23 réponses à ce sujet

[TurretSyndrome]

What I'm talking about is a toolkit or any other form of access modders can have so that they can add to DA:I.

 

Now, before you say anything(or before anyone starts spamming quotes from various developers regarding the topic), I am aware about the problems related to releasing a toolkit for DA:I and that it is highly unlikely, but after watching the latest trailer Discover the Dragon Age, I thought I'd bring it up one last time. The world that DA:I has, it might actually become the most unique RPG world since Morrowind. It just has that environment with all the demons, darkspawn, Fade tears, the Fade itself, locations like Orlais and Tevinter, races like the Qunari etc etc. So many things happening in this one world, and to deny access to the player base to make use of all of that and create their own stories, to me, is such a wasted opportunity, and I can't stress that enough. IF you open it up for mods, trust me when I say your game will be remembered twice as long as games like Skyrim. 

 

I know this is going to be argued that it's only for PC and it's not going to benefit the console players, but it's going to benefit your franchise in the long run. CD projekt RED realizes this, which is why they will be releasing the REDkit for Witcher 3. You said you were taking inspiration from Skyrim but really, for Elder Scrolls, I think mods have played a large role in making it such a strong franchise, Bethesda knows that. GTA is also the same.

 

I really don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but I think this is something you guys should at least try to do, before completely writing it off. Please don't ignore the modding capabilities of your game, especially now, what with Inquisition being your most ambitious single player game ever.

[Allan Schumacher]

Mod tools challenges come from a variety of factors, including (but not limited to) legal issues as well as technical and support challenges (while people may think that us simply firing it over the wall and leaving you all to use it would be sufficient, I am actually skeptical of that).

 

 

There may also be file format challenges depending on whether or not our bundling system is performed in a particular way to minimize load times, particularly for streaming assets).  For instance, since our scripting system is now visual, there's no need (apart from spending time to provide it exclusively for the purposes of modding, which is a non-trivial cost especially if it comes at expense of taking time away from the main game) for us to provide the scripts in a file format that is in any way readable or anything like that.  For example, Paradox games provide the scripts in a plain text style format, which is useful for what they seek to do with the game while also making it mod friendly.  If we're provided a system that doesn't already do that, then we'd have to evaluate how much effort it would be to actively support it so that the file formats are easier to read.

[Allan Schumacher]

This is a frequently asserted claim. It's one I wonder about the methodology for, and how the study was conducted. I assume it was a survey of players. How was the data sample taken? Etc. I will not disagree that the the BSN is unrepresentative of players as a whole, and so the large number of people here who play the game multiple times can't represent accurately the larger player base.

 

Telemetry is common, and it's actually something that achievements deliver as well (for those that wonder why on Earth a game would possibly include an achievement for something that must be done to complete the game).

 

 

While the information CAN be incorrect (which is bad), and there is some level of sampling bias for people that decide to opt out, or don't connect and stuff like that.

[Allan Schumacher]

Allan, I'd be terribly curious about how the non-finish in CRPGs compares to action games. By that, I mean, I bet there are a lot of people out there who play a shooter like Call of Duty or Battlefield 4, and never finish all the levels in the single player campaign either. I'm genuinely curious whether that percentage is higher or lower vs. a CRPG like Dragon Age. (Problem too could be they never start the SP campaign because they have no interest in anything but the MP, or don't finish it because, same reason.) 

 

Of course, it might not be tracked ... like, does the achievement of finishing those shooters "report" to the developers that the player has finished? 

 

A lot of people assert people never finish CRPG's because of their complexity. But I'm betting a lot of people don't finish games, because they just don't have the patience to finish all the hours of any game that's lengthy - regardless of simplicity or complexity.

 

We have to be careful how we look at data.  For Mass Effect 3, for example, if someone doesn't finish the game but has played 400 hours and has unlocked all the MP aspects, then it's safe to say they played the game for a while and probably weren't all that interested in playing the MP.  If someone didn't complete much of the single player, and didn't play a second of MP, then we can conclude that the player didn't finish the single player (for some reason).

