84 réponses à ce sujet

[teks]

They'd still be making better games if they'd never sold out to EA, but some people would be a whole lot less rich.

I doubt it. EA gives them limitless funds to see through their ambitious goals. EA didn't take over the game creation, nor its creative aspect. They may have a few requirements they add to the game to make more money, such as the multiplayer content, but the core game is all bioware. There is nothing in the game to suggest otherwise. Bioware is notorious for bugs.

EQ bought them because they are profitable. There is no reason for them to mess with the formula.

[atlantico]

As an old school Wing Commander fan, I should be excited about Star Citizen, but I 'm not.

I'm not a fan of MMO's, and it seems like it's an MMO in space. The online thing is a deal breaker, for me at least.

I hope it's a success for the backers though, and they get what they want out of it.

 

Same here, I really wanted to like Star Citizen but it is the same as that other clone, whatsitsface "Elite: Dangeroux", just MMOs, always online. 

 

No thanks.

[Sanunes]

They'd still be making better games if they'd never sold out to EA, but some people would be a whole lot less rich.

 

I never understand the "sold out to EA" bit, the doctors never signed a deal with EA, they merged with Pandemic to create a mega developer and two years after that EA bought the holding company that owned BioWare/Pandemic from its shareholders.

[LinksOcarina]

I never understand the "sold out to EA" bit, the doctors never signed a deal with EA, they merged with Pandemic to create a mega developer and two years after that EA bought the holding company that owned BioWare/Pandemic from its shareholders.

 

Not to mention both Pandemic and BioWare were close to bankruptcy, hence the merger at the time. Even then it was very touch and go. 

[Realmzmaster]

They'd still be making better games if they'd never sold out to EA, but some people would be a whole lot less rich.

 

The assumption here is that Bioware would still be in business if EA did not buy VG Holding. Bioware needed financial backing to continue development and publish their games. Bioware went to Elevation Partners (equity financier, who also funded Pandemic). The three companies formed a partnership called VG Holding. Elevation Partners put up $300 million to fund the partnership.

 

The minute that happened Bioware was no longer in control of its future. Bioware was in trouble. Pandemic was in trouble. If they could fund the development of their games themselves they would not need Elevation Partners.

Elevation Partner was the majority owner. Elevation Partners was not seeing a return on their money from the partnership.  So Elevation Partners decides to sell the partnership. Bioware and Pandemic are given the option to buy Elevation Partners out. They do not have the money. Elevation partners puts the partnership up for sell to the buying public. The rest is history. EA buys VG Holding.

[Aurok]

Is it because EA is pure and total utter evil as they beat little children on the side of the street and steal candy from babies?

No, it's because they stifle creativity and their Plan A is to trace over the work of other, better companies. They may do that other stuff too but it hardly seems relevant.

[Sanunes]

No, it's because they stifle creativity and their Plan A is to trace over the work of other, better companies. They may do that other stuff too but it hardly seems relevant.

 

How is EA any better then the majority of people here that want a clone of Dragon Age: Origins then, for they are stifling the creativity of BioWare by demanding that they get a product they want instead of what BioWare wants to deliver?

[Vox Draco]

1 million dollar pledge:

We make your romancable waifu or husbando the way you want

 

I BET YOU You'd HAVE ATLEAST 4 EXTRA ROMANCES

 

For a million dollar pledge I want to be the one writing the ending and villain ... so some bioware-game gets it right for a change...though its not really an exclusive bioware-problem anyway ...

[Auztin]

I doubt I would even play or be able to play their games & wouldn't care.I love indie games if they are creative enough but I'm not a fan of nostalgia since it isn't as great as it was the first time it is played.

[KaiserShep]

I'd imagine the fan entitlement would reach... exciting new heights.

 

Hah, I know right? People would go all Star-Belly Sneetch in here, strutting around with their "I paid for this game before it was a game!" and it would never end. BioWare would be entering a geas with the most merciless superorganism in existence: the fans.

[tmp7704]

It did? When?

Shadowrun Returns and its followup, Dragonfall are very nice RPGs made possible thanks to Kickstarter, indeed. There's probably more but these two are the ones I've played.

[katzenkrimis]

It did? When?

