77 réponses à ce sujet

[ruggly]

I didn't have any issues with DA:I at launch, only with what patches messed up. At least there were work around such as the mesh issue. Can't speak for Arkham Knight though, no intention of getting that fame.

[Fidite Nemini]

Eh, no.

 

What EVERYONE in the gaming industry has to relearn is to simply not release subpar builds. Making a horribly unstable game and pulling it from sales isn't smart, it's a necessity born from incredible stupidity/greed.

 

Note how they refer people wanting refunds to Steam and the retailers. And then remind yourself we're talking specifically about the PC version here. No physical retailer I know accepts a refund for an opened PC game. And that oh so illustrous Steam refund policy is more a principle in name only, as a majority of players no doubt no longer qualify by its set requirements to be eligible for a refund.

 

No one should take this as an example of anything but pure failure!

[wolfsite]

So even when another company screws up this community manages to find a way to use it as an attack against Bioware.... way to lower the bar.

[Jester]

I don't understand really. DA:I was a bad port when it comes to game mechanics, UI and controls (can we get rid of the console equipment list in PC games? Pretty please) but a very good port when it comes to performance, graphics and settings. 

While controls remain not so good (not being able to order a character to go to a certain point without entering tactical camera, weird button mapping for attacks, camera issues, especially in tactical mode...), I ran it just fine with the recommended card, and now I can run it really well on my 970. There is plenty of graphical options (everything that is necessary). 

 

Batman: AK has bare bones graphical settings - texture quality going only to normal, no way to disable motion blur, having to edit fps lock in ini files, no AA settings, seems to have memory leakage problems, terrible framerate, constant stuttering on anything but the most powerful cards, texture streaming issues and crashes.

 

You cannot compare those two. 

[Linkenski]

There's a difference between a pc port not being well designed for the mouse and keyboard and between it technically being broken. EA has a clean conscience when it comes to stability and functionality of their pc versions, if you count out SimCity.

[Fidite Nemini]

There's a difference between a pc port not being well designed for the mouse and keyboard and between it technically being broken. EA has a clean conscience when it comes to stability and functionality of their pc versions, if you count out SimCity.

 

Add Battlefield 4. That game likewise was not functional upon release.

[breakdown71289]

Damn you console peasants getting a better experience than the PC Master Race!!!

 

THIS ISN'T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!!!

 

BAHAHHA! PC MASTER RACE SUCKS! HAHAHA! LOL, only joking of course.

 

I'm sure the game will be fixed in time, although it does suck that Rocksteady allowed the PC version to be released when it wasn't even ready yet.

[DavianBurke]

I'd be very interested in knowing why people think I'm comparing the game DAI to the game BAK. I have not done so. Not once. Not even a little. What I did was compare the response of the studios that put out these games. My first post beyond the OP I made a point of specifying that what I was highlighting was aside from my personal issues with DAI. 

It's been the responders that are determined to cast this thread as some sort of DAI vs BAK issue. Often while erroneously stating it is in response to a comment I've made but that simply isn't there. I made the mistake of engaging in the DAI discussion for a post or two, but that isn't why I posted this article. 

I think Warner Bros. did a far better job, PR wise, of handling their drek than EA or BioWare have. That's it. Some good points have been made for and against my view. I'm fine with that. 

What I don't appreciate is being told I cannot compare two games that I never compared to each other in the first place. 

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

BAHAHHA! PC MASTER RACE SUCKS! HAHAHA! LOL, only joking of course.

 

I'm sure the game will be fixed in time, although it does suck that Rocksteady allowed the PC version to be released when it wasn't even ready yet.

sometimes its like they screw pc ports on purpose so people get trolled into buying consoles. But they would NEVER do something like that, now would they?

[Serza]

Y'know, Inquisition, and to my knowledge, all other BioWare titles were well playable on release.

 

What should the learn, then? Should they start making horrible games that won't work no matter what? They do not have anything to learn from the mess that is Warner Bros, and the latest Batman game. Because, y'know, their stuff actually works?