 

I don't know if the percentage is higher or lower, since I haven't heard anything about the data for those games.  I could probably poke around and find out how many people played BF4's SP which might help.

 

It's important to note that I'm not actually suggesting that someone that didn't finish our game didn't like it.  Or didn't feel like they got their money's worth.  I can't be certain why someone didn't finish the game.  I can find out, however, various statistical measures (i.e. mean and median) of players that play our games pretty quickly.

 

 

The main evolution from Eclipse/Lycium to Frostbite is graphical. The main thing Frostbite is updating is the graphics, animation, and physics, to make it all more realistic.

 

This is a bit simple.  Yes, graphical improvements are huuuuuuuuuuge, along with all those aesthetic things like animations and physics (although physics can be applied in other ways, too).  It also has things like different memory managements, the actual existence of some sort of streaming technology (so we don't need to load an entire level into memory anymore - this immensely helps us with the size of our levels), and various other forms of improvement.

The biggest deficiency the Frostbite engine had for us was the lack of tools and systems that we were used to using for creating a game the way that BioWare usually did.  While this is a huge cost, it DOES provide us with an opportunity to actually improve upon previously known issues with our tools, but weren't fixed because it was "good enough and we need to ship games, yo."

 

 

Personally, I suspect the things some people want to "touch" or edit in DAI are still in 2DA files (essentially 2 dimensional arrays like an Excel spreadsheet), like how many points you get when you level, or the experience points you get for certain things. For the record, Bioware used 2DA files in BG2, in NWN1, DA1 & 2, and I feel safe betting they'll continue to use them in DAI.   Oh, I could be wrong, but I am calling this as a safe bet.

 

We definitely do not use the same 2DA file structure that we used (it's important to note that the legacy of DA2's engine is actually NWN1, so that we continued using 2DA files is less surprising).  They are stored in data files, but it more resembles an XML file now (though it's not).  Whether or not that data file retains its structure when packaged and bundled in the release version of the game I honestly don't know.

 

 

You *are* correct, however, that there will be data files and enterprising people will try to rip them apart.  I'm not sure how easy it will be to do so, nor what data will be likely to be found.

[Allan Schumacher]

It more the "Ooh, look at how much better our games our with our mods, you filthy console peasants" that inevitably happens with modded games. It gets really annoying and depressing. 

 

Those people are silly and seeking validation.  I'm a through and through PC gamer with easily 99% of my gaming time spent on the PC, but I have zero issues with consoles, console players, and so forth.  I'll joke (less and less, though) about PC master race but mostly it's just "PC gaming is what works for me."  Gamers are gamers and we're all on the same side IMO.  Perhaps interestingly, as a PC gamer I very rarely use mods.  They can be a nice to have when ones that interest me come along (like Counterstrike back in 1999), but banking on the PC version of game simply because it has mod potential isn't something that jives with me since I have no guarantee that mods that I would be interested in will even come out.  The base vanilla game is significantly more important to me.

 

I know it can be easier said than done, but try not to let those that seek to brag about how superior their game is because of mods get you down (and if you see them on these forums, remember the ignore function!).  IMO it reflects more on the poster than anything else.

[Allan Schumacher]

Why didn't they just use a modified namespace for their XML? I guess it works for them XML is good for creating data structures.

The keep probably uses a J2EE platform as with most of bioware's server software.

 

Note that I didn't say we were using XML.

[Allan Schumacher]

I assume that Dragon Age Inquisition is going to be priced at around 50 to 60 dollars, right? This means that we are entitled to have the maximum performance that's out there, and that means to also gain access to mods for us PC users. Once we paid our money into the game we should be allowed to do anything we want with it, since we own DA: I, and not just Bioware.

I doubt we technically do anything to prevent you from modding it. So feel free to start digging through the data files, if you like. If you think that it requires us to make a fully functional toolset for the game, it's trivial to point out that this is not reality in the gaming world (and to be clear, I disagree with the assessment too). Precedent is not on your side.
 

