111 réponses à ce sujet

[tybert7]

PinkysPain wrote...

It's not up to Bioware any more, it's up to EA. Nothing with current generation Frostbite will be moddable, since the framework has been designed with no consideration for modding. Without forethought moddability takes orders of magnitude more work ... look at what happened with NWN2 and Granny (which the Frosbite tools use as well I think).

Unless future Frostbites are designed with modding in mind the only way we will get a moddable game out of Bioware is if they leave EA.

Is this for technical reasons of business reasons?

If the barriers are only technical, then given enough time moddability may be added to the engine.  The rationale I hope is not true and completely bafling would be if the barrier were some sort of exclusivity to EA business reason to not allow/develop modding.


I don't see any downside to allowing mods from a business perspective.

Can you imagine Dragon Age Origins without the ability to mod the game and change Alistar to come onto a male warden.... (too much info just released).  THIS is IMPORTANT STUFF !!!!!!

[CybAnt1]

Here's the interesting question.

Given what little I know about modding, there needs to be a place where game modders can come together and discuss file structures, data structures, the creation of their own modding tools, etc.

I'm curious if, even sans Toolset, Bio will "unofficially" support them by offering a DA:I modding sub forum at BSN.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Is this for technical reasons of business reasons?

Both, probably, but the business reasons are "it would cost a lot of time and money to make this thing that relatively few people would use" and not "EA is evil and hates mods."

I mean, I love mods, but if making the game mod-friendly is going to absorb a lot of resources, I can see why the devs would rather put that energy into other things.

[ghostzodd]

Andrastee wrote...

Is this for technical reasons of business reasons?

Both, probably, but the business reasons are "it would cost a lot of time and money to make this thing that relatively few people would use" and not "EA is evil and hates mods."

I mean, I love mods, but if making the game mod-friendly is going to absorb a lot of resources, I can see why the devs would rather put that energy into other things.

EA does hate mods though, they can't make money off of it

[Sanunes]

ghostzodd wrote...

Andrastee wrote...

Is this for technical reasons of business reasons?

Both, probably, but the business reasons are "it would cost a lot of time and money to make this thing that relatively few people would use" and not "EA is evil and hates mods."

I mean, I love mods, but if making the game mod-friendly is going to absorb a lot of resources, I can see why the devs would rather put that energy into other things.

EA does hate mods though, they can't make money off of it

Yes they can, it extends the life of the game which means it has more people playing the game when DLC is released, for most mods really aren't additional content it turns out to be unoffical bug fixes, nudity, beauty, retextured clothing, and overpowered items.  Rarely do I see something that really adds to the game.

[CrimsonNephilim]

They could make money on it if they collaborated with the modding community like Volition did with Saints Row 4.

[ghostzodd]

Sanunes wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Andrastee wrote...

Is this for technical reasons of business reasons?

Both, probably, but the business reasons are "it would cost a lot of time and money to make this thing that relatively few people would use" and not "EA is evil and hates mods."

I mean, I love mods, but if making the game mod-friendly is going to absorb a lot of resources, I can see why the devs would rather put that energy into other things.

EA does hate mods though, they can't make money off of it

Yes they can, it extends the life of the game which means it has more people playing the game when DLC is released, for most mods really aren't additional content it turns out to be unoffical bug fixes, nudity, beauty, retextured clothing, and overpowered items.  Rarely do I see something that really adds to the game.

Paid DLC makes them a lot more money, They can't see the longevity of mods like Bethesda and, CD projeckt red can.

[Ailith Tycane]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but just because there won't be any modding tools doesn't mean there wont be mods.

[Laughing_Man]

Well, the existance of mods is not very friendly to "horse-armor" style DLC, "Alternate appearence packs", and "grotesque weapons packs".

I don't see how anyone "up-there" is going to simply give up the option to make quick cash in the short term on practically nothing.

[CybAnt1]

Ailith430 wrote...

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but just because there won't be any modding tools doesn't mean there wont be mods.