 

 

And before you pull the old thing about PC UI, or controls, or what have you... Uh, I had no problem, and I'm certainly not the only one. Differences happened, but they weren't anything worth b*tching about.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

At no point have I said all console ports are broken. I said they don't translate well. It's apparent in every single one I've played that the response time when I press a key is delayed as it attempts to translate the action I performed to the console controller counterpart prior to responding.

 

Uh... what!? 

 

I really hope you didn't intend for people to take you seriously.

 

 

 

Although it is technically funnier if you did.

[DEUGH Man]

I'd be very interested in knowing why people think I'm comparing the game DAI to the game BAK. I have not done so. Not once. Not even a little. What I did was compare the response of the studios that put out these games. My first post beyond the OP I made a point of specifying that what I was highlighting was aside from my personal issues with DAI.

It's been the responders that are determined to cast this thread as some sort of DAI vs BAK issue. Often while erroneously stating it is in response to a comment I've made but that simply isn't there. I made the mistake of engaging in the DAI discussion for a post or two, but that isn't why I posted this article.

I think Warner Bros. did a far better job, PR wise, of handling their drek than EA or BioWare have. That's it. Some good points have been made for and against my view. I'm fine with that.

What I don't appreciate is being told I cannot compare two games that I never compared to each other in the first place.

You want Bioware to respond the same way as WB did, even though the situations are nothing alike. That's what people are pointing out.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I'd be very interested in knowing why people think I'm comparing the game DAI to the game BAK. I have not done so. Not once. Not even a little. What I did was compare the response of the studios that put out these games. My first post beyond the OP I made a point of specifying that what I was highlighting was aside from my personal issues with DAI.

Because Bioware didn't do anything that ever warranted this of response in the first place. None of their games were even remotely as broken upon release as Arkham Knight is. Thus there never was any need for them to start pulling a game from sale (which is an utterly last ditch measure). Thus answering your question of why Bioware never did such a thing.

I mean, I'm not sure we can explain it more clearly. Since you cannot compare the situations, comparing what is required to resolve them anyway is silly.

[Broganisity]

Yeah, WB is pretty cool isn't it?

[Torgette]

Bioware games are some of the least troublesome wrpg's at launch as far as glitches and missing features go. Dunno what there is to learn for Bioware, and i'd hope EA learned from the Sim City failure.

[ApocAlypsE007]

Blizzard's got tonnes of money to support something like that. They got WoW and Hearthstone to keep projects in the oven for longer.

And EA doesn't have tonnes of money with Mass Effect series? What about Divinity Original Sin? It was powered by kickstarter and it is very stable and bug free. The difference is that Blizzard got a reputation of very long development cycles in order to release the games in the form they intend on releasing, something I wish other developers did.

[In Exile]

And EA doesn't have tonnes of money with Mass Effect series? What about Divinity Original Sin? It was powered by kickstarter and it is very stable and bug free. The difference is that Blizzard got a reputation of very long development cycles in order to release the games in the form they intend on releasing, something I wish other developers did.

 

ME isn't a money-maker in AAA terms. It's a decent earner but compared to WOW even Skyrim is a joke, and ME is a joke next to Skyrim. 

[Dermain]

And EA doesn't have tonnes of money with Mass Effect series? What about Divinity Original Sin? It was powered by kickstarter and it is very stable and bug free. The difference is that Blizzard got a reputation of very long development cycles in order to release the games in the form they intend on releasing, something I wish other developers did.

 

Well Blizzard also has the added bonus of having eleven years of revenue that they accumulated with WoW which allows them to have such long development times. 

 

If EA had a stable source of income for almost eleven years I think all of their studios would have longer development times. Just because EA may have a number hit series does not necessarily mean that all of those series were able to surpass the budget spent on making them. 

 

Of course, if we're still talking about Blizzard there's that whole Diablo 3 debacle.... 

 

on another note, for every Kickstarter gem, there are countless failures.

[NeonFlux117]

BioWare has had pretty well optimized PC games. Always have. The issues with DA3 were frostbite 3 issues. And.... See BF4 for more info on that one, lol.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

 

Frostbite is absolute garbage. It's bad. Best thing for EA would be to junk that terribad engine and adapt Unreal Engine 4 or even Cryengine for their titles.