Using legal issues as a shield is lame. Bethesda allowed us Skyrim players to mod the game, and guess what? To this very same day people still play Skyrim (Because of the mods) despite of it's lack of story, and to my knowledge Bethesda hasn't got into any legal problems because of their decisions to allow people to mod their games. How many people today are still playing Dragon Age 2 with so very few mods available to them?

 
The legal issues has nothing to do with the content that is created, and everything to do with the tools used to create the game. We use middleware to expedite parts of game development that comes with licenses that cost thousands of dollars. In some cases, there's a lot of potential legal issues that present problems because it's not within our right to redistribute that software without permission. Permission can be expensive. The other option is that we spend time (a non-trivial amount) removing said features from our end user toolset, which can compromise what the tool can do (who needs lighting though?) or even make the toolset non-functional.

 

The bottom line is that we are your boss, Bioware. We want access to mods to the products that you guys sell to us. It is for your best interests to work hard to please us, since we finance your company through purchasing of your games.

 
You are not our boss.  You are our customer.  The relationship between a business and a customer is that the business creates a good or service in the hopes that a customer will pay for the good or service. You are well within your right to skip on Dragon Age: Inquisition if you feel the product does not satisfactorily meet your needs as a gamer. I actively encourage all gamers to do such a thing (and have for some time). Not all gamers may agree with you, however, and some customers may be satisfied with what they receive with Dragon Age: Inquisition.

In this sense, it doesn't seem like Dragon Age: Inquisition will be a satisfactory purchase for you as it won't meet your criteria for what a $50-$60 game should deliver. At least you can make an informed decision and save yourself the money, if need be. Which is a good thing for you.

[Allan Schumacher]

Customers often have competing interests.

[Allan Schumacher]

Bethesda had no issues whatsoever about getting the special permissions to create and develop the Skyrim Creation Kit and neither should Bioware, unless if the company is near bankruptcy, and that I find hard to believe.

 

If Bethesda's toolset has no middleware, they don't have to get any permission to release the Skyrim Creation Kit.  They can do whatever they want with it.

[Allan Schumacher]

But it if it is using the similar type of model with XML then I doubt they would change the principles which XML upholds. The XML structure is beneficial for organizing semi structured data.

 

I would personally prefer JSON as it could be easily mapped to objects but I guess that is how they want to do it.

 

Edit: Not Json. For a save data scheme like this, a variation of XML would be sufficient.

 

It's super late and I'm tired, but there might be benefits beyond structuring the data compared to JSON (which I am not familiar with at all) that what we're using provides.  (I'm actually thinking it might be xaml.... though ugh it's late lol)

[Allan Schumacher]

I made an edit as my post wasn't clear XD.

[Allan Schumacher]

"Why didn't they use the CryEngine? EA has direct access to it, surely Crytek would do a lot to get that kind of advertisement."

 

I don't know for certain, but I'd be skeptical that this was the case.

 

As for "the advertisement," it's a bit like asking artists to create their music/art/whatever for free because of the "exposure" it gives them.  Few artists are keen on doing this (for good reason).

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm not even sure artists are a good enough analogy.

It is like saying because you bought admission to a concert, you should get to take the musicians' instruments home with you to make your own music. Even though the guitar may cost thousands of dollars more than your own ticket, you still feel entitled to it as the consumer.

I love modkits and the idea of modding in general, but to expect it or say that any company that doesn't give it out for free for every game imaginable is somehow "screwing" anyone as a gaming consumer is the height of both ignorance (somewhat understandable) and also arrogance (completely unacceptable).

 

I was referring to the implication that Crytek would benefit from EA using their engine for free because it'd be a good advertisement for CryEngine.

