52 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth Krytie]

I know I read feedback and the stuff that catches my eye I do pass on to people like Mike.  And then he often pushes them out from there.

 

At this point few suggestions, game wise, could really make it into the game now.  But that doesn't mean you shouldn't provide some sort of feedback if that's what you like.

 

As long as you pass along the suggestion that any sort of summoning of animals or what have you comes along with our PC saying "I choose you!" that's cool.

 

 

In seriousness, it depends for me on what type of suggestion is being made. If it's about something like bringing back a character or even a type of build, I don't need to know it's been approved or what have you. I'll see it in the next game.

 

There are other suggestions, like improved gender dialogue, improved dialogue wheel, etc, that I don't so much need to see an 'approved' stamp on it, but do enjoy when people making the game take a few minutes to engage in the conversation. They don't have to give opinions or spill secrets, but knowing where their thoughts are at on the topic is good.

 

For the most part, I'm willing to adopt a wait-and-see approach. Most people on here never believe anything anyhow until they see it first hand. And, depending on how obnoxious the suggestions get, sometimes I think that allowing people on the boards to think they have too much influence over the game-making process can only lead to further annoyances.

[In Exile]

As long as you pass along the suggestion that any sort of summoning of animals or what have you comes along with our PC saying "I choose you!" that's cool.

 

A wild Desire Demon appears!

Varric uses "hilarious quip". 

Cassandra is confused. 

[aTigerslunch]

A wild desire demon falls over laughing and dies.

[Isabelle]

As long as you pass along the suggestion that any sort of summoning of animals or what have you comes along with our PC saying "I choose you!" that's cool.

 

 

In seriousness, it depends for me on what type of suggestion is being made. If it's about something like bringing back a character or even a type of build, I don't need to know it's been approved or what have you. I'll see it in the next game.

 

There are other suggestions, like improved gender dialogue, improved dialogue wheel, etc, that I don't so much need to see an 'approved' stamp on it, but do enjoy when people making the game take a few minutes to engage in the conversation. They don't have to give opinions or spill secrets, but knowing where their thoughts are at on the topic is good.

 

For the most part, I'm willing to adopt a wait-and-see approach. Most people on here never believe anything anyhow until they see it first hand. And, depending on how obnoxious the suggestions get, sometimes I think that allowing people on the boards to think they have too much influence over the game-making process can only lead to further annoyances.

 

Yes, I think only a few threads go toooooo far ...

 

Jimmy create a topic "Dragon Age could be a racing game too"

 

Bob replies "yes mario and sonic could have running cooool"

 

Kate replies "put zombies on the racing"

 

and topic gains more 100 pages 

 

And that's where our heroes appear: THE MODERATORS!

 

Moderators replies: "sorry poeple, but Dragon Age Already a rpg game"  

[giveamanafish...]

Reply to aTigersLunch:

I never read anything but short snippets of Aristotle myself. I just looked up the quote. He is probably the oldest source  tho,

[Allan Schumacher]

As long as you pass along the suggestion that any sort of summoning of animals or what have you comes along with our PC saying "I choose you!" that's cool.

 

 

In seriousness, it depends for me on what type of suggestion is being made. If it's about something like bringing back a character or even a type of build, I don't need to know it's been approved or what have you. I'll see it in the next game.

 

There are other suggestions, like improved gender dialogue, improved dialogue wheel, etc, that I don't so much need to see an 'approved' stamp on it, but do enjoy when people making the game take a few minutes to engage in the conversation. They don't have to give opinions or spill secrets, but knowing where their thoughts are at on the topic is good.

 

For the most part, I'm willing to adopt a wait-and-see approach. Most people on here never believe anything anyhow until they see it first hand. And, depending on how obnoxious the suggestions get, sometimes I think that allowing people on the boards to think they have too much influence over the game-making process can only lead to further annoyances.

 

 

I think it's fair to let people speak their mind.  I think it's also important to note that any individual's overall influence is still very small, and that in many cases it competes with mutually exclusive things.  It also comes from more places than just the forum too.

