394 réponses à ce sujet

[Laughing_Man]

Consumer power has no value in this case. You don't vote with your wallet; I know you don't, because Electronic Arts still makes money and BioWare is still here in the end. The community at large doesn't care to vote with their wallet, and we all know it; the games keep turning enough profit to sustain itself, and they are now way too high profile to just throw away so easily. If you honestly did, then no one would have bought Inquisition or no one will buy Andromeda, or even hang around here as much as they do. 

 

So you have no power. People need to accept that that really, you never had power. That being said, considering how BioWare tends to overcorrect issues and works their ass off in doing that all, it kind of is a case-en-point scenario regarding providers and their service. People really think BioWare ignores people? Ignores their fanbase? 

 

People really have no clue in the end, then. You may not get everything you want, but i'll be damned if this company doesn't bend over backwards for people at times over some of the most minute things too, so you can enjoy a ****** game.

 

In that case, this not an opinion, you are simply wrong with that mentality. Or ungrateful. Take your pick.

 

Consumers may not have much individual power, and the outrage of a single person on the forums might not have much effect, but from time to time

the suits in charge manage to annoy enough people and cause enough outrage, that the effects are clearly felt even Up There.

 

As a rule, consumers need to be on guard when they deal with a megacorp, because the natural inclination of such entities is to give as little as they can

and grab as much money as they can. Things like quality products, customer loyalty, and fair business practices are mostly a joke for them.

The only question is: "How much can we get away with, without outright killing our cash cow?"

[LinksOcarina]

Consumers may not have much individual power, and the outrage of a single person on the forums might not have much effect, but from time to time

the suits in charge manage to annoy enough people and cause enough outrage, that the effects are clearly felt even Up There.

 

As a rule, consumers need to be on guard when they deal with a megacorp, because the natural inclination of such entities is to give as little as they can

and grab as much money as they can. Things like quality products, customer loyalty, and fair business practices are mostly a joke for them.

The only question is: "How much can we get away with, without outright killing our cash cow?"

 

But that presumes corporations are out to screw over consumers all the time.

 

I don't believe that to be the case, especially in mediums like games and movies and books. There is always a lot more in play other than making your bottom line, and its a tough act to balance so you don't lose quality or respect, I give you. They want to make money, but to mess around with their fanbase is bad business; and that is an argument that never held water with me regarding EA, because you don't stay at the top for a whole generation without doing something right by your fans. 

 

The arguments for quality lost are subjective mostly; not liking the direction the series goes or the mechanics employed, thats not a loss of quality in the game, its a loss of enjoyment by the player. But to subject the company for that sin seems silly. Same with not being properly "served" with what you wanted.

 

Look, BioWare misread the fanbase with the ending of Mass Effect 3, but they are not changing it because they thought it was a good ending. They addressed concerns regarding how vague it was, and gave it a good coda but thats still not enough for people in the end because of various reasons. Yet that coda would satisfy others who were looking for that epilogue to the game. 

 

No matter what, the dev team loses here. Their reputation goes down because people are mad, and now they have the perception of not listening to people, when they listen all the damn time regardless of what is said or done. Is that really justified to be on guard against a publisher like EA or a studio like BioWare because of that? 

 

Or is it really just, in the end, perception of both of them and their reputation from a decade ago that colors our view of the whole thing? I honestly think its the latter in this case; maybe not all cases, but in this one at least.

[Laughing_Man]

But that presumes corporations are out to screw over consumers all the time.

 

-snip-

 

Just two points regarding the attitude in big business, and how it relates to quality.

 

* I know it sounds really patronizing, but I'll say it anyway. You are naive in this regard.

When it comes to big business and big corporations, it's eat or be eaten, it's all about the success of the business,

which in turn relates to the bottom line.

 

Can we show our investors that we are exceeding the projections? Can we get favourable ratings from the analysts?

You get those things by showing sale numbers and money made, the rest is not very interesting. (not exactly, but less so)

 

* Product quality. I could list a very long list of video games that got pushed out of the door in a sorry state, some of them even outright broken,

because like everything else, they are subject to an excel sheet, and missing the deadline is simply unthinkable, no matter how turdy the turd is.

 

The consumers? F88k them. They will rage for awhile and then move to another game, by the time we start building up the hype for our next release, everyone will forget. (not bloody likely)

 

For companies like EA, getting that release date near a holiday / whatever, is much more important than providing a finished, high quality product.

 

P.S. Appearantly Assassin's Creed Syndicate is having a less successful launch than was hoped for, I wonder why?

Maybe it has something to do with how broken the previous game was on release... Or with how hard the AC franchise was milked.

[Malleficae]

I'm happy for no Shepard. I felt like our protag lacked opportunities to give her/him some character. Also, we can't cheat for 3rd time. Great. :3

[LinksOcarina]

Just two points regarding the attitude in big business, and how it relates to quality.

 

* I know it sounds really patronizing, but I'll say it anyway. You are naive in this regard.

When it comes to big business and big corporations, it's eat or be eaten, it's all about the success of the business,

which in turn relates to the bottom line.

