684 réponses à ce sujet

[BSpud]

Those were also huge and pushed the consoles way pasted their limit, which would cause them to die

 

Unless you have evidence, it's total conjecture. Poorly optimized =/= pushing the limit.

[NextGenCowboy]

The more likely scenario in those instances, like Final Fantasy XIII in 2009, is that they're popular games that people play for extended periods of time. A game could cause a console to die, no doubt. I'm sure that the freezes didn't help any,  but I find it unlikely DAI caused any more systems to die than almost any other game with comparable sales.

 

That said, if tech's the reason, then tell us, please. If it's money, let us know.

 

Edit: Also, thank you. Poorly optimized does not mean pushing the limit. Prettier games than DAI run on the PS3. Granted, the scope's huge, and the new engine obviously makes things a big transition, but there's not going to be a simple solution one can point to and say: "That can't be done on the PS3/360".

[beccatoria]

Yes, that clarifies why, thanks. My position isn't that Last gen couldn't handle another JoH, but that last gen quite possibly can't manage whatever it is that Bioware has in store for DAI. There were people arguing that if the content can't be scaled down for last gen then the dlc shouldn't be released at all, for anybody. Assuming (and I do realise it's an assumption at this point) that technical limitations are the reason for ending last gen dlc, then I completely disagree with the idea of pulling the plug on dlc because last gen systems can't run whatever it is.

Edit: I imagine it would be stuff like more lifelike NPCs, much busier areas, large pitched battles, more ambient stuff, possibly features like the additional keep functions that were scrapped, or the boat burning stuff in Crestwood that got cut, more cinematic quest design. Doesn't all this stuff take up memory?

 

Cool - I'm sorry I misunderstood. 

 

That said I still absolutely disagree with you.  Things like extra people in the background are not a reason to throw out an entire group of players.  Also, if they always had things in store for DAI that couldn't be achieved on last gen it was irresponsible of them to sell it on last gen.  If they realised later that they couldn't achieve what they wanted with last gen, it's still irresponsible.  They made a last gen game.  You may wish they hadn't.  Given the circumstances I wish they hadn't.  But they did, and it's not fair to change the rules half way through. 

 

I really struggle to imagine what they could possibly need to achieve, narratively, that absolutely could not be represented in some scaled down form in a way that all players can enjoy.

[AresKeith]

Unless you have evidence, it's total conjecture. Poorly optimized =/= pushing the limit.

 

Edit: Also, thank you. Poorly optimized does not mean pushing the limit. Prettier games than DAI run on the PS3. Granted, the scope's huge, and the new engine obviously makes things a big transition, but there's not going to be a simple solution one can point to and say: "That can't be done on the PS3/360".

 

But you do know that it was poorly optimized so they can get it to run on the PS3/360 right?

[NextGenCowboy]

Considering the framerate drops in Redcliff, even on top-end PCs, I'm not sure that's entirely the case.

[AresKeith]

Considering the framerate drops in Redcliff, even on top-end PCs, I'm not sure that's entirely the case.

 

I never said it was perfect just to make the game run on it lol

[beccatoria]

It can handle the base game, but nothing beyond that, it seems. We do know, for example, that we don't have more customization for Skyhold, because of memory limitations of old-gen consoles (same with battle in Skyhold, which was never considered due to those limitations, mentioned, I think, in Kotaku Asks). Laidlaw hinted at it on his twitter not long ago.

 

Same with elaborate cutscenes, like proposed participation of companions in Inquisitor's judgment. Therefore if, say, the DLC expanded Skyhold customization or did anything else with already stretched capabilities of the consoles, it's likely people would be furious that the game melted their systems.

 

Then they should make different DLC content. 

 

Honestly we're going around in circles.  People keep pointing out that there are things they can't do for last gen that they can do for next gen. 

 

No one is disputing that. 

 

I'm asking why - seeing as they DID make the decision to support last gen in the base game, whether you agree with that decision or not - is it suddenly so important to release more technically advanced DLC? 

 

Why do PS4 players need more keep customisation more than PS3 players need any DLC at all?

 

What magical next gen feature is so revolutionary it's worth treating an entire class of players like dirt for? 

[Thibax]

I would love it if Bioware could talk to us about that decision at least a few words.

[AllThatJazz]

Cool - I'm sorry I misunderstood. 
 
That said I still absolutely disagree with you.  Things like extra people in the background are not a reason to throw out an entire group of players.  Also, if they always had things in store for DAI that couldn't be achieved on last gen it was irresponsible of them to sell it on last gen.  If they realised later that they couldn't achieve what they wanted with last gen, it's still irresponsible.  They made a last gen game.  You may wish they hadn't.  Given the circumstances I wish they hadn't.  But they did, and it's not fair to change the rules half way through. 
 