 

The biggest issue I find is the assumption that because something was voiced, that that was the reason why we did something (i.e. Cullen romance is one I've seen come up a lot).
 

[Mes]

The biggest issue I find is the assumption that because something was voiced, that that was the reason why we did something (i.e. Cullen romance is one I've seen come up a lot).

 

 

To be honest I always assumed that that's why Cullen was included.   And that's not necessarily a bad thing... to think that Bioware did x y or z because they took note of fans' suggestions and ran with it.

[Allan Schumacher]

To be honest I always assumed that that's why Cullen was included.   And that's not necessarily a bad thing... to think that Bioware did x y or z because they took note of fans' suggestions and ran with it.

 

It's in alignment, but I do know that there were internal people that wanted us to do a Cullen romance (and no I'm not saying who )

 

I couldn't say if it made the decision easier, or if it had zero impact whatsoever.  I mean, if I was thinking on doing something and I saw a very visible group of people going "YES PLEASE! :D" it'd certainly let me know "this is something some people want!"

 

But I think that it's a bit easy for our brains (all brains, including my own) to see patterns when there isn't necessarily one.

[JCFR]

It's in alignment, but I do know that there were internal people that wanted us to do a Cullen romance (and no I'm not saying who )

 

I couldn't say if it made the decision easier, or if it had zero impact whatsoever.  I mean, if I was thinking on doing something and I saw a very visible group of people going "YES PLEASE! :D" it'd certainly let me know "this is something some people want!"

 

But I think that it's a bit easy for our brains (all brains, including my own) to see patterns when there isn't necessarily one.

Well as long as feedback is put into consideration and has a bit weight on some develpment aspects or processes, it's ok.

After all, the fans are the ones who buy the game.

 

As for Cullen... to be frank, i never cared about him. I would've liked more, if there was some kind of romance with anora...

[mikeymoonshine]

Well as long as feedback is put into consideration and has a bit weight on some develpment aspects or processes, it's ok.

After all, the fans are the ones who buy the game.

 

As for Cullen... to be frank, i never cared about him. I would've liked more, if there was some kind of romance with anora...

 

Idk, a romance with a queen who can already be married to two different people or be imprisoned in a tower might be rather tricky to write, but it would certainly be interesting, 

[Allan Schumacher]

Well as long as feedback is put into consideration and has a bit weight on some develpment aspects or processes, it's ok.

After all, the fans are the ones who buy the game.

Fans also have a predisposition to ask for "the thing they already have had."  (Which is fair)  Fans of Psychonauts didn't want a game like Psychonauts until they received Psychonauts.  Before Psychonauts, it was more Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, and so forth.  Would it have been worth it if BioWare simply made Shattered Steel 2 instead of Baldur's Gate?

 

Fans also have competing viewpoints.  The most common complaint that I heard regarding DAO was the combat pacing was too slow, followed by the outdated list for conversation responses.  DA2 there is plenty of complaints that the combat pacing is too fast and the conversation list should return in place of the wheel.

 

 

Fans also don't have a full understanding of the development process.  They'll trash on EA for the EA Spouse situation and "overworking people" while having no problem that BioWare's early games were built on the same long hours.  In the end all they want is a good game and are mostly just fueled by their assumptions for how things go.  Which isn't really a bad thing, but suggestions can get made that lack this context.

 

From what I understand Rockstar doesn't really interact with their fanbase at all.  They just make a game that they want to make, and their games aren't really hurting in terms of their success level near as I can tell.

 

 

Finally, fan feedback is only really useful in aggregate.  On some rare occasions I'll see an idea that makes me go "ooooo" but that's still having to pass the "Does Allan think it is interesting" filter.  But for the most part it's aggregating the collective of feedback.  Often it's a lot of deciphering the words that have been used to try to figure out what exactly is being said.

 

 

That said, I do think that there are a lot of successful games that don't rely too much on fan feedback or fan requests (think of indie games that burst onto the scene, or even games of yesteryear that existed before internet made communication so easy).  I'm not saying it hurts, but I couldn't say that it's a requirement either.

