24 réponses à ce sujet

[Hiero_Glyph]

Given that there is no crossover between the single and multiplayer portions of DA:I, Bioware could release a reasonably priced, standalone DAMP DLC for players who want to play the multiplayer but not the single player (a 100-hour RPG isn't for everyone).  As DAMP has microtransactions it would also be supported by additional players.  I feel that as DAMP is getting weekly events and free DLC support, catering to the largest audience would benefit both the community and Bioware.

[Kantr]

I dont think that's possible. Or makes sense

[Hiero_Glyph]

Why wouldn't it be possible?  I have worked in game design and while the engine and assets would need to be included with the standalone DAMP DLC, only the future DLC would need to be handled any differently depending on how assets are added/reused.  Regardless, it could certainly be done.  As for making sense, why would a co-op game released under a name like Dragon Age: Adventures of the Inquisition be any more lore-breaking than the multiplayer mode associated with DA:I?  You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but it takes actual evidence to prove what you claims; feel free to provide some.

[X Equestris]

No. It makes no business sense.

[Battlebloodmage]

Why would EA charge you for one when they could charge you for both?

[Hiero_Glyph]

Yeah, because having extra revenue is always a bad thing for a developer.  Seriously, it gives players the choice of playing either the single-player with the multiplayer or just the multiplayer.  I'm actually shocked Bioware didn't do this for ME3MP.  I know several friends that didn't care for the Mass Effect's storyline but would have definitely purchased the multiplayer as a standalone.  Anyway, the only negative I can see would be ability to play the multiplayer without having to purchase DA:I.  Still, for a game like this players are not purchasing DA:I for the multiplayer alone.  This is just a suggestion after all.

[Battlebloodmage]

More like EA has no incentive to do see as they could do the stuffs you mentioned while charge you for both online and single game.

[Muspade]

You should've asked 2-3 years ago, when they said they were considering it.

Too late now. Game has gone "gold".

[coldflame]

To do that would mean extra work for the people that were supposed to be working on new DLCs for both MP and SP. So while it might sound good on paper, it actually made no business sense from EA's point of view.

[Hiero_Glyph]

Again, the coding is done so this would just be a repacking of the necessary engine and assets.  I agree that future DLC should be a priority but let's be honest about future purchases... most players will be buying the game on sale or used so Bioware will not be profiting quite as much as you think.  Having a digital, multiplayer-only game would simply provide another option for those that do not want a 100-hour RPG.  It really is a different market altogether.  As noted this is just a suggestion but many of you fail to understand how little work is required to repackage the multiplayer portion of the game.  Let's not forget that Bioware did this exact thing for ME3's MP beta.

[Kantr]

So basically they need to make an MMO

[viciouswhisper]

that makes absolutely no sense

[robertthebard]

People have the choice now, or they will once the game releases, to play one, the other or both. Why spend the extra money to make something that is integrated into the game separate, and then spend the money to develop it for release? Where are the metrics that confirm that MP is the largest audience at, I'd sure like to see that, as opposed to a claim released w/out any supporting evidence, a standard the OP wants to hold others to, but suspiciously neglected to include with the OP.

[Hiero_Glyph]

Nowhere did I claim that the multiplayer audience is larger, only that it can be different (please provide a quote if you feel this is wrong).  This was based on my experience with ME3's MP as the pick-a-color ending made the single-player less than compelling for many while the MP was fantastic by all accounts.  Also, I never asked for metrics, just evidence to show why this suggestion would not be possible or why it would not make sense.  So far no one has provided any support for either.  If you want support for any claim I have made, feel free to directly address it here.

[robertthebard]

Your very first post ends with

catering to the largest audience would benefit both the community and Bioware

. All I did was read what you provided. I have already asked you to support your claim, and you denied making it.