[Allan Schumacher]

Now that's a little bit out of context here. Using the CryEngine wouldn't be free at all for BioWare/EA, as it isn't owned by them (Crytek is still a free developer). But see it the same way that some artists upload their music (which is being sold in stores) to Youtube for everyone to listen to for free. Even some of the bigger artists (=their publishers) do that, because they know they don't get a bigger marketing platform and a wider audience than Youtube. 
Just say Inquisition became a really big thing while being incredibly impressive in the graphical department (something like another Crysis). What better advertisement could there be for an engine?

 

I don't think the advertising analogy works.  First, the youtube link is likely monetized in some way, but you're dealing with such a large scale audience with music, compared to potential developers looking to develop a new game with one of the latest 3D engines.  Who would we be advertising to that isn't already aware of CryEngine?

 

P.S.: Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to bash BioWare for not including mod support (although saying that I'm not disappointed would be a lie). IMO the true problem lies with Dice, as the developer of the engine. But I am wondering why out of all engines available the Frostbite-engine was chosen. Perhaps there is something like a fairly new (e.g. 3-4 years) unwritten EA rule here, that mod-support is too time consuming and costly to be anywhere close to a priority in which case the Frostbite-engine would be a first choice (no licensing costs).

 
As far as EA is concerned, Frostbite is free (there's likely bookkeeping stuff to quantify the Frostbite dev's team, but that's all internal) to license to its internal studios.

 

The modular nature of Frostbite also means that, since we're effectively "all on the same team" here, that we collaborate more.  If we come up with a solution to an issue with Frostbite, we share it with all the studios that are using Frostbite so they can use it.  We'd be forfeiting a competitive advantage if we were to do that with, say, Unreal.

Because we aren't working with as divergent of a codebase, it also means that updates Frostbite sends to us can receive support from the Frostbite team, whereas someone like Epic is going to be disinclined to provide support for any local changes we have made for our own purposes.  Especially if they are making games of their own.  The same will still apply to Crytek.

[Allan Schumacher]

You do realize DAO is also far more popular than DA2 right?

 

Skyrim mods vastly dwarfs Fallout New Vegas mods for instance.

 

[Allan Schumacher]

I agree, success helps both the creation and proliferation of mods.

 

It's funny that people point out DayZ and stuff, when I go more old school and point to Counterstrike.  Which probably has knock on effects on shifting Valve's focus and ultimately providing additional impetus for something like Steam!

[Allan Schumacher]

For better or worse, Valve's gaming business model appears to be one that buys game mods and makes them retail.

 

(Not that I'd blame them, since I suspect Steam dwarfs any ROI that a game would make).

[Allan Schumacher]

The monetisation of some of their mods for HL/HL2 is insane, numbers normal AAA Publishers would drool over, yet then we see EA and its mod lockdown designs.

 

I find these statements interesting because EA is typically seen as a money grubbing, exploitative, dollars above all else company.  Yet I also see a lot of stuff like this about how EA is just obtuse and not realizing how many dollars they are forfeiting.

 

 

All the while, BioWare has released two games that have toolsets (including one built around it) so it's not exactly like BioWare flies blind in this regard IMO.

[Allan Schumacher]

I agree that this is pretty funny. We'll see the argument that EA is losing money with its lack of mod support right within the same breath that they are blocking support to sell more DLC. It is an interesting conundrum.

Allan, you may be able to answer this question... as all EA developers move to Frostbite, would DICE have any possibility at all of making a master toolkit that could work for all games, if time, money and resources were all non-factors?

 

I know that Frostbite 1 used a third party animation system, but DICE ended up integrating an EA one into Frostbite 2 and beyond.  I'm not an engine expert, but from the outside looking in I could imagine there being advantages to minimizing the amount of third party implementation.

 

Or are you referring to the Frostbite team making a singular toolset that would work with all of the games?

[Allan Schumacher]

There are numerous examples of that. Take Steam vs. Origin. They're basically the same, both use DRM, except that Steam is superior in the number of products it has on offer, and no one is forced to use it. However, if I want to play a Dragon Age game, I'm forced to use Origin. And the result is clear, people like Steam, and people don't like Origin.

