ideas can you come up with (good or bad), that would motivate the dishonesty you feel we portrayed. The decision to motivate yourself to believe negative/nefarious ones will undoubtedly be influenced by your established feelings, especially if they are already mistrust.

I agree with the notion that people have the choice to determine how, long term, they react to things by which they aren't privileged to know all the details (and we rarely are). And even when we are, I can still choose to let a traffic jam annoy me or not.


EDIT:

If you can't mention a change of release window then just don't say anything at all. Why reaffirm a false time frame at all?

I know I mentioned it in the big post, but to reiterate: failure to answer IS an answer.  Especially if you were okay answering earlier.  Even then, I still saw hints given out (at least one of which directed to you personally), that I personally wouldn't have been comfortable giving out.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 juin 2013 - 10:28 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Far better IMO to be fully positive during E3 when you are making your public presentations.

Given the things fans often say (They better give this game enough time), I'm not entirely convinced that "Fall 2014" is even unequivocally "bad news." Plenty of people said they liked seeing that, and even elaborated that it's because they appreciate the indication that EA is willing to give the project more time.

[Steppenwolf]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Far better IMO to be fully positive during E3 when you are making your public presentations.

Given the things fans often say (They better give this game enough time), I'm not entirely convinced that "Fall 2014" is even unequivocally "bad news." Plenty of people said they liked seeing that, and even elaborated that it's because they appreciate the indication that EA is willing to give the project more time.

The only reasoning behind the delay being a bad thing is that the wait is too long, meaning they can't wait to play your game. Criticism of the delay is a positive thing, really.

[Angrywolves]

insider trading ?
That seems a tad extreme. Now today it was reported the RCMP led Schumacher off in handcuffs because of a disclosure he made on the BSN. Fun to have seen that. Oh well, what's done is done regarding the release. Thought Schumacher was the handcuff type. rotfl.

[IanPolaris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Far better IMO to be fully positive during E3 when you are making your public presentations.

Given the things fans often say (They better give this game enough time), I'm not entirely convinced that "Fall 2014" is even unequivocally "bad news." Plenty of people said they liked seeing that, and even elaborated that it's because they appreciate the indication that EA is willing to give the project more time.

Allan, I think we both know that you are quibbling a bit here.  I think everyone agrees that a game should be given enough time to be done right, but I also think most reasonable people agree that a schedule slip is gernally not considered to be good news (and especially one of a full year).

I also (like I said elsewhere) am still not entirely convinced that this extra time is being done 'just to be sure it is done right' and for no other reasons, but I also know that you can not comment beyond that, nor do I really expect any.  The question was posed and you and other BW reps did answer.  Time will tell.

-Polaris

[Sylvius the Mad]

Changing the schedule may well be terrific news. We don't have enough information to draw a definitive conclusion on this. There's no reason to take this badly unless there was some reason to believe you won't be able to play the game in 2014.

[IanPolaris]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Changing the schedule may well be terrific news. We don't have enough information to draw a definitive conclusion on this. There's no reason to take this badly unless there was some reason to believe you won't be able to play the game in 2014.

On a purely objective level, you may well be right, but people are seldom purely objective.  First of all there is the dissapointment of having to wait a bit longer.  That dissapointment from the PoV of Bioware is a *good* thing.  It means people are interested in your product.  However, there is also the problem of how expectations were managed, and I know that DG and Allan have both come here to help explain things, but I still think it could and should have been done better.

-Polaris

[Allan Schumacher]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Far better IMO to be fully positive during E3 when you are making your public presentations.

Given the things fans often say (They better give this game enough time), I'm not entirely convinced that "Fall 2014" is even unequivocally "bad news." Plenty of people said they liked seeing that, and even elaborated that it's because they appreciate the indication that EA is willing to give the project more time.

The only reasoning behind the delay being a bad thing is that the wait is too long, meaning they can't wait to play your game. Criticism of the delay is a positive thing, really.

I agree that that's really the only negative.  As such, I'm not entirely convinced that it's necssarily bad news.  The people it's most likely to be bad news for are the ones that were already superbly geeked up for it.

[Rixatrix]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Far better IMO to be fully positive during E3 when you are making your public presentations.

Given the things fans often say (They better give this game enough time), I'm not entirely convinced that "Fall 2014" is even unequivocally "bad news." Plenty of people said they liked seeing that, and even elaborated that it's because they appreciate the indication that EA is willing to give the project more time.