[viciouswhisper]

Nowhere did I claim that the multiplayer audience is larger, only that it can be different (please provide a quote if you feel this is wrong).  This was based on my experience with ME3's MP as the pick-a-color ending made the single-player less than compelling for many while the MP was fantastic by all accounts.  Also, I never asked for metrics, just evidence to show why this suggestion would not be possible or why it would not make sense.  So far no one has provided any support for either.  If you want support for any claim I have made, feel free to directly address it here.

it doesnt make sense because regardless of how you feel about single player what would be the point of having two separate releases for the exact same game? what is the downside to putting them together? who in their right mind pay for a multiplayer experience if theyre not invested in the game? why not diablo or something with more substance? the dragon age mp exists because dragon age exists and i dont think theres enough substance to justify selling it separately. even if they did you would still pay full price for dai then you would still have to buy mp which btw screws over the people who want both so that doesnt make sense the only people who would benefit would be the mp audience which isnt even established yet so the risk would be too high to rely on it being a viable business model

[HTTP 404]

I understand what the OP is saying. I think many of us gamers cannot see past our own biases. 

 

However, I think they are doing what you are saying with that other bioware game.  I believe that game has a similar but more in depth game.  I don't think they need a standalone game but I do remember Me3 demoing their MP well before Me3 came out.  I remember playing with some guys who never played Mass effect before and were impressed by the gameplay that they said they preordered ME3.  That demo probably brought in a few players that never would have played Mass Effect.

 

My suggestion would be for EA and/or Bioware to release a free demo of the multiplayer game for a month as a promotion with just the first three classes available to play with others but all items can be used and upgrades.  That would build a bigger fan base.

[Hiero_Glyph]

@robertthebard

 

It's obvious you did not understand what I wrote as even your quote does not show that I claimed it was larger, only that by leveraging this different group would yield the largest audience possible (i.e. DA:I group + multiplayer-only = larger than DA:I alone).  Adding a multiplayer-only group would only increase the audience making it the largest possible.  This is exactly what I stated.

 

@viciouswhisper

 

Who would pay for the multiplayer when they have no investment in the single-player?  1) Players that no longer have any interest in playing the single-player yet still enjoy the multiplayer. 2) Players that have friends playing DA:I but do not enjoy 100+ hour RPGs.  3) Players that are looking for a game to hold them over for the holidays without having to spend full price on a AAA title.  Also, I never said anything about separating the multiplayer from the single player, only that it should be offered as a standalone product in addition to the full game.

 

@Juromaro

 

Which is why I said "reasonably priced, standalone DAMP DLC".  If the full retail game was $60 then the multiplayer-only standalone would cost ~$10-15.  Certainly viable enough to merit a purchase without being cost prohibitive.  As noted previously, the microtransactions could provide additional revenue for Bioware and as this would be digital only, there is no risk of losing sales to used copies.  Again, this is just a suggestion but it would cover the largest audience possible and provide the greatest source of revenue for Bioware.

[hwlrmnky]

Given that there is no crossover between the single and multiplayer portions of DA:I, Bioware could release a reasonably priced, standalone DAMP DLC for players who want to play the multiplayer but not the single player (a 100-hour RPG isn't for everyone).  As DAMP has microtransactions it would also be supported by additional players.  I feel that as DAMP is getting weekly events and free DLC support, catering to the largest audience would benefit both the community and Bioware.

So, I'm not arguing with you; I'm both curious about your idea and ignorant of multiplayer needs. What would need to be included in the DLC to make it attractive to players interested only in multiplayer? Also, would one member of the party need the full game in order to host the session?

[Battlebloodmage]

I see it as a loss of revenue for Bioware. If people only want MP, they have to purchase the whole game for 60 dollars instead of 15 dollars, even if they don't want to. Bioware package both into the same game, so that it can appeal to both multi and single player people. That way they can pay the whole game instead of one or the other. You have any reason why Bioware would want to make them separate and how it would result in additional revenue instead?

[wolfhowwl]

How about just going all the way and releasing it as F2P?

 

People who bought the full game could be "premium" players who level up faster.

