136 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Orian Tabris wrote...
The real question is: Why is BioWare releasing ANY of their games on console in the first place?

Because plenty of gamers don't have gaming PCs?

[Karach_Blade]

I'm not in a position to afford a new console, my laptop is held together with voodoo and I have college and bills. Xbox 360 it is! 

Modifié par Karach_Blade, 04 janvier 2014 - 04:40 .

[MrMrPendragon]

I'd say it's common sense.

360/PS3 market is much bigger than the next-gen market and even the PC market.

Do you think they want to send across a message that implicitly says

"Get DAI, only being released for PS4, Xbox 1, and PC. So you get yourself a next-gen console to play this game. The only other alternative is to buy a PC, even if you don't know anything about computers and you might end up buying a sub-par PC. And you'll probably have to upgrade your PC if you want to play the next 4 or 5 future titles, because that's just how it works in PC gaming"

They could do that, or they could go with what they have right now.

Not everyone can afford a PS4 or Xbox 1. Not even a year from now after the game has been released. Some people may not have gaming PCs.

Sure the appearance quality may be held by back by 360 and PS3, but damn, a lot of people play on these consoles. And I'm pretty sure Bioware or Ea isn't going to throw all those customers and risk losing payday just so the developers can make a game with decent enough details and graphics to please the people who want to play this game cranked all the way to Ultra.

Modifié par ArcherTactlenecks, 04 janvier 2014 - 05:00 .

[Orian Tabris]

AlanC9 wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...
The real question is: Why is BioWare releasing ANY of their games on console in the first place?

Because plenty of gamers don't have gaming PCs?

You see, games like Dragon Age Origins and 2 are suited to PC. The movement is very limited in most BioWare games, and easily controlled on PC.

You never saw games like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights on a console. Consoles are for shooters, adventure games and racing games, not tactical games (whether turn-based or not). They are great for games where the player really needs some physical flexibility (and perhaps require less thought).

Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 are the only games that'd make any sense on console, to actual gamers.

Anyway, who says you need a gaming PC to play a tactical RPG? It's not like decent computers can't handle such games.

[Skorm777]

Saints944 wrote...

You understand that there were 78 million consoles sold from both Sony and MS each right? Combined now they still have less than 10 million for next gen.

They also still make PS2 games.

I like a man that brings statistics. 

[Fredward]

Because new consoles are expensive as balls and for at least a couple of years after the release of the new ones a lot of people will still be using the old ones? Seriously. Wouldn't make much market sense to cut support for the consoles the majority will still be using.

[Orian Tabris]

J. Reezy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...
The real question is: Why is BioWare releasing ANY of their games on console in the first place?

Because plenty of gamers don't have gaming PCs?

Orian's a troll. Don't take him seriously.

Unacceptable! I am not a troll! I just tell it like it is, 'cause I know people are idiots who ignore truths or don't realise their mistakes!

When have you ever seen me troll? I'm either being silly or being as honest as I can.

Take this post I made 3 hours ago! Tell me this is me trolling!

Orian Tabris wrote...

SgtSteel91 wrote...

Maybe the idol just enhances emotions like Bartand's greed and Meredith's paranoia.

This. I have wondered if this might be true.

Bartrand
is greedy and selfish, caring little for others, as seen in his callous
treatment of his men. He already wasn't keen on having a business
partner. He wanted to go down into the Deep Roads, but he needed a map
of the tunnels and more supplies, thus he accepted Varric's offer of
using Hawke, once Hawke got the 50 gold. If he had just been given the
map, he would have gone, even without the gold, if it meant he'd get
more gold and treasure.

As for Meredith, she was paranoid of
mages, even before the expedition that led to Red Lyrium. She was being
harsher toward recruits, requiring stronger devotion to her, often
breaking recruits (mentally). It's no surprise there were templars like
Ser Karras and Ser Alrik high up in her ranks.

You could compare
the two. As greedy as Bartrand can be, he was still reasonable (even if
that reasonability was based on having full confidence in Hawke, in
order to let him/her join). Meredith was clearly nutty about mages
escaping her grasp, thus, I'd say she were far more paranoid than
Bartrand was greedy. That and the fact that Meredith was far crueler
than him, means that she were probably more susceptible to the effects
of the Red Lyrium. Bartrand sometimes hated the idol, and even though we
did not find out what Meredith was like with it, I'd say that she was
more keen on having it. She went more insane than Bartrand did, I
reckon.

Varric and Hawke had little designs on it, and owning
treasure, so they weren't really affected by it. Varric was going along
with his brother. He's also very laid back, and more of a
right-here-right-now sort of person, less concerned with the future than
Bartrand. While Hawke just needed money to get his/her mother back to
her estate home. In Act 3 Varric started to be affected by a piece of
the idol. I think maybe it's being broken might make it's effect
stronger (like how if you crush breakfast flakes (Special K, Just Right,
etc.), the honey, chocolate or whatever flavour in it is easier to
taste ), otherwise, I'm not sure why he could have been affected.