I really struggle to imagine what they could possibly need to achieve, narratively, that absolutely could not be represented in some scaled down form in a way that all players can enjoy.

Well the leaked survey suggested something about a Qunari invasion. I struggle to imagine how a large invading force could be scaled down and still look good and compelling. That was actually part of the problem with Inquisition, that corypheus and his army never seemed to present the visual threat that we were told they were. And I believe that part of 'telling not showing' issue was technical limitations of last gen. TW3 has kind of changed the CRPG landscape a bit, and I think there may be some pressure on Bioware to show that Dragon Age can compete here. And rather than waiting another 5 years for another full title, I think it may be quite important for the future of the franchise that they show it's got teeth now. I hope I'm wrong on this actually, since I love DA way more than TW, and don't want to see the team under pressure like that, but it's what I fear nonetheless.

I do believe that owners of last gen should have been given more warning, though I don't think that would have prevented the anger, and I do believe that the game should have been next gen only from the start - though I don't believe that cross gen will have been Bioware's choice. I think it was a 'hedging bets' financial decision made by higher-ups at EA, who have now changed their mind based on good sales on next gen and, quite possibly, poor sales on last gen. The publisher decides what formats to publish on, I believe, but obviously the devs, on the frontline, get the fallout from whatever decision is made.

[midnight tea]

I'm asking why - seeing as they DID make the decision to support last gen in the base game, whether you agree with that decision or not - is it suddenly so important to release more technically advanced DLC? 

 

The answer is relatively simple: addressing issues people had with the game since launch (many of them directly tied with old-gen technical limitations) and increased sales/prolonging the lifespan of the game on systems that will actually matter for years to come.

[Zatche]

Destiny:The Taken King and Black Ops III seem to be handling it.

Different companies make different decisions based on having different priorities, different resources, different games, and different skill sets.

Is Bioware doing something good enough in the new DLC that it it outweighs the cost of not releasing it to old gen? Does Bioware not have the technical skill set to be able to implement the next DLC in such a way that it runs properly? I don't know. I would hope the former, but based on the complaints I've seen regarding the old genversions of DAI and from what we've heard was cut from the vanilla game due to old gen limitations, I would guess it's a mix of both.

[beccatoria]

The answer is relatively simple: addressing issues people had with the game since launch (many of them directly tied with old-gen technical limitations) and increased sales/prolonging the lifespan of the game on systems that will actually matter for years to come.

 

So your position is that next gen players are more important than last gen players even though they spent equal amounts on the product? 

 

And you don't think that this should have been made clear at the outset? 

 

ETA: Plus, let's be real, we're actually speculating about the fantastic scope of this new DLC.  The most recent announcement - Spoils of the Qunari - seems to be a bunch of armour and loot.  Yup, that really seems like a compelling thing to reserve for next gen.  o.O

[midnight tea]

So your position is that next gen players are more important than last gen players even though they spent equal amounts on the product? 

 

I think it's rather obvious. Plus - we have all spent equal amount on the product, which is the base game. PC/current-gen consoles won't be getting this DLC/expansion for free

 

 

 

And you don't think that this should have been made clear at the outset? 

 

I don't know when this should have been made clear. Either way, people would be angry at the decision. Though DAI isn't ESO or any other MMO - you're not paying subscription for the game on the monthly basis, therefore the argument about paying for the base game is moot.

[beccatoria]

I think it's rather obvious. Plus - we have all spent equal amount on the product, which is the base game. PC/current-gen consoles won't be getting this DLC/expansion for free

 

 

 

I don't know when this should have been made clear. Either way, people would be angry at the decision. Though DAI isn't ESO or any other MMO - you're not paying subscription for the game on the monthly basis, therefore the argument about paying for the base game is moot.

 

Legally, I agree with you.  Ethically, I think arguing that last gen players should have expected support for DLC to be dropped part way through - and dropped in a franchise with is a.) heavily story-based and b.) has a history of providing important parts of the story as DLC - is disingenuous. 

 

 

I'm also a little disturbed that you think it's obvious next gen players matter more than last gen players.  But I suppose that's the core of the issue.  I don't find that I have much enthusiasm to give my money to a company who think it's worth less than someone else's. 

 

They didn't have to release it on last gen.  They chose to do so.  The honourable thing to do would be to continue supporting all platforms. 

 

At the very least, I find the argument that next gen players matter more than last gen players to be selfish.  I can't see any way of spinning your argument that doesn't revolve around asking last gen players to go without so that next gen players can get extra.  After having been invited to dinner.