[robertthebard]

@robertthebard
 
It's obvious you did not understand what I wrote as even your quote does not show that I claimed it was larger, only that by leveraging this different group would yield the largest audience possible (i.e. DA:I group + multiplayer-only = larger than DA:I alone).  Adding a multiplayer-only group would only increase the audience making it the largest possible.  This is exactly what I stated.
 
@viciouswhisper
 
Who would pay for the multiplayer when they have no investment in the single-player?  1) Players that no longer have any interest in playing the single-player yet still enjoy the multiplayer. 2) Players that have friends playing DA:I but do not enjoy 100+ hour RPGs.  3) Players that are looking for a game to hold them over for the holidays without having to spend full price on a AAA title.  Also, I never said anything about separating the multiplayer from the single player, only that it should be offered as a standalone product in addition to the full game.
 
@Juromaro
 
Which is why I said "reasonably priced, standalone DAMP DLC".  If the full retail game was $60 then the multiplayer-only standalone would cost ~$10-15.  Certainly viable enough to merit a purchase without being cost prohibitive.  As noted previously, the microtransactions could provide additional revenue for Bioware and as this would be digital only, there is no risk of losing sales to used copies.  Again, this is just a suggestion but it would cover the largest audience possible and provide the greatest source of revenue for Bioware.

Ok, I can see that. However:

If somebody already has the SP game, they don't need to buy MP, it's included. There are lots of people, I understand, that still play the ME MP, but don't play SP. So your idea is that they would now have to buy it to keep playing? Since the reality is that it would cost BioWare more than they would make, since there's no way they could sell the MP for what they sell the package for now, that includes both. A year down the road, the game will be even cheaper, and it will still carry the MP component. So no, I don't see this as a good idea, for BioWare. The only people I can see it benefiting are people that aren't interested in SP, but want to play MP. I say, buy the game, and support the company that made it.

Exactly how are you going to sell the MP as a stand alone if you don't separate it from the SP game, it's a package deal, you buy the game, you get free access to MP, if you want it. There is no requirement to play the SP campaign either, so this is starting to feel more and more like some of your friends want to play MP, but don't want to pay for the game. That's all good and all, but it shouldn't be something that costs BioWare more money than they'll make so a few of your friends can play.

[Hiero_Glyph]

I think many of you are forgetting that multiplayer includes optional microtransactions.  Many casual players do indeed spend money to keep up with their friends in this regard (most free-to-play games profit immensely for cosmetic items alone).  If a player wanted to support Bioware they could do so in this manner.  Similarly, DA:I will (hopefully) have ample DLC so those players that care about the single player would be less likely to get rid of their copy.  The result is, again, two distinct groups and while forcing players that only want multiplayer to purchase the full game sounds ideal, in reality they will simply purchase it used and give Bioware $0 instead of a nominal fee.  Let's not forget that just about every large retailer now has a used game program so while Bioware does earn a profit on the original sale, they get nothing from the successive sales.  Anyway, I think that DAMP can be plausible as a digital, standalone product.

 

@hwlrmnky

 

I honestly don't think anything else would be required other than what was already included in the MP portion of the game.  This is also why it would cost far less than the full game.  Given that all future MP support is free, I would see it as the full MP product so no restrictions would be required (such as limiting who can host).

 

@battlebloodmage

 

Digital copies have no resale value so Bioware does not actually lose any money on these sales.  If anything, selling physical copies is a risk as future sales can be hurt by their mere existence.  Even if a player keeps DA:I for a year or more, they can eventually sell it so another player can purchase it.  Bioware sees none of the money from these sales and it's not like an online pass will restrict the single player part of DA:I.  I do understand what you are saying but think you are overstating the importance of sales after the initial launch window since these are often either used copies or sold at a discount.