Divinity: Original Sin.

Budget was around 4 million. A million of that came from Kickstarter.

The game was very successful.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, those were OK. I don't think I'd put them in "the most wonderful RPGs ever" category, but that was just katokires being katokires.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Older games were made on smaller budgets and sold for much higher prices; I paid $160 for Ultima IV (adjusted for inflation).

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri was made by a company that employed only 17 people (including administrative staff).

But, as has been pointed out, 2D games have a smaller market now than they once did.

But - and I think this is the point that people miss - technological advancement exerts massive deflationary pressure. Making NWN now would cost vastly less that it did in 2001.

I think game development has been too quick to pursue aesthetic improvements, at tremendous cost, instead of taking advantage of the lower cost of older tech.

[Navasha]

My personal definition of a AAA game is far higher in quality than what I have seen from KickStarter games.    Kickstarter is great for nostalgic games on old engines.    I am looking forward to Pillars of Eternity actually, but I don't expect the kind of game I would from a AAA title.  

 

That and I would never pre-fund any game.   That's like buying a product sight unseen.    Early Access and Kickstarter games will likely be a passing fad.   The few people that would pay to fund these projects will all eventually be burned by their decisions at some point in time.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

If Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns are any indication, then such cynicism is slightly warranted.

Wasteland 2 is a terrific game.

[Realmzmaster]

Wasteland 2 is a terrific game.

 

Wasteland 2 is an excellent game, but I think LinksOcarina was looking at it from a financial point of view in regards to development costs and profits.

[Raoni Luna]

Yeah, those were OK. I don't think I'd put them in "the most wonderful RPGs ever" category, but that was just katokires being katokires.

The guy likes to put on a show and you fed him like... I don't know... but a lot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wasteland 2 is an excellent game, but I think LinksOcarina was looking at it from a financial point of view in regards to development costs and profits.

Unless they're remarkably poorly managed, Kickstarted games can't lose money.

While publicly traded companies have, as their sole objective, to increase profits, privately held companies might have a more nuanced reason to be. They may simply wish to produce content in a sustainable way.

[teks]

Unless they're remarkably poorly managed, Kickstarted games can't lose money.

While publicly traded companies have, as their sole objective, to increase profits, privately held companies might have a more nuanced reason to be. They may simply wish to produce content in a sustainable way.

Well that depends on who you ask.

Ask an accountant, and he would agree. When the books hit zero you drop the project, or release it as is.

 

Ask an economist, and he would disagree. He would quantify the amount of money they lost in potential wages they could have been receiving doing something else. All that time and effort investing into something that didn't pay off. All that time has a value, and it was all lost. They would also cite missed opportunities they would have received had they put their work into other projects.

 

The later view is the one I think paints the real picture. These guys are putting a ton of work into these, and if the project isn't sustainable, they will need to seek income elsewhere, which is a pretty serious blow to their ambitions and goals. A lot of these guys also gave up on other opportunities they would have had elsewhere. For example, Jon Shafer leaving his cozy job at stardock and firaxis games to make his kickstarter project. If his kickstarter isn't profitable, he technically lost a TON of money.

[AlanC9]

The guy likes to put on a show and you fed him like... I don't know... but a lot.

I know. I find him entertaining, but it's a bad habit.

[AlanC9]

The later view is the one I think paints the real picture. These guys are putting a ton of work into these, and if the project isn't sustainable, they will need to seek income elsewhere, which is a pretty serious blow to their ambitions and goals. A lot of these guys also gave up on other opportunities they would have had elsewhere. For example, Jon Shafer leaving his cozy job at stardock and firaxis games to make his kickstarter project. If his kickstarter isn't profitable, he technically lost a TON of money.

How do we quantify the value of having that cozy job, as opposed to just quantifying the salary you draw while you're in it?

[MadDemiurg]

It's not always about the money though. Some people just want to create something worthy. But this attitude becomes exceedingly rare, and it is even more difficult if the process involves many stakeholders. One could only imagine what Dostoevsky's books or Dali's paintings would become if they were managed by an entity like EA (on a second though some similarities can be found between EA and Dali's wife ) .