[JCFR]

Fans also have a predisposition to ask for "the thing they already have had."  (Which is fair)  Fans of Psychonauts didn't want a game like Psychonauts until they received Psychonauts.  Before Psychonauts, it was more Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, and so forth.  Would it have been worth it if BioWare simply made Shattered Steel 2 instead of Baldur's Gate?

Well i'm not sure if Psychonauts is such a good example. I bought it budget and i admit, i liked to play it...but it seems it didn't sell enough to afford a sequel and wouldn't that mean, the fanbase is to small?
Also.. no offense but shattered Steel and Baldur's gate, well.. ain't it a bit far-fetched using examples from 1996 and 1998 in 2014?
To me, it seems that was a completly different era with a much greater variety of games.
Man, all the things i miss nowadays... A good RTS like C&C, Dune or Dawn of war. A Warhammer: Dark Omen 2. A Baldur's gate3. A new Mechwarrior (not online). And a new space-combat game(i hope Star citizen will be as good as it seems).
 

Fans also have competing viewpoints.  The most common complaint that I heard regarding DAO was the combat pacing was too slow, followed by the outdated list for conversation responses.  DA2 there is plenty of complaints that the combat pacing is too fast and the conversation list should return in place of the wheel.

Oh, so that was the reason for the change... strange. The combat wasn't what bothered me in Origins. Ah well, maybe because i'm a bit too oldschool...
And i think anyone would have to admit that there is not much tactic needed in DA2 and the system is a bit... overpaced.
 

Fans also don't have a full understanding of the development process.  They'll trash on EA for the EA Spouse situation and "overworking people" while having no problem that BioWare's early games were built on the same long hours.  In the end all they want is a good game and are mostly just fueled by their assumptions for how things go.  Which isn't really a bad thing, but suggestions can get made that lack this context.

Ok, point given. Even though, from time to time, i get the impression , that developers and publisher like to make a big secret of the working-process - which is, of course, their right but in succession some (like, i have to admit, me) fail to understand the full process... although i would really like to do.

 

From what I understand Rockstar doesn't really interact with their fanbase at all.  They just make a game that they want to make, and their games aren't really hurting in terms of their success level near as I can tell.

Well everyone has his own practices and... i guess i'm outing myself as someone who dislikes the GTA-series (since it's birth already). Every once in a while i try it, but the fun never reaches me.  
But if Rockstar feels so assured of their work, then ok... makes me just wonder when they'll fail the first time.
 

Finally, fan feedback is only really useful in aggregate.  On some rare occasions I'll see an idea that makes me go "ooooo" but that's still having to pass the "Does Allan think it is interesting" filter.  But for the most part it's aggregating the collective of feedback.  Often it's a lot of deciphering the words that have been used to try to figure out what exactly is being said.
 
 
That said, I do think that there are a lot of successful games that don't rely too much on fan feedback or fan requests (think of indie games that burst onto the scene, or even games of yesteryear that existed before internet made communication so easy).  I'm not saying it hurts, but I couldn't say that it's a requirement either.

It has not to be a requirement but i hope it's a useful addition. To get to know what fans liked or dislliked and what they wished for...  but it would be naive to guess, such would have huge influence on the design-process. I always thought it's more like: "Hmm, well let's see, what could we put inot the game? Ah, i got an idea... but would it fit in and would it be liked? What? Oh, so many fans already wished/asked for something similar? Ok, then let's try it."

 

And you gotta be fair, it's not always easy to express your thoughts exact theway you want into a non native language... and since there are fans all over the world, it can't be helped.
 

[Isabelle]

I also agree with Allan and JCFR, DAO I did not like much about the battle to be "slow" because it is a tactical game too ... and the story of the game is awesome.