It's been mentioned. DA2 had mods. Just search Nexus. Far fewer than DA:O, but there are still a few that are quite good. ("Good" of course being up to your taste.) I used those and console codes to give certain companions ability trees I thought they should have, such as Duelist for Isabela or Spirit Healer for Anders. 

Thing is, DA2 didn't completely replace the engine, people who had worked with DA1 at least knew where to look for files and what to do with them.

We're getting an all new engine, which as of now is being used in several other EA titles. But it does not have a reputation for ... 'openness' to modding. BTW, I don't think this is a deliberate tactic, in that it was chosen specifically because it was so ... but it is that way,

 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 30 janvier 2014 - 01:52 .

[Sanunes]

TheRedVipress wrote...

Well, the existance of mods is not very friendly to "horse-armor" style DLC, "Alternate appearence packs", and "grotesque weapons packs".

I don't see how anyone "up-there" is going to simply give up the option to make quick cash in the short term on practically nothing.

On the PC there is that chance, but "horse-armor" style DLC is a cheap $2 DLC, even if they don't have people buying that the story based DLC is much more expensive and if more people are buying that it could be an equal trade-off.  Not not everyone that would use mods buys DLC anyway, the thing with saying "nobody would use this because of mods" I have a hard time seeing that just because modders will always play around with those new textures and meshes and incorprate them into the game which might encourage more people to buy it as well.

As much as the malign horse-armor that Bethesda released was, it made them a lot of money and mods were availalbe to make it redundant and it still sold.

I just don't have the information to judge one way or the other I can only judge the final product, I just tend to play devi's advocate a lot. I just won't generalize about their decisions, for if I did that I would have to make generalizations about some of the posts around here and I don't want to do that either.

[ElitePinecone]

ghostzodd wrote...

Paid DLC makes them a lot more money, They can't see the longevity of mods like Bethesda and, CD projeckt red can.

Do you have numbers to back up your position, or is that a complete guess? Because I'm sure EA have, you know, actual data about these things. The idea that a major corporation *wouldn't* look at every source of revenue carefully is ridiculous. The idea that they'd reject modding out of hand due to some ideological agenda against freedom is also ridiculous.

For instance, here's what David Gaider has to say (in one instance) about modding:

Ultimately the main reason to assist modding is because modding adds to the enjoyment of the game for those who use it, and keeps the game on their hard drives for longer (which, statistically, means they are actually more likely to buy DLC and not less). It's also a goodwill gesture, which I think PC users appreciate, and helps keep the hardcore community alive-- which is important to BioWare. So if we can find a way, I suspect we will. I just don't think that the total numbers in and of themselves are ever going to support an argument for or against.

Modding - it's argued - helps make money by keeping discs in drives longer. People who continue to play DA:I instead of Other Game #55647 might still be hanging around months afterwards when the first DLC pack launches. 
If modding can't happen for DA:I, it's going to be for technical reasons - or because the resources and time required to overcome those technical reasons just aren't worth it.

If the costs of doing a toolkit are much higher than expected returns (even adding in nebulous things like "goodwill" and projected DLC sales from people hanging around longer) how does it make sense to go down that path? What company would ever deliberately invest time, money and effort in something that was going to make them worse off, to benefit a small minority of players?

For all we know, the programmers' time would be far better spent on the actual game while it's in production, not on a toolkit or to enable modding support.

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 30 janvier 2014 - 04:49 .

[Iakus]

I used to be neutral on teh concept of modding.

Now I'm all for it. As a certain recent Bioware game is now only playable to me with a certain mod on it.

It certainly kept it on my hard drive (or rather, put it back on it) and got me to buy dlc.

[ghostzodd]

ElitePinecone wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Paid DLC makes them a lot more money, They can't see the longevity of mods like Bethesda and, CD projeckt red can.

Do you have numbers to back up your position, or is that a complete guess? Because I'm sure EA have, you know, actual data about these things. The idea that a major corporation *wouldn't* look at every source of revenue carefully is ridiculous. The idea that they'd reject modding out of hand due to some ideological agenda against freedom is also ridiculous.

