I remember Bioware was bundled with Pandemic into VG Holding which was a partnership funded by Elevation Partners.
That is correct, EA bought Mythic later when The Old Republic was already in development.
Edit: Removed incorrect information.
Modifié par Sanunes, 01 juin 2015 - 05:37 .
Well this is a narrative of EA vs Bioware. EA is the publisher and all they see is $$$$$. They arent concerned about what a few jocks on the internet say about DAI, all they see is money and the fact that the DLC is most likely selling well to.EA's attitude toward the consumers with regard to DA:I tells me that they think this has been a huge success. They have ignored a ton of feedback, made only tiny changes (none of which addressed the main complaints) and their comments on Twitter indicate that they have largely moved on. Contrast this with Diablo III, which sold a metric ton of units but was greeted with very negative player reaction. After a reasonable period of telling the players that they didn't know what they were talking about, Blizzard actually canned the game director and changed the game to be a lot more enjoyable. Bioware is not doing anything like that. They think this game is a great success.
It's sad to me when the metrics used by the developer vary from the metrics used by the players. It leads to situations like this in which many players think the game is lacking but the developers view it as a huge success. Extremely frustrating!
I get that, my point is what you are talking about doesn't really matter in the end regarding the success of the game to EA in that respect.
Simply put, who the f*ck cares about the internet uproar, Mass Effect made money and a majority of those people will be buying the next game anyway despite it. Not to mention a majority of the uproar is still not a majority of the people buying the game. And no, internet fervor on this, or any other forum is not a barometer of general mood, especially when you have opinion leaders fanning those flames to get more attention, or worse, proclaim fan theories as fact.
And if that is the case with the Sims, well, you all asked for it not to be online, revamping stuff takes times like that, so no reason to complain about missing features I guess when a company tries to cater to you. I do not the play the Sims so I don't know, I just go by what i'm told by others who played the games and enjoyed them, including Sims 4. It' all second-hand to me.
Obviously you care if you're bothering to debate about it. And interestingly enough, your opinion seems to closely mirror the opinions of EA Executives who believed it wasn't necessary to listen to fans because no matter how much they ****** and moan about their grievances, they end up buying the next game anyway. And my point is we're seeing that's not the case and I'm hopeful that EA is finally seeing that too. The Sims 4 sales appear to be very slow, to say the least, so there's goes the theory right out the window that fans will buy anything EA dishes out.
The last statement of yours that I put in bold text is what I find truly amusing. The situation that EA found itself in with Sims 4 (And Simcity 2013, for that matter) occurred because they DIDN'T bother to cater to fans until the very last minute when EA realized they had salvage their sinking ship anyway possible.
United States physical sales alone for ME3 were 1.3 million.
I wonder how much of that was because of the success of ME2? DA2 got hit hard by critics for the small world. I remember many players stating they were not going to buy DA3. For that matter some of that market could have waited to get feedback from friends. I bought ME3 at launch date. I didn't jump on DA3 until I got feedback from friends. That is typical if you didn't like DA2. There are other games out there that people are playing.
The other factor could be an increase in competition. The key is did Bioware meet company's expectations. If they did, they were successful. I don't think this question can fully be answer in this thread.
Their stocks are up and they are going to invest in DLCs pretty much all the consumer really needs to know.
Obviously you care if you're bothering to debate about it. And interestingly enough, your opinion seems to closely mirror the opinions of EA Executives who believed it wasn't necessary to listen to fans because no matter how much they ****** and moan about their grievances, they end up buying the next game anyway. And my point is we're seeing that's not the case and I'm hopeful that EA is finally seeing that too. The Sims 4 sales appear to be very slow, to say the least, so there's goes the theory right out the window that fans will buy anything EA dishes out.
The last statement of yours that I put in bold text is what I find truly amusing. The situation that EA found itself in with Sims 4 (And Simcity 2013, for that matter) occurred because they DIDN'T bother to cater to fans until the very last minute when EA realized they had salvage their sinking ship anyway possible.
You do need to realize that no game company has to cater to anyone if they don't want to. That seems to be the biggest misconception of all.
See, I am not debating anything here, I am telling you why the assertions you have made don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Regardless if fans buy the games or not, is inconsequential to EA, and much like other companies, always will be inconsequential. So attitudes after the fact really don't mean a lot, the loss of 10-20% of your market is not a sting when you can find a way to bring in another market all together.