I enjoyed DA2 to be more action ... is a silly explanation through, but it is like playing old games like Sonic ... know you feel the adrenaline of the moment, I think this is the essence of video games, I liked the change and would like to see DAI following the path of DA2 

 

About companies like Rock Star ... as Allan and said not everything can be used in games fan so ... I also agree it's hard being in the middle of Greeks and Trojans I understand sometimes the problem is that sometimes turns into confusion, Rock Star but did not hear the fans who buy their games ... that to me is a lack of respect and arrogance on the part of the Rock Star, I hate GTA I think it's a game that uses all that is wrong to profit from sales, is not a game that brings NOTHING to the people, instead only encourages various acts of violence. 

 

But for me, even if all our ideas are not used I am glad that there are still forums, or social networks to be able to express, and I know that everyone who works to make games like Mass Effect or DA, are thinking of us fans 

[Allan Schumacher]

Well i'm not sure if Psychonauts is such a good example. I bought it budget and i admit, i liked to play it...but it seems it didn't sell enough to afford a sequel and wouldn't that mean, the fanbase is to small?

 

I couldn't make a comparison between the success of Psychonauts and Schafer's previous games.  I don't play them.  I don't know how they sell.  I do know that these are the people that kickstarted Broken Age.

 

 

Also.. no offense but shattered Steel and Baldur's gate, well.. ain't it a bit far-fetched using examples from 1996 and 1998 in 2014?

To me, it seems that was a completly different era with a much greater variety of games.

 

I consider it both convenient, and arbitrary, to not include them.

 

It seems as though your solution for the lack of variety is to... force developers to only make games that fans say they want (fans typically ask for sequels).

 

 

Oh, so that was the reason for the change... strange. The combat wasn't what bothered me in Origins. Ah well, maybe because i'm a bit too oldschool...
And i think anyone would have to admit that there is not much tactic needed in DA2 and the system is a bit... overpaced.

 

No, it wasn't the reason for the change.  I just said earlier in this thread that people will make assumptions about why things change based on fan feedback, and you've done so right here.  I didn't give any reason for why the change was made, I simply pointed out that people have competing wants for games.

 

 

Ok, point given. Even though, from time to time, i get the impression , that developers and publisher like to make a big secret of the working-process - which is, of course, their right but in succession some (like, i have to admit, me) fail to understand the full process... although i would really like to do.

 

I don't think it's that big of a secret.  I think it's something that you can't fully appreciate unless you are a part of it, however.  This goes for a lot of jobs.

 

 

Well everyone has his own practices and... i guess i'm outing myself as someone who dislikes the GTA-series (since it's birth already). Every once in a while i try it, but the fun never reaches me.  
But if Rockstar feels so assured of their work, then ok... makes me just wonder when they'll fail the first time.

 

I am not a fan of the GTA series (I loved the old top down games, but when they went to 3D I lost interest).  Being assured of their work is one thing, but making a game that hits a checklist of "what fans tell us they want in the game" isn't a recipe for success either.

 

 

It has not to be a requirement but i hope it's a useful addition. To get to know what fans liked or dislliked and what they wished for...  but it would be naive to guess, such would have huge influence on the design-process. I always thought it's more like: "Hmm, well let's see, what could we put inot the game? Ah, i got an idea... but would it fit in and would it be liked? What? Oh, so many fans already wished/asked for something similar? Ok, then let's try it."

 

Well, there are certainly times when it clearly does happen (ME3 Extended Cut is a direct response to fan reaction).  But a lot of the time it's also "what would I like to see in the game?"  Now we don't just add anything and everything that we want.  Fan feedback can help us decide whether or not the idea is viable, and we still need to decide if it's the direction we want to go in the game (this is what people like Mark, the Executive Producer, ultimately decide... as development isn't a democracy).  But I do feel that it's very, very important for a developer to work on a game they want to make, because that's how you leverage the passion and enthusiasm.

[JCFR]

It seems as though your solution for the lack of variety is to... force developers to only make games that fans say they want (fans typically ask for sequels).

Thatis something which keeps me wondering. Is this really the only reason why games like Madden or CoD get their sequels over and over again? Just because the fans repeatedly ask for sequels? I would really, reeeaaallly, like to know from an insider.