Hawke
and Sandal weren't affected by the broken idol. Sandal is a mystery -
and I reckon some sort of holy magical being, resistant to evil things
(I mean, he can survive the Deep Roads alone and can handily kill
darkspawn). As for Hawke? Maybe s/he is just protected by plot armour.

Modifié par Orian Tabris, 04 janvier 2014 - 06:15 .

[wolfhowwl]

Orian Tabris wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...
The real question is: Why is BioWare releasing ANY of their games on console in the first place?

Because plenty of gamers don't have gaming PCs?

You see, games like Dragon Age Origins and 2 are suited to PC. The movement is very limited in most BioWare games, and easily controlled on PC.

You never saw games like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights on a console. Consoles are for shooters, adventure games and racing games, not tactical games (whether turn-based or not). They are great for games where the player really needs some physical flexibility (and perhaps require less thought).

Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 are the only games that'd make any sense on console, to actual gamers.

Anyway, who says you need a gaming PC to play a tactical RPG? It's not like decent computers can't handle such games.

Well Bioware wants money and consoles are the biggest market. Apparently Bioware doesn't want to give up those sales and have to slash their budget so they can still make a profit from the much smaller PC market.

As far as decent PCs go, Bioware also doesn't appear interested in scaling down their game to accomodate those with integrated graphics cards (a huge chunk of Steam users and what many consoles gamers have in their facebook machine laptop).

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 04 janvier 2014 - 06:18 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Because it will only a year into next gen, not every gamer will have upgraded by then, it makes more business sense at this point to cater to all consoles.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 04 janvier 2014 - 06:18 .

[Maria Caliban]

Money.

[andy6915]

I probably won't have a next gen console upon DAI's release, so I'm glad. I just hope the next gen versions don't have any significant leaps over the last gen versions, that way I won't feel like the version I own is THAT much worse.

[dreamgazer]

By this time next year the 360 and PS3 will be more or less dead consoles with no new content being put out.

Took a long while for the full "transition" to happen last generation, and it's going to take even longer with this generation.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 04 janvier 2014 - 06:41 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

dreamgazer wrote...

By this time next year the 360 and PS3 will be more or less dead consoles with no new content being put out.

Took a long while for the full "transition" to happen last generation, and it's going to take even longer with this generation.

Agreed in some countries Sony are still shifting PS2s, tbh I could understand them not releasing next gen versions at all.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 04 janvier 2014 - 07:03 .

[dreamgazer]

Let alone the fact that the new systems are entirely non-backwards compatible, both for discs and digital downloads. Those consoles are going to be sticking around for a while.

[katling73]

Well, yeah, I agree you're going to get games made for both old and next gen consoles for 2014 and probably the first half of 2015 but my guess is that from late 2015 onwards, that's going to phase out as the game companies get a grip on what the next gen consoles can do and whether it's worth scaling back for the old gen consoles.

In fact, I think late 2015 and into 2016 is going to be the time of nasty surprises for both consolers and PCers as games go next gen only on the consoles and the PC side goes 64-bit systems only.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

If it was up to me, Dragon Age would be PC-only.  I'm not an elitist... I prefer consoles for Mass Effect.  Anyway, there have been a lot of people who took a very long time to buy a PS3, myself included.  As a result, it will be a very long time for most people to upgrade to "next gen".  Not everybody has money for a new console.

[FireAndBlood]

dreamgazer wrote...

By this time next year the 360 and PS3 will be more or less dead consoles with no new content being put out.

Took a long while for the full "transition" to happen last generation, and it's going to take even longer with this generation.

Not really, both consoles are selling faster than any other console in history, but it will still take more than a year and certainly not by the time DA:I comes out.

Modifié par FireAndBlood, 04 janvier 2014 - 10:29 .

[xsvrrx]

Simple answer the xbox 360 outsold the xbox one over christmas.

[Sanunes]

I can understand why they want to sell it for the older generation because there are still many of them out there and the cost could be very small to do so because if they planned for the two generations and what they have shown with how Frostbite can scale for the hardware requirements (I believe it was one of the Game Informer videos) it might not be that big of a cost recoup.

[ames4u]

darkchief10 wrote...

a good chunk of people will surely wait till the new consoles have their inevitable first price cut before they buy, the 360 at least will receive support till late 2015 before they shut down, so this is a good idea financially.

They would not shut down the 360 support. It would create too big of a backlash.

[ames4u]

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

If it was up to me, Dragon Age would be PC-only.  I'm not an elitist... I prefer consoles for Mass Effect.  Anyway, there have been a lot of people who took a very long time to buy a PS3, myself included.  As a result, it will be a very long time for most people to upgrade to "next gen".  Not everybody has money for a new console.

And yet, there are many PC gamers who resort to using a console controller to play their games.
I also fail to see why the game should be hamstringed just to please the PC players-there is no harm
in making the game multiplatform. It also ensures that they sell more copies too.

[Bfler]

One of my friends works at Amazon and he told me, that they sold much more old consoles at Christmas than new ones. With that I would say, that only a small minority plays with one of the new models.

Modifié par Bfler, 04 janvier 2014 - 04:04 .