The problem with this is the homogenizing of the product, that is the real issue I see over what was done right or wrong. I think the games will always be successful regardless, the question is more-so "for who?" So no, we are not seeing the product failing because of perceptions of previous products or people being "screwed', or whatever, at least, not in the doom and gloom people predict. I am sure folks have said that and have acted on it, but it's such an insignificant portion of the gaming population it really doesn't matter.
What we are seeing is the broadening of the market and the product outside of the niche. You know how people always make fun of the "were catering to the CoD crowd" line and what not? Well, that's more or less what is happening, whether or not that is a bad thing is another story. Personally, I don't think it is because it grows the market of RPG players over time, instead of keeping it in that niche without room to grow, but this all depends on how the games broaden their scope. That part is debatable though.
As for Sims 4...well, they were damned either way it seems like, based on what you are saying. People would complain if they didn't listen (which again, they don't really have to) or complain that it was done haphazardly. I guess my question is which do you prefer, a game their way that would have been polished (presumably) or a game your way with a lot of features still in flux or bugged (presumably)?
*snip*
I should note that in regards to Sims 4, I believe it's predecessor is considered by some to be too much for even high-end machines to handle meaning you can start experience slowdown and freezes that persist for over a whole minute if you are playing a longer savefile and if you have more than one, it occured much quicker and more frequent. I think some theorized that the "downgrade" that occured in Sims 4 was because of this and was done to increase functionality. Whether they went overboard with this is something to discuss.
I'm unsure about the validity of this as I can only speak of my experiences but I do believe I've heard it mentioned more than once. I may be mistaken since I'm not much a reader of the Sims forums so it has been a while and my memory is prone to mess around.
I should note that in regards to Sims 4, I believe it's predecessor is considered by some to be too much for even high-end machines to handle meaning you can start experience slowdown and freezes that persist for over a whole minute if you are playing a longer savefile and if you have more than one, it occured much quicker and more frequent. I think some theorized that the "downgrade" that occured in Sims 4 was because of this and was done to increase functionality. Whether they went overboard with this is something to discuss.
I'm unsure about the validity of this as I can only speak of my experiences but I do believe I've heard it mentioned more than once. I may be mistaken since I'm not much a reader of the Sims forums.
I wouldn't know to be honest, I never played the Sims beyond Sims 2.
I have heard the same thing mentioned by friends of mine who do play Sims 3 and 4, for what it's worth. Bigger picture though, all speculation, likely true in some sense.
I wouldn't know to be honest, I never played the Sims beyond Sims 2.
I have heard the same thing mentioned by friends of mine who do play Sims 3 and 4, for what it's worth. Bigger picture though, all speculation, likely true in some sense.
I consider Sims 3 a wonderful game with it's expansion packs especially with what it's revamping of aliens but it is a good thing there are mods made which can keep the game from kicking it's own arse because of various reasons.
Because it's awesome and worth mentioning; The Sims 3 actually turned aliens into actual-different-than-sims aliens capable of telepathically screwing with people and summoning meteors about the sizes of moderate houses. Granted, the most you actually meet are unemployeed and living in the spaceworthy-version of a van but in their defense, that van can be used to simulate alien attacks totally ruining someone's picnic. They are also polite enough to not ring your doorbell at night!
Here I agree. DA2 cancelled DLC; DAI is moving forward. Seems to be a fair indication of progress, if not success.
To be fair, DA2 had three story DLC released up to nine months after release before canceling. DA:I has one story DLC (with at least one more planned, granted) six months after release.
If you are trying to use this as a crude metric of success, DA:I isn't there yet.
To be fair, DA2 had three story DLC released up to nine months after release before canceling. DA:I has one story DLC (with at least one more planned, granted) six months after release.
If you are trying to use this as a crude metric of success, DA:I isn't there yet.
I wouldn't count Sebastian as a true story DLC. He's got a couple of personal quests but not really any more depth than any other full fledged party member, where as Mark and Legacy are stand alone stories.
It'd be silly to disagree with the proposition that DA4 will be substantially different from DAI. Bio always does this; they're certainly not going to stop now.
I wouldn't count Sebastian as a true story DLC. He's got a couple of personal quests but not really any more depth than any other full fledged party member, where as Mark and Legacy are stand alone stories.
There's the appearance of Leliana in that DLC and it was certainly more meaty than any other companion content, by my estimation.