 

I mean, i played CoD until  Black Ops but since then didn't buy any new sequel... because they're all so alike, so featureless and with such a lack of innovation.

I just felt stupid for buying the same game only with different story-campaigns over and over.

And since some more innovative games like Mirrors Edge weren't as successful as hoped (at least i remember to have read this), this whole "we make sequels because the fan want them" seemed to me like an excuse for not taking risks.  Like: "Why shall we make something innovative which might fail and won't pay off, if we can do the 100. sequel of this or that which we know the fans will buy".

 

Of course profit is an important factor and i know it wouldn't make sense to create something, knowing it wouldn't sell, but why always the same with minimal changes? Even Mass Effect - i hope so much the next sequel will get some new features because frankly spoken:  ME1,2,3 all consist on mainly 50% 3rd-person-cover-combat,  40% story and conversation and 10% other matters... and it's getting old.

 

And maybe another argument: For many years no space-combat-game was made because lots of developers and publishers said there's no demand for it. But as Chris Roberts showed with kickstarter there actually is a demand... and i can't wait toexplore the deepspace with my ship in star citizen. 

That's why it's so hard for me to accept, it's us fans who are at fault for this lack of variety...

[In Exile]

And maybe another argument: For many years no space-combat-game was made because lots of developers and publishers said there's no demand for it. But as Chris Roberts showed with kickstarter there actually is a demand... and i can't wait toexplore the deepspace with my ship in star citizen. 

That's why it's so hard for me to accept, it's us fans who are at fault for this lack of variety...

A big part of that was that space sims just never sold that well. This demand apparently exists now, but it did not exist then. Like flight simulators. 

[JCFR]

A big part of that was that space sims just never sold that well. This demand apparently exists now, but it did not exist then. Like flight simulators. 

Well it's this whole trend-thing.  One developer starts with a project, has success and then other groups come to think "hey, we can do that as well" spamming the whole market with clones... at least it feels like this. 

Back then with wing commander,x-wing, freespace and freelancer it was almost overkill... an today the big trend seems to be Sandbox. 

 

This and maybe this multi-platform-thing. I mean i can't find another guess why RTS-games are on the verge of extinction other than they're not really good to play with a controler... and only producing for PC seems not to pay off enough for the big publishers. 

[Amfortas]

I'd rather the developers didn't take any feedback. They should do what they want, stay true to their vision without considering what fans want. Then I'll judge if the game's worth buying or not.

 

Some feedback might be useful, for the improvement of the UI, tooltips and ease of use stuff, but never feedback about combat mechanics, story, level design etc. That's my opinion. Maybe it's because I disagree with most of the suggestions in these forums.

 

A part of me thinks that the DAII caves are a suitable punishment for all the people who used the infamous "skip the fade" mod and kept complaining that the deep roads were too long.

 

And since some more innovative games like Mirrors Edge weren't as successful as hoped (at least i remember to have read this), this whole "we make sequels because the fan want them" seemed to me like an excuse for not taking risks.  Like: "Why shall we make something innovative which might fail and won't pay off, if we can do the 100. sequel of this or that which we know the fans will buy".

 

I can't say I'm fond of the proliferation of sequels either. Less innovation as you said, but also more restricted outcomes in the game to make the sequel viable. Not to mention the resurrected characters, like Lelinana or half the BG2 npcs.

[Isabelle]

I'd rather the developers didn't take any feedback. They should do what they want, stay true to their vision without considering what fans want. Then I'll judge if the game's worth buying or not.

 

Some feedback might be useful, for the improvement of the UI, tooltips and ease of use stuff, but never feedback about combat mechanics, story, level design etc. That's my opinion. Maybe it's because I disagree with most of the suggestions in these forums.

 

I agree in part with you, that's why it's called (suggestion) because no developer is obliged to publish all the suggestions given by the fans.

It is obvious that there will be very absurd ideas or good ideas, I think it is important at least to note the vision and thoughts of fans one way or another will always have something that artists go fishing of public, a good example is Mass Effect 3, one excelente game but ... imagine if Bioware were ignored fans and not made an alternative ending.