For instance, here's what David Gaider has to say (in one instance) about modding:

Ultimately the main reason to assist modding is because modding adds to the enjoyment of the game for those who use it, and keeps the game on their hard drives for longer (which, statistically, means they are actually more likely to buy DLC and not less). It's also a goodwill gesture, which I think PC users appreciate, and helps keep the hardcore community alive-- which is important to BioWare. So if we can find a way, I suspect we will. I just don't think that the total numbers in and of themselves are ever going to support an argument for or against.

Modding - it's argued - helps make money by keeping discs in drives longer. People who continue to play DA:I instead of Other Game #55647 might still be hanging around months afterwards when the first DLC pack launches. 
If modding can't happen for DA:I, it's going to be for technical reasons - or because the resources and time required to overcome those technical reasons just aren't worth it.

If the costs of doing a toolkit are much higher than expected returns (even adding in nebulous things like "goodwill" and projected DLC sales from people hanging around longer) how does it make sense to go down that path? What company would ever deliberately invest time, money and effort in something that was going to make them worse off, to benefit a small minority of players?

For all we know, the programmers' time would be far better spent on the actual game while it's in production, not on a toolkit or to enable modding support.

Not even going to waste my time a debating over a company who treats the PC community as second class

[YuniSticksitDeep]

EA saying no mods are possible is like Sim City not being able to play "offline".

A Modder, showed that to be an outright  _ _ _ and now ea is "working hard to provide a mod (when they do it it's called a "patch") for OFFLINE mode.

"Mods Make the Difference"

Minus Mods ME3 could not have been salvaged from its high "art" ending. (See Nexus Mods website).

and everybody "Google"    EA Games is such a loving father   comic to see how this all plays out.


Yuni "Lockdown!

PS I hope the money received for turning Bioware over to ea was worth it.   (I can't see how).

[ElitePinecone]

ghostzodd wrote...

Not even going to waste my time a debating over a company who treats the PC community as second class

You're entitled to think that, sure.

But what if PC players are second-class? You're not a majority of the playerbase, after all. If anything, the best you can hope for is that a developer will treat all the platforms equally.

And since when was modding capability something you felt entitled to? Surely providing a game that works is the only requirement of a game development studio.

[ghostzodd]

ElitePinecone wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Not even going to waste my time a debating over a company who treats the PC community as second class

You're entitled to think that, sure.

But what if PC players are second-class? You're not a majority of the playerbase, after all. If anything, the best you can hope for is that a developer will treat all the platforms equally.

And since when was modding capability something you felt entitled to? Surely providing a game that works is the only requirement of a game development studio.

The best I can hope for nah, your cooked.  Gaming in general has multiple vendors, So if Company A, views the PC platform as second class and does not want to put forth the effort to compete in its market its all good, because company B,C,V will pick up the slack:wizard:magic:wizard:

When did I say I was entitled to mods?  All I said was they cannot see the longevity in mods that CDprojekt Red/ bethesda can , and also paid dlc makes them more money.

At no point did I say * WE THE PC CROWD DEMAND MODS BECAUSE WE ARE THE MASTER RACE!!!!!
I think someone is projecting their own Ideas on to others:whistle:

Also I am going to quote  a statement some one else made about mod tools and the PC crowd being a small minority. Since it was so great.

*By that logic EA/Bioware shouldn't waste their time and resources on
adding races and homosexual relationships since only a small minority of
their customers will ever use them then.*

Modifié par ghostzodd, 31 janvier 2014 - 10:48 .

[ToJKa1]

Yes, please do. Hell, the only reason i have embarrassingly high number of hours played in Bethesda's games is because there's very few things in them that can't be modded. It certainly isn't for their stellar story lines or exemplar gameplay mechanics

Mind you, i also have embrassingly many hours played of Origins for the story and gameplay reasons Not as much, though.

[Fast Jimmy]

Zodd, you are still revealing your ignorance of the circumstances.