Still, I'll concede the point. If Bioware comes out with the next DLC by July, there will still only be two story DLC within the same time frame as DA2's DLC (March to October 2011). I guess if a third DLC is announced, then DA:I will "win," but I still believe that is an odd metric to gauge a game by.
But what if DAI has the same number of DLC as DAO?
There's the appearance of Leliana in that DLC and it was certainly more meaty than any other companion content, by my estimation.
Still, I'll concede the point. If Bioware comes out with the next DLC by July, there will still only be two story DLC within the same time frame as DA2's DLC (March to October 2011). I guess if a third DLC is announced, then DA:I will "win," but I still believe that is an odd metric to gauge a game by.
DA2 did not have Multi-Player either; DAI has two or three free DLC there, too.
There's the appearance of Leliana in that DLC and it was certainly more meaty than any other companion content, by my estimation.
Still, I'll concede the point. If Bioware comes out with the next DLC by July, there will still only be two story DLC within the same time frame as DA2's DLC (March to October 2011). I guess if a third DLC is announced, then DA:I will "win," but I still believe that is an odd metric to gauge a game by.
Oh, I agree, it is kind of odd, and I have to wonder if maybe they have more planned since it seems to me that the engine is perfect for "plug and play" self contained DLC like Jaws, at least in so much as being able to drop the area into the game without having to do something like they did with DA 2 and the statues, or even ME 3 and Omega or ME 2 and Arrival.
Though how long a game is supported does have some relevance, which would include DLC, but would also include other factors. (I mean I went to play ME 3 a couple weeks ago, and it updated. And I'd only stopped playing for a few months. It was a multiplayer thing, I'm pretty sure, but the fact there's STILL interest says a lot)
But what if DAI has the same number of DLC as DAO?
I keep wondering about that... IMO, they've kinda painted themselves into the corner with the post-epilogue scene, which is why JOH was disappointment for many, exclusivity deal or not. I think we agree what most people want, though for me it's content more for last DAI DLC.... unless they split story in two.
Could they do that though and risk anger of people who'd feel that'd be forced to pay for ore than one DLC to get the full story? (personally, I wouldn't mind that at all!) Or will people be more annoyed if next DLC was like JOH - unless it focuses on a different story, more tied with the main one than Hakkon was?
Again, I think it's a shaky metric to use. But if you use it, I'd say DA:I isn't measuring up to be clearly better than DA2.
What DAI clearly does is it uses a different engine (plus, the whole open-world thing), which might also be a factor in how long it takes to release a DLC. And let's not forget that DA2 was done in a rush, with DLCs possibly consisting in large part of content that didn't make it into initial game.
I try not to, but it isn't the included DLC that catches my attention, but that DA2 cancelled future content.
But what if DAI has the same number of DLC as DAO?
Not that hard, honestly. I think there was six? Maybe seven? Many of dubious quality, as well (I'm looking at you, Leliana's Song and Darkspawn Chronicles) and all within one year, when they shifted over to DA2's release.
Leliana's Song
Darkspawn Chronicles
Witch Hunt
Golems of Whatever I can't spell it
Return to Ostagar
Stone Prisoner (but that kind of gets my same caveat as Sebastian's DLC)
Warden's Keep
Two have nothing to do with the Warden or the Warden Commander, one is a companion DLC, two are short added areas to the main game, one is pretty much a dungeon crawl that seems to be story light and have little relevance to the main story of DA as a whole and Witch Hunt...
I'd rather have three of the DA 2 DAI quality story DLC than the number of DLC Origins had which were either story light or irrelevant to the main DA story of the PCs
Leliana's Song wasn't too bad. Darkspawn Chronicles? Oof.
Leliana's Song
Darkspawn Chronicles
Witch Hunt
Golems of Whatever I can't spell it
Return to Ostagar
Stone Prisoner (but that kind of gets my same caveat as Sebastian's DLC)
Warden's Keep
Two have nothing to do with the Warden or the Warden Commander, one is a companion DLC, two are short added areas to the main game, one is pretty much a dungeon crawl that seems to be story light and have little relevance to the main story of DA as a whole and Witch Hunt...
I'd rather have three of the DA 2 DAI quality story DLC than the number of DLC Origins had which were either story light or irrelevant to the main DA story of the PCs
Yeah but DAO gave us Awakening and most of the DLC were much cheaper so DAO wins in my eyes.
Retour en haut