 

read this article:

http://gamerant.com/mass-effect-3-ending-response-bioware-casey-hudson-benk-138337/

 

I love the Mass Effect franchise, I would continue playing but still would break my heart to see all the dedication of the staff being judged poorly by the critics.

[Allan Schumacher]

A big part of that was that space sims just never sold that well. This demand apparently exists now, but it did not exist then. Like flight simulators. 

 

I think it's also important to note that there's a degree of "content starvation" (for lack of a better term).

 

Imagine trying to crowd fund a modern military shooter, and I suspect you have a more difficult time.  I love Titanfall, but I'd be surprised if it would get the type of funding that Star Citizen did.  Isn't the "average contribution" for Star Citizen quite high?  Like close to $100?

 

If dozens of space flight sims existed, there wouldn't be people chomping at the bit for it.

 

 

And since some more innovative games like Mirrors Edge weren't as successful as hoped (at least i remember to have read this), this whole "we make sequels because the fan want them" seemed to me like an excuse for not taking risks.  Like: "Why shall we make something innovative which might fail and won't pay off, if we can do the 100. sequel of this or that which we know the fans will buy".

 

Preaching to the choir here, I'm afraid.  It's why I love digital as it breaks down barriers to entry and lets people like Chris Roberts work on his dream (and get the support), allows indies and smaller studios to fill in some of the gaps.  Those studios are going to do things that blow peoples minds from time to time, and the bigger projects that are more risk averse due to their scope will start to implement them.

[JCFR]

I think it's also important to note that there's a degree of "content starvation" (for lack of a better term).

 

Imagine trying to crowd fund a modern military shooter, and I suspect you have a more difficult time.  I love Titanfall, but I'd be surprised if it would get the type of funding that Star Citizen did.  Isn't the "average contribution" for Star Citizen quite high?  Like close to $100?

 

If dozens of space flight sims existed, there wouldn't be people chomping at the bit for it.

 

It's no wonder since, Dice, Bohemia and Activision constantly fill the market with their products. But even there i can see some... let me cal it "signs of  fatigue".

BF4 ain't so much different from BF3 and i already mentioned the problems i got with CoD. 

It makes me wish to tell them: "guys, no offense but... please take a rest for let's say 3 years and do some other project. After that, come back with brand-new ideas!"

I mean, those "realistic" military shooters are mostly the only thing  we get on PC since years (and no, i refuse to play shooters with controlers on a console. To slow, to unprecise for me, i want a mouse). That's why i'm also looking forward to the next wolfenstein (i could really use a straight action-arcade shooter once again... and without Unreal or Half life  this is my only hope).

 

The reason why i took space-combat as an example is exactly because of this "content starvation". Because of Chris Roberts extreme success on kickstarter and the attitude of many big developers and publishers.

For more than 10 years no AAA-Title in that genre was developed  because of this "lack of demand" from fans. But Star citizen showed, there is a demand.

SOOOO my question is: Aren't the higher-ups actually underestimating the fans and stating things without any proof (pushing the fault at us)?

 

Of course, game developement is no democracy - you're right about that - but... how shall i put this... is it really fun making - i don't know - Madden 2020 or ME9 in exactly the same way (with miniscule changes you got to search for with a magnifier) over and over? Isn't this behavior supporting this growing fatigue of some genres(which mostly results in dropping sales)? And aren't many companies neglecting the chance to make big profit and satisfying the fanbase by not stepping out of their circle?

[Isabelle]

It's no wonder since, Dice, Bohemia and Activision constantly fill the market with their products. But even there i can see some... let me cal it "signs of  fatigue".

BF4 ain't so much different from BF3 and i already mentioned the problems i got with CoD. 

It makes me wish to tell them: "guys, no offense but... please take a rest for let's say 3 years and do some other project. After that, come back with brand-new ideas!"