 

Steam is increasingly becoming more and more ubiquitous for a lot of games.  Much like how Dragon Age 2 requires Origin, I cannot play a Valve game without Steam.  There are also non-Valve games that require Steam too.

 

It's not surprising that the most owned (and most played) games on Steam are Valve games.  The ones that aren't Valve games are popular games like Skyrim and Civ 5 that require Steam to be played.  So I don't agree that "no one is forced to use Steam."  I know that there are some games that you can buy on Steam that you can run just by running the executable (I believe Europa Universalis does this), though validating the game via Steam is still required I believe (I don't know since I just play the game with Steam running).

 

But Valve also pushed the ubiquity of Steam through their required installs.  Because they recognized that as a platform, having people installing their software made it common place and allowed for ease of advertising directly to the consumer.

 

As for people liking Steam but not Origin?  Well, I remember when Steam was universally loathed.  I think that (fortunately for PC gaming too) Valve pushing through the hate and not giving up on the project was a good decision.

 

 

 

 

Because EA is using every trick in the book to make money by exploiting the customers, treating them as mindless consumers, while forfeiting every opportunity to make money in a way that respects the customers, treats them with dignity. I won't go on, because I hope by now, I made my point.

Wouldn't this mean we'd be making some sort of "pay to use" toolset or something?  Or a host of other things?  Rather than simply deciding to not do it?  I don't think the analogy works.

 

Here's my point, however.  When fans want something, they recognize that EA (or any company) is a business with the goals of making money, so they dress up the request they make as having obvious financial benefits because they believe that by doing so, they make can make a case for the business men that count dollars.  They do this without any context (not that they should have the context) about what the actual costs are.  They imagine what might be reasonable costs, mitigate them and speak highly of the benefits.  Any fan of any feature (whether it be me wanting something, or you wanting something) has a tendency to do this, I find.

 

So yes, when I see people accuse us of being money grubbing, while ostensibly NOT doing something that obviously would make us more money (and not even replacing it with some nefarious, company-first anti-consumer thing instead), I think that people are being selective in how they apply their reasoning because they want to maximize support for The Thing They Want™ while not undermining that support.

 

 

I think you give EA entirely too much credit for spear heading the F2P microtransaction model and undermining what was otherwise a solid and working model.  You can not like what they've done (I tend to not find F2P games particularly interesting most of the time so I don't really pick them up... although I will be picking up Garden Warfare on PC because according to my friends that play it, it's insanely fun) and you're well within your right to believe that, and I won't begrudge you from sharing it.  But I do disagree with your assessment, with my bias stated.  Agree to disagree at this point?

[Allan Schumacher]

Games before steam required long coded numbers to be installed. Some games limited the # of installs.

 

I've never had forced patching with any steam game I've owned. Download, install and play.

 

Steam and Origin are very un-obtrusive DRM compared to uplay. Although steam does still have its problems with offline play after a long while without a connection.

 

When Sylvius says "forced patching" he's referring to the client automatically updating the game.  As such, the player is "forced to patch" and cannot decide to play on an older version.

[Allan Schumacher]

Skyrim is moddable because Bethesda undertands how the modding community is beneficial to them and their games as a whole.

 

BioWare has released two games with end user toolsets, including one game effectively built around the entire concept.  We're not oblivious to the pros and cons of a toolset.

[Allan Schumacher]

Just as a note, it's important to link to the whole definition.

 

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/unequal

 

 

It shows that the word can be applied in different ways.  Unequal can be used as a synonym (because it's often used with the context of social equality), but that can be obfuscating and if you look at the other definitions you can see that it's referring to equivalence.  You and I are unequal by virtual of being distinctly different entities.

 

 

In any case, semantics discussions aren't really necessary beyond sorting out the specifics of what ones means?  I hope people can understand what Sylivus was referring to when he said "unequal."

[Allan Schumacher]

I'd prefer this not turn into too much slagging on other games made by other game studios if at all possible.

 

 

Though I do give my recommendation to FONV.  I'm replaying it again, myself (I rarely replay games too).