[BSpud]

But you do know that it was poorly optimized so they can get it to run on the PS3/360 right?

 

Poor optimization is a separate issue from hardware limits. The hardware limits definitely constrained how much content could be shown at once, for example, but that doesn't account for how crummy it runs with the stuff that's actually there.

 

I don't know where this idea that DAI is the next Crysis or something. There was nothing inherent in the game that would keep it from looking and functioning better on old-gen consoles except that it was clearly the lowest priority in development.

 

As NextGenCowboy suggested, there are plenty of other games on the PS3 and 360 comparable in content and scale that generally look and handle better than DAI, especially for what would be expected from the consoles' final years. Still, other than the freezes that require a hard reset (which is the result of a error in programing and not pushing the hardware to its limit), I don't see how the optimization is SO BAD as to kill perfectly healthy consoles. If a console is on its way out (and most likely these are consoles getting long in the tooth--it's safe to assume most people have not been buying brand new PS3s and 360s in the past couple years), just about any game could theoretically do it in. If Skyrim was in someone's disc drive at the time of their console giving up the ghost, "common sense" would dictate that it was uniquely Skyrim's fault, even if it actually weren't true.

 

Relying solely on Internet complaints (and worse, your memory of them) amounts to little more than sampling bias based on people who may not even know the true cause of their problem.

[Panda]

People are only talking about story content SP DLC's that might need more power than what old gen has, if they are done without taking it's limitations consideration.

 

What about Multiplayer and item pack DLC's that are also cut out from old gen? There shouldn't be any problems with those, they haven't really been more buggy on old gen than other platforms. So this decision isn't purely based on what old gens can't handle and Bioware wanting to make heavy SP DLC's. It's Bioware wanting to cut old gen platforms and players unwilling to buy new gen console and game completely off.

[Hellion Rex]

I don't particularly mind. Older consoles do indeed impact what new consoles can do when dealing with a cross platform game. I feel for the people who have to fork up the money for new stuff, but I feel that's it is indeed the best route going ahead. Last gen consoles cannot be supported forever.

[BansheeOwnage]

But why would they do it before launch if they never thought this would happen 

 

I wanted them to make the game next-gen only because I feeling something similar to this would happen

Below:

Either never make the game for the older consoles, or keep supporting it for the older consoles the entire support cycle, but not only half.

That's what Banshee means I believe. 

Yes, that's exactly what I mean, thanks I'm sure Bioware didn't plan on doing this. I just think they should stick to their guns one way or the other. Too late now, though.

[BansheeOwnage]

People are only talking about story content SP DLC's that might need more power than what old gen has, if they are done without taking it's limitations consideration.

 

What about Multiplayer and item pack DLC's that are also cut out from old gen? There shouldn't be any problems with those, they haven't really been more buggy on old gen than other platforms. So this decision isn't purely based on what old gens can't handle and Bioware wanting to make heavy SP DLC's. It's Bioware wanting to cut old gen platforms and players unwilling to buy new gen console and game completely off.

Exactly. There is no reason why they can't release multiplayer DLC (yet to be determined) or aesthetic DLC (already confirmed) for the old-gen consoles. That's just not cool.

[Hellion Rex]

Exactly. There is no reason why they can't release multiplayer DLC (yet to be determined) or aesthetic DLC (already confirmed) for the old-gen consoles. That's just not cool.

I disagree on the multiplayer stuff, since the combat animations are the exact same as in the SP. Some aesthetic content should still be available to older consoles though.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I don't particularly mind. Older consoles do indeed impact what new consoles can do when dealing with a cross platform game. I feel for the people who have to fork up the money for new stuff, but I feel that's it is indeed the best route going ahead. Last gen consoles cannot be supported forever.

Nobody is saying they should be supported forever. They should however have been supported during the entirety of the DAI support cycle. 

[Archdemon_Urthemiel]

Exactly. There is no reason why they can't release multiplayer DLC (yet to be determined) or aesthetic DLC (already confirmed) for the old-gen consoles. That's just not cool.

Wait, item packs also aren't being given to last gen???

[Panda]

I disagree on the multiplayer stuff, since the combat animations are the exact same as in the SP. Some aesthetic content should still be available to older consoles though.

 

There hasn't been problems in combat animations though?

 

The problems have been mostly stability and textures on old gen. 

[Panda]

Wait, item packs also aren't being given to last gen???

 

Apparently the qunari package that Bioware released same time as no DLC info for old gen isn't available for old gen anymore XD So it's not even farewell, it's like here is new DLC.. oh and by the way nothing for you now and ever.

[GreyLycanTrope]

They really should let people trade in their old-gen copies for current gen versions or give out vouchers or something. Really the only reasonable saving throw in this situation.