Bioware isn't withholding a mod kit because they are mean and just don't want to. The problem is that they don't own all of their tools. Bethesda and CDProjekt own all of their own tools, by design. They are an extreme minority in the developer world for doing so.

After all, Bethesda isn't an animation software expert. Or a sound rendering software firm. Or a but compiling/reporting group. They are a VIDEO GAME company.

They could pour lots of money, time and resources into making their own tools again, but those tools would cost the company more AND be inferior to other tools on the market. Instead, they can order a tool that fits their need, have it totally working and functional "out of the box" and focus on their forte - making video game content. Not making systems.

The problem so that when a modkit is distributed, it is, at its core, a stripped down version of the same tools the developers use. HOWEVER... if the developer doesn't own all of the tools they use, they can't give them away. There are legal problems. Serious ones. Not to mention financial ones. - single software license (of which a full toolkit could have dozens) can cost $100, $1,000, maybe even more PER LICENSE.

This is not a big deal when only, say, twenty people on your team need the license. But when every copy of the PC version of your game is sold with it, it becomes a losing proposition VERY quickly.


Bioware could also create a modkit that doesn't use outside tools. This would be difficult, as they would have to create subpar versions of their tools that they would see next to no return on. In addition, they would be completely untested versions - after all, we are talking about tools the developers used for three years to create content normally. But if they are makeshift patches, it becomes an issue where the modkit itself becomes worthless, since it could break or fail without serious work.

So, to sum up, modkit with outside tools, impossible to distribute with those tools inside, makeshift modkit expensive to make and would likely be crappy anyway.

Bethesda and CDProjekt don't have to deal with these problems because they use their own tools and don't have any roadblocks or serious (relatively speaking) extra work in creating a player version. Which leads us to "why doesn't Bioware use their own tools?" but that's a little immaterial, because they are now years down the road in the development process, so it is a moot point. Frostbite 3, the engine of the future for EA, uses outside tools, even though it is a proprietary engine owned by EA. So even if Bioware developed everything in house and still used Frostbite, these legal/cost issues would be present.

The PC won't have a modkit. That doesn't mean Bioware doesn't WANT to give one, it just me as they CAN'T, at least not without spending more than they could even hope to make in PC sales, let alone to make a profit.

[ghostzodd]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Zodd, you are still revealing your ignorance of the circumstances.

Bioware isn't withholding a mod kit because they are mean and just don't want to. The problem is that they don't own all of their tools. Bethesda and CDProjekt own all of their own tools, by design. They are an extreme minority in the developer world for doing so.

After all, Bethesda isn't an animation software expert. Or a sound rendering software firm. Or a but compiling/reporting group. They are a VIDEO GAME company.

They could pour lots of money, time and resources into making their own tools again, but those tools would cost the company more AND be inferior to other tools on the market. Instead, they can order a tool that fits their need, have it totally working and functional "out of the box" and focus on their forte - making video game content. Not making systems.

The problem so that when a modkit is distributed, it is, at its core, a stripped down version of the same tools the developers use. HOWEVER... if the developer doesn't own all of the tools they use, they can't give them away. There are legal problems. Serious ones. Not to mention financial ones. - single software license (of which a full toolkit could have dozens) can cost $100, $1,000, maybe even more PER LICENSE.

This is not a big deal when only, say, twenty people on your team need the license. But when every copy of the PC version of your game is sold with it, it becomes a losing proposition VERY quickly.


Bioware could also create a modkit that doesn't use outside tools. This would be difficult, as they would have to create subpar versions of their tools that they would see next to no return on. In addition, they would be completely untested versions - after all, we are talking about tools the developers used for three years to create content normally. But if they are makeshift patches, it becomes an issue where the modkit itself becomes worthless, since it could break or fail without serious work.

So, to sum up, modkit with outside tools, impossible to distribute with those tools inside, makeshift modkit expensive to make and would likely be crappy anyway.