It was definitely a good sign for me.  It seemed like a prevalent concern here year ago was that EA had been cracking the whip and forcing unrealistic development schedules on BW, which led to a slip in quality.  Seeing an extension in development time, that was very much in tune with that I'd seen from BW posts on BSN (such as acknowleding the shortcomings of DA2, promising to deliver DA:I only when it was ready, and so on), gave me a positive feeling.  More time to work on a game is an indicator of health in the company for me, and as a customer and fan, I feel like I will be getting a carefully-made, high quality product instead of one made with good intentions but under unrealistic time constraints.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 14 juin 2013 - 10:41 .

[Wulfram]

All I'd ask is that at some point we should actually start getting closer to the release date.

[Allan Schumacher]

IanPolaris wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Given the things fans often say (They better give this game enough time), I'm not entirely convinced that "Fall 2014" is even unequivocally "bad news." Plenty of people said they liked seeing that, and even elaborated that it's because they appreciate the indication that EA is willing to give the project more time.

Allan, I think we both know that you are quibbling a bit here.  I think everyone agrees that a game should be given enough time to be done right, but I also think most reasonable people agree that a schedule slip is gernally not considered to be good news (and especially one of a full year).

What makes it bad news?  Consider this within the context that people have the assumption (regardless of whether or not that assumption is correct) that corporate EA has placed too aggressive of schedules on BioWare, as a studio.

I also (like I said elsewhere) am still not entirely convinced that this extra time is being done 'just to be sure it is done right' and for no other reasons, but I also know that you can not comment beyond that, nor do I really expect any.  The question was posed and you and other BW reps did answer.  Time will tell.

-Polaris

"Just to be sure it's done right" is an exceptionally vague term.  Just to be done right will likely entail some level of permutation of "Continuing to work on existing stuff, adding new stuff, cutting other stuff."  Do you think it entails something different?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 14 juin 2013 - 10:43 .

[Welsh Inferno]

People are arguing about the delay? I think it was great news. More time to work on the game.

I'm a patient person, so I'v got no problem with the waiting.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 14 juin 2013 - 10:46 .

[Reznore57]

Well I remember the feeling at the end of DA2 , how it was obvious the game needed more time...
I did like the game , still do ...but well...
So it's awesome DA3 do get more time .

A whole year is long though, I hope I won't get hit by a bus , join a cult or whatever ..

[TCBC_Freak]

Yeah, I see this not as delaying the release, but extending the production... it's all about how you see things, optimistic (which give biowares full history is something I'm more than happy to do), or being pessimistic (something that if it wasn't a company I trusted doing this it might be much harder).

To the OP: I kind of like not making an iconic protagonist, I know that at some point you have to show a PC to show game play but if you show a different PC each time I think it'll be way better.

[IanPolaris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Given the things fans often say (They better give this game enough time), I'm not entirely convinced that "Fall 2014" is even unequivocally "bad news." Plenty of people said they liked seeing that, and even elaborated that it's because they appreciate the indication that EA is willing to give the project more time.

Allan, I think we both know that you are quibbling a bit here.  I think everyone agrees that a game should be given enough time to be done right, but I also think most reasonable people agree that a schedule slip is gernally not considered to be good news (and especially one of a full year).

What makes it bad news?  Consider this within the context that people have the assumption (regardless of whether or not that assumption is correct) that corporate EA has placed too aggressive of schedules on BioWare, as a studio.

I said that schedule slips aren't generally considered good news, and IMX anyway they aren't.  That doesn't mean that it's always unmitigated bad news either, but when I manage a project one of my caution flags go up when I start to see schedule slippage (which mind you often happens...in fact schedule slippage usually happens in fact).  That doesn't mean it's ideal.

I also (like I said elsewhere) am still not entirely convinced that this extra time is being done 'just to be sure it is done right' and for no other reasons, but I also know that you can not comment beyond that, nor do I really expect any.  The question was posed and you and other BW reps did answer.  Time will tell.

-Polaris

"Just to be sure it's done right" is an exceptionally vague term.  Just to be done right will likely entail some level of permutation of "Continuing to work on existing stuff, adding new stuff, cutting other stuff."  Do you think it entails something different?

We both know there are any number of things that can cause severe schedule slippage that have nothing to do with improving the overall quality of the game (see production histories of Duke Nukem Forever and Master of Orion 3 for extreme examples).  I am not saying that anything like that is happening here, and for now I will take BW's word that it isn't, but I do note even if it were you (and other company reps) would be required to deny it.

Thus ultimately it's a matter of 'wait and see'....and most people are terrible at waiting.

-Polaris

[DeathScepter]

As long as DA:I is good, I will wait as long as possible. I do still have faith in Bioware.