[Fast Jimmy]

BioWare has had pretty well optimized PC games. Always have. The issues with DA3 were frostbite 3 issues. And.... See BF4 for more info on that one, lol.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.


Frostbite is absolute garbage. It's bad. Best thing for EA would be to junk that terribad engine and adapt Unreal Engine 4 or even Cryengine for their titles.

Instead, they are working to make it the engine of choice across every title they make.

[Jester]

Yeah, WB is pretty cool isn't it?

I actually don't get, why people think what they are doing is good. 

They knew exactly how broken a product they released - and they released it anyway.

 

Then, due to the Steam refunds and a horrible backlash (1.4 at Metacritic and 30% on Steam) they suspended the sales.

It was merely a damage control. They are guilty as hell, because apparently even Ubisoft doesn't mess up their ports as badly.

 

A good thing to do, would be to postpone PC release, if they weren't ready, and not releasing a broken product, and only when people protested, suspending sales. 

[WildOrchid]

Instead, they are working to make it the engine of choice across every title they make.

 

Sadly.

I don't see what's so great about Frostbite anyway.

[Serza]

Sadly.

I don't see what's so great about Frostbite anyway.

 

It's a unified platform. Technically, if BioWare make improvements to it, then these improvements can be seen in Battlefield/Need for Speed/FIFA/NHL/any other Frostbite title, if applicable. Obviously, you're not going to see the dialogue-based improvements (they said Frostbite originally didn't support a lot of features you need for an RPG) in Battlefield, but there are many improvements you can make to an engine.

 

Also, if a problem is found, it can be fixed faster and more effectively, IMHO.

 

 

Plus, it looks kinda neat and seems to have some sort of physics simulation. So, yeah, it's not really special, but it's a good platform for all the devs under EA to work with.

 

There's my two bits of a Sovereign.

[ApocAlypsE007]

Well Blizzard also has the added bonus of having eleven years of revenue that they accumulated with WoW which allows them to have such long development times. 

 

If EA had a stable source of income for almost eleven years I think all of their studios would have longer development times. Just because EA may have a number hit series does not necessarily mean that all of those series were able to surpass the budget spent on making them. 

 

Of course, if we're still talking about Blizzard there's that whole Diablo 3 debacle.... 

 

on another note, for every Kickstarter gem, there are countless failures.

EA is much closer to Activision/Blizzard in terms of profits than you think:
http://www.fool.com/...ard-inc-vs.aspx

The key difference is the business model the publisher sets. While Activision and EA are both greedy bastards, at least Activision gives Blizzard much more creative freedom than EA gives Bioware (also, in terms of programming Blizzard stuff is much more competent).
 

Diablo 3 had technical issues with the server, but that Blizzard couldn't really predict, outside of that, the game was very stable and preformed extremely well on the technical side. The game suffered from serious design mistakes, but that is a discussion for another time.

 

As for Kickstarter, I meant to point that you don't need an insane budget to make the game technically sound.

[Fast Jimmy]

It's a unified platform. Technically, if BioWare make improvements to it, then these improvements can be seen in Battlefield/Need for Speed/FIFA/NHL/any other Frostbite title, if applicable. Obviously, you're not going to see the dialogue-based improvements (they said Frostbite originally didn't support a lot of features you need for an RPG) in Battlefield, but there are many improvements you can make to an engine.

Also, if a problem is found, it can be fixed faster and more effectively, IMHO.


Plus, it looks kinda neat and seems to have some sort of physics simulation. So, yeah, it's not really special, but it's a good platform for all the devs under EA to work with.

There's my two bits of a Sovereign.

In theory, I agree. A single, shared engine across an entire publisher as wide and diverse as EA could lead to a reduction in efforts and a more polished product.

Unfortunately, the engine has a notorious reputation for being hard to mod on and seems to suffer from some underlying architecture issues that seem to continue to plague games made on it, despite it originally being debuted three years ago.

So I guess we'll see. I haven't heard EA toot it's horn of engine unification recently, so I'm curious if that's still the plan moving forward.