 

Gamers often like to ramble how games are art, but art is not made for money. It can earn money, but it is not the purpose. Game production for the most part is more like modern Hollywood - a factory assembly line.

 

It is understandable since usually a huge number of people is involved in making games nowadays and it's pretty much impossible for all of them to be enthusiasts (and even if they are investors usually don't give a **** about it).

 

But I admire studios that at least try to strike a balance between profit and self expression. BW is not one of these however. It could've been in the past, but definitely not now.

[teks]

It's not always about the money though. Some people just want to create something worthy. But this attitude becomes exceedingly rare, and it is even more difficult if the process involves many stakeholders. One could only imagine what Dostoevsky's books or Dali's paintings would become if they were managed by an entity like EA (on a second though some similarities can be found between EA and Dali's wife ) .

 

Gamers often like to ramble how games are art, but art is not made for money. It can earn money, but it is not the purpose. Game production for the most part is more like modern Hollywood - a factory assembly line.

 

It is understandable since usually a huge number of people is involved in making games nowadays and it's pretty much impossible for all of them to be enthusiasts (and even if they are investors usually don't give a **** about it).

 

But I admire studios that at least try to strike a balance between profit and self expression. BW is not one of these however. It could've been in the past, but definitely not now.

Yeah, but money represents resources, and without it that game is going nowhere. What does an artist need? a canvas and paint. One is something a lone person is capable of doing in their free time. The other, is not. It is Ironic that by removing the massive production budgets, the 'art' is typically the first thing to go. Games don't have to be about making money, but if they don't make money then they can't be sustained. They will never reach fruition. They will never become anything at all.

You do not think bioware is able to show their self expression?
they have won awards for their character development breaking new grounds in games.

Yes, that is free expression.

Talking to a transgender character about being transgender, and what it means? Seriously, they deserved that award big time. Thats so big it really overshadows all the other open sexuality options even though any one of them would have likely won them the award as well.

 

Investors don't care about this free expression. That is true. They also rarely have a hold on the game's creative team. Your right that creativity is stifled in games today, but its not because the developers don't care. Its because the games are too big to risk failing, and because with this size they can't simply aim for a niche audience. They do have to make their work appease a wide audience, and that is where their biggest limitation lies.

All EA did was give them a **** ton of money and cut some of the profit.

[MadDemiurg]

Yeah, but money represents resources, and without it that game is going nowhere. What does an artist need? a canvas and paint. One is something a lone person is capable of doing in their free time. The other, is not. It is Ironic that by removing the massive production budgets, the 'art' is typically the first thing to go.

Yep, it's pretty obvious that games usually need more resources, I've pointed that out in my post as well. This plagued the gaming industry less in its early years though, when game development costs were much lower in general as no one expected to have 100 square kilometers of detailed 3d world in every game. Do not agree on the lower budget games though, these are often the ones that at least try to do smth original, maybe because the risks are lower and they can earn the investments back even with a niche audience.

 

You do not think bioware is able to show their self expression?
they have won awards for their character development breaking new grounds in games.

Yes, that is free expression.

Talking to a transgender character about being transgender, and what it means? Seriously, they deserved that award big time. Thats so big it really overshadows all the other open sexuality options even though any one of them would have likely won them the award as well.

Tbh the way these topics are represented in the game make me feel as if they were added just to get cheap popularity by pursuing social agendas that seem to be most spoken about atm. It doesn't really delve into social of psychological aspect of this in any depth (and maybe it shouldn't as it's a fantasy RPG). So no, I don't think BW has anything interesting to say.

 

Investors don't care about this free expression. That is true. They also rarely have a hold on the game's creative team. Your right that creativity is stifled in games today, but its not because the developers don't care. Its because the games are too big to risk failing, and because with this size they can't simply aim for a niche audience. They do have to make their work appease a wide audience, and that is where their biggest limitation lies.

All EA did was give them a **** ton of money and cut some of the profit.

Agreed with aiming for a wider audience. This is a problem in many other spheres as well. However, I feel that the companies create an audience for their products by the very same products. By producing mostly brainless blockbusters movie companies raised an audience that doesn't want to consume anything else. They are not stupid, it's just easier not to think. Same thing happens in gaming. This could've gone so much differently, but it is what it is.