Bethesda and CDProjekt don't have to deal with these problems because they use their own tools and don't have any roadblocks or serious (relatively speaking) extra work in creating a player version. Which leads us to "why doesn't Bioware use their own tools?" but that's a little immaterial, because they are now years down the road in the development process, so it is a moot point. Frostbite 3, the engine of the future for EA, uses outside tools, even though it is a proprietary engine owned by EA. So even if Bioware developed everything in house and still used Frostbite, these legal/cost issues would be present.

The PC won't have a modkit. That doesn't mean Bioware doesn't WANT to give one, it just me as they CAN'T, at least not without spending more than they could even hope to make in PC sales, let alone to make a profit.

Yes I am showing my ignorance I  really care about getting into arguements with random people over the internet:innocent:. I hope these arguements change me for the better and help me have a better quality of life:D

Modifié par ghostzodd, 31 janvier 2014 - 11:24 .

[ElitePinecone]

ghostzodd wrote...

Gaming in general has multiple vendors, So if Company A, views the PC platform as second class and does not want to put forth the effort to compete in its market its all good, because company B,C,V will pick up the slack magic

Certainly, that's your right as a customer - though personally, I'd judge the game on its own merits first, and not by whether it can be modded.

But if you feel so strongly about mods in games, hanging around on the Dragon Age forums - when there's no sgn of mods coming any time soon - seems to be a waste of time. 

If the game not having mods is going to influence your decision to buy it that much, paying attention to the game like this makes no sense. You're investing time and interest in something that you say is only going to disappoint you.

[TKavatar]

Instead of trying to release a full mod kit which is not going to happen, EA/Bioware should try to make the game as mod friendly as possible (not encrypting/locking down their files via proprietary formats that modders can't access and allowing us to mod in some way by giving us easily editable config files for stuff like combat).

I doubt that will happen though...but here's hoping.

[CybAnt1]

Oh sure. There is more to decide here than just "Toolkit yes/no?"

Sans Toolkit, you can still, just as an example, release to the modding community file/data structure descriptions (within license limits, of course), provide them with places to discuss their work, and indeed try to leave files that nodders might want to touch unlocked and accessible.

Of course, the game could or could not have an override folder. If it has one, then at least the door is open. And they've left it open.

I think it will have one, but there are, as always, still unknowns.

[CybAnt1]

Oh, and BTW, yes, this is an orthogonal topic, but as always in my confused mind, somehow related.

One thing I have not seen discussed in any way is whether, like DA1 or DA2, DA3 will have a developer console with user-accessible console codes.

If you do not know what I'm talking about (and the terminology is confusing, as those playing on a gaming console don't have it) ... this is what I mean.

http://dragonage.wik..._(Dragon_Age_II)

Using such codes could allow you to "cheat," whatever that is, and whatever it is, I don't do it, but I do use some of those codes to "customize" or mod(ify) my game, using resources that are internally available.

Just curious. I know this an issue they have no burning need to address. It only works on PC, only a fraction of PC users know it's there or use it, and some have a moral aversion to it because it enables "cheating" (although I don't know what that is in a single player game, but I digress.)

Any statements as to whether DA:I will have the developer console or not? (My guess is no, but people are always seeing things I haven't, so that's why I ask.)

[Fast Jimmy]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Oh sure. There is more to decide here than just "Toolkit yes/no?"

Sans Toolkit, you can still, just as an example, release to the modding community file/data structure descriptions (within license limits, of course), provide them with places to discuss their work, and indeed try to leave files that nodders might want to touch unlocked and accessible.

Of course, the game could or could not have an override folder. If it has one, then at least the door is open. And they've left it open.

I think it will have one, but there are, as always, still unknowns.

One thing to consider is that EA, not Bioware, owns Frostbite. Well, technically DICE does, but EA owns DICE. 

There may be an EA policy to not endorse background modification to their engine. This might not even be Bioware's call. DICE may say that allowng backdoor editing or overrides might be a business risk of competitor's seeing the nuts and bolts of their engine. I don't know. 

I agree reed it would be nice, but I also don't feel like we know enough to say what limitations Bioware might have on what they can and cannot do to help the. Lexington community out.