 

Bioware makes the most money by getting their product into as many hands as possible within a few months of the game's launch; the only exception are Game of the Year versions where all DLC is included.  Most gamers are quite savvy and will simply wait for a game like this to either be discounted or have a complete edition.  A tacked-on multiplayer (no matter how well designed) will probably not sell more copies of the game while a reasonably priced, standalone product could increase the revenue.  I fail to see how the multiplayer aspects of DA:I will somehow sell more copies of a 100+ hour RPG simply by forcing players to purchase the complete package to play it.  If a player just wants a multiplayer game I don't see them neglecting the primary aspect of the game they purchase to get it.  (Did Extinction sell more copies of CoD: Ghosts?)  Besides, if you asked most DA fans about Inquisition, I doubt they even realize it has a multiplayer component.  Certainly it is not the game's main selling point so making any money from it is purely a bonus.

[robertthebard]

I think many of you are forgetting that multiplayer includes optional microtransactions.  Many casual players do indeed spend money to keep up with their friends in this regard (most free-to-play games profit immensely for cosmetic items alone).  If a player wanted to support Bioware they could do so in this manner.  Similarly, DA:I will (hopefully) have ample DLC so those players that care about the single player would be less likely to get rid of their copy.  The result is, again, two distinct groups and while forcing players that only want multiplayer to purchase the full game sounds ideal, in reality they will simply purchase it used and give Bioware $0 instead of a nominal fee.  Let's not forget that just about every large retailer now has a used game program so while Bioware does earn a profit on the original sale, they get nothing from the successive sales.  Anyway, I think that DAMP can be plausible as a digital, standalone product.

Since it has microtransactions, and your friends that decide to buy it used will use the microtransactions to keep up with you, where's the lose? Instead of spending all the money they'd have to spend developing the MP for 5 platforms, they can just release the game. If people want to play, they can buy it. If they don't, there's nothing that says they can't wait to get it used. Suppose the Stand alone is bigger than Sony or MS allows for a DL? Are they now not going to play because they may have to buy a physical disc? So now, BW has spent that money for nothing.
 

@hwlrmnky
 
I honestly don't think anything else would be required other than what was already included in the MP portion of the game.  This is also why it would cost far less than the full game.  Given that all future MP support is free, I would see it as the full MP product so no restrictions would be required (such as limiting who can host).

So who's eating the cost to make this work on all 5 platforms, and then there's my question above about DL size limits. Seems to me, if they're going to recoup the costs associated with your plan, they're going to have to charge for DLC. The money's going to have to come from somewhere, and it's not going to be a copy/paste operation. Every aspect of the game applies to MP. They have to remove the SP, but they can't remove any of the mechanics. So the MP isn't going to just be maps, like the free DLC for ME 3, well, maps and species/weapons etc. Stuff where, since the game is installed, all the FX and animations are already there. All of that stuff has to be programmed into the MP. In the end, it will cost more than they'll make.
 

@battlebloodmage
 
Digital copies have no resale value so Bioware does not actually lose any money on these sales.  If anything, selling physical copies is a risk as future sales can be hurt by their mere existence.  Even if a player keeps DA:I for a year or more, they can eventually sell it so another player can purchase it.  Bioware sees none of the money from these sales and it's not like an online pass will restrict the single player part of DA:I.  I do understand what you are saying but think you are overstating the importance of sales after the initial launch window since these are often either used copies or sold at a discount.
 
Bioware makes the most money by getting their product into as many hands as possible within a few months of the game's launch; the only exception are Game of the Year versions where all DLC is included.  Most gamers are quite savvy and will simply wait for a game like this to either be discounted or have a complete edition.  A tacked-on multiplayer (no matter how well designed) will probably not sell more copies of the game while a reasonably priced, standalone product could increase the revenue.  I fail to see how the multiplayer aspects of DA:I will somehow sell more copies of a 100+ hour RPG simply by forcing players to purchase the complete package to play it.  If a player just wants a multiplayer game I don't see them neglecting the primary aspect of the game they purchase to get it.  (Did Extinction sell more copies of CoD: Ghosts?)  Besides, if you asked most DA fans about Inquisition, I doubt they even realize it has a multiplayer component.  Certainly it is not the game's main selling point so making any money from it is purely a bonus.