I mean, those "realistic" military shooters are mostly the only thing  we get on PC since years (and no, i refuse to play shooters with controlers on a console. To slow, to unprecise for me, i want a mouse). That's why i'm also looking forward to the next wolfenstein (i could really use a straight action-arcade shooter once again... and without Unreal or Half life  this is my only hope).

 

The reason why i took space-combat as an example is exactly because of this "content starvation". Because of Chris Roberts extreme success on kickstarter and the attitude of many big developers and publishers.

For more than 10 years no AAA-Title in that genre was developed  because of this "lack of demand" from fans. But Star citizen showed, there is a demand.

SOOOO my question is: Aren't the higher-ups actually underestimating the fans and stating things without any proof (pushing the fault at us)?

 

Of course, game developement is no democracy - you're right about that - but... how shall i put this... is it really fun making - i don't know - Madden 2020 or ME9 in exactly the same way (with miniscule changes you got to search for with a magnifier) over and over? Isn't this behavior supporting this growing fatigue of some genres(which mostly results in dropping sales)? And aren't many companies neglecting the chance to make big profit and satisfying the fanbase by not stepping out of their circle?

 

In my country, video game stores are always the same, and some kind of disclosure is always equal> Call Of Duty, Assasins Creed, FIFA and GTA, is quite hard to find other games being shown to the public,  unless you already know the game if you buy and directly ask the seller when you want to buy a different game.

[Sequin]

Since the subject got mentioned here, I will say that Wing Commander remains one of my favourite game series of all time. I loved how the game would adapt to how well you did in the combat scenarios. I do think, however, that after WC4 the series was starved for new ideas. Although I thought Prophecy was a good game, it wasn't exactly "better" than WC4. And I guess the series didn't have enough players to justify farther installments the way things like CoD does. I've met plenty of people who loved WC but thought WC4 was the final game in the series, for instance.

 

Star Citizen + VR is on my most anticipated list.

[In Exile]

 

For more than 10 years no AAA-Title in that genre was developed  because of this "lack of demand" from fans. But Star citizen showed, there is a demand.

SOOOO my question is: Aren't the higher-ups actually underestimating the fans and stating things without any proof (pushing the fault at us)?

 

Kickstarter is a totally different model from how AAA development works. In AAA development, you have to invest your own money and then go out and sell the product. Kickstarter works as a pre-order on the basis of pure concepts. So Star Citizen raised its money based on sales, not on some hypothetical possibility of sales.

The other thing is that this is a private company - the profit margin has to be whatever the owners are comfortable with; everything else can go into salary and development. EA can't, for example, just go out and make a game it has a 0% profit margin on, because that'll collapse its stock.  

[JCFR]

Kickstarter is a totally different model from how AAA development works. In AAA development, you have to invest your own money and then go out and sell the product. Kickstarter works as a pre-order on the basis of pure concepts. So Star Citizen raised its money based on sales, not on some hypothetical possibility of sales.

The other thing is that this is a private company - the profit margin has to be whatever the owners are comfortable with; everything else can go into salary and development. EA can't, for example, just go out and make a game it has a 0% profit margin on, because that'll collapse its stock.  

I used it as an example for demand and interest not for production and financiation.  I already stated in an earlier post, that i understand the importance of profit and margin and i know the difference in developement between kickstarter and publisher. My point of view was from the aspect of innovation, variety, "content starvation" and overuse of sequels.

Oh, geez, how do i just explain it in english...   Let me try it this way:

 

Ten years back the last - in my regard  - AAA-Title was Freelancer, but over all the market was saturated (means the demand wasn't as high anymore and the sales may not have reached the expectations). So i guess  back then it was justified to say "there is no demand".

It's quite the same with many MMORPGs the last years, whch appeared to grab a bite from WoW but failed like Auto-Assault or Tabula Rasa. Other try to keep up the old monthly-fee-system but fail (Rift, Tera, Aion, SWtoR). Meaning: the market is saturated. 

But since Freelancer 10 years passed without anyone using this niche, just stating the same thing over and over (no demand). But the situation wasn't the same anymore and i'm using this successful kickstarter-project as example/proof for this.

You see?