 

Can we show our investors that we are exceeding the projections? Can we get favourable ratings from the analysts?

You get those things by showing sale numbers and money made, the rest is not very interesting. (not exactly, but less so)

 

* Product quality. I could list a very long list of video games that got pushed out of the door in a sorry state, some of them even outright broken,

because like everything else, they are subject to an excel sheet, and missing the deadline is simply unthinkable, no matter how turdy the turd is.

 

The consumers? F88k them. They will rage for awhile and then move to another game, by the time we start building up the hype for our next release, everyone will forget. (not bloody likely)

 

For companies like EA, getting that release date near a holiday / whatever, is much more important than providing a finished, high quality product.

 

P.S. Appearantly Assassin's Creed Syndicate is having a less successful launch than was hoped for, I wonder why?

Maybe it has something to do with how broken the previous game was on release... Or with how hard the AC franchise was milked.

 

Trust me, I am not naive. Just practical.

 

Why do you think the gaming community has accepted bugs and patches, DLC/Expansions and multiplayer? Why do you think folks like the service model so much? Does Joe public really care about such things, or are they looking to enjoy themselves?

 

That stuff is just reality of the situation. People assume the worst though when frankly, they already accepted what they consider "bad" by consumer demand. Maybe not as individuals, but on the whole, the reason why games get patched later is so they can hit a deadline quicker. The reason for yearly franchises made by four studios is because fans expect it; the reason for DLC is because the fans want it.

 

The bigger point seems to be perception again. Yes, corporations are out to make money; let's not pretend they aren't, I didn't at all. But they are not trying to screw you over because they simply want your money. That part, is the fallacy; the minute fans feel betrayed this entire discussion happens. And fans have felt betrayed by EA since the late 1990s it seems, yet they still make money....

 

And that seems to be the problem people have. They are blaming publishers and developers for acting like publishers and developers when they want to pay their bills; and assume they are being gouged when they are, for all intents and purposes, usually not gouged to begin with. 

 

As for Assassins Creed, releasing the same game six years in a row does that. Activision has done that for all of their products. Doesn't matter how many teams work on it either...just the reality of fatigue there. Maybe even quality is involved too, but at a minor amount id say.

[shodiswe]

I'm not worried about Shepard at all.

I welcome something new.

[Laughing_Man]

...The bigger point seems to be perception again. Yes, corporations are out to make money; let's not pretend they aren't, I didn't at all. But they are not trying to screw you over because they simply want your money. That part, is the fallacy; the minute fans feel betrayed this entire discussion happens. And fans have felt betrayed by EA since the late 1990s it seems, yet they still make money....

 

And that seems to be the problem people have. They are blaming publishers and developers for acting like publishers and developers when they want to pay their bills; and assume they are being gouged when they are, for all intents and purposes, usually not gouged to begin with. 

 

I agree with you, the screwing is merely coincidental, it's the results of the way they do business.

 

And no, I don't really feel betrayed, I expect nothing less from EA. That said, I do tend to voice my displeasure when I dislike something.

 

Regarding patches after release:

 

A. This practice does not excuse releasing broken or nearly broken games.

(this happend quite a few times in the last few years, the last Batman game that got pulled from steam after release is merely a recent example)

In no other industry something like this is acceptable, and indeed it shouldn't be even if the product is a video game.

 

B. No one really "likes" the service model, it's just a reality of software products and the bugs that occur in them. The problem starts when the

developer uses this to justify releasing games in a state that by all rights should have required more time in development.

 

C. DLC - as in additional content, has no bearing on this problem aside from the obvious unfair pricing that some of them suffer from.

(a few in game items ripped and packaged seperately / repainted and retaxtured, should be priced at 10% of the price of a full game?!)

 

 

No doubt there are enough gullible fanboyz that will buy and swallow immediately whatever they are presented with by the larger gaming

corporations, however, slowly but surely there is a growing number of gamers that woke up from the mindless hype train, and noticed

that things are not as shiny as advertised.

 

And yeah, inherently the consumers are weaker because they are exposed to psychological manipulation,

and due to the fact that they are not a cohesive group.

 

However, from time to time you see the effects, if it's with Deus Ex: Mankind Divided manipulative pre-order scheme that got cancelled,

(because why not use pre-order buyers as free sales people?) or ME3 that got the EC dlc solely due to pressure from gamers, and other

changes in other games, minor or major that happend because of fans / consumers.

 

The main problem is with the perception that gamers should be "thankful" because what we get is "good enough".

This is not acceptable with other products, and it shouldn't make video game developers immune to criticism either.

[LinksOcarina]

I agree with you, the screwing is merely coincidental, it's the results of the way they do business.

 

And no, I don't really feel betrayed, I expect nothing less from EA. That said, I do tend to voice my displeasure when I dislike something.

 

Regarding patches after release:

 

A. This practice does not excuse releasing broken or nearly broken games.

(this happend quite a few times in the last few years, the last Batman game that got pulled from steam after release is merely a recent example)

In no other industry something like this is acceptable, and indeed it shouldn't be even if the product is a video game.

 

B. No one really "likes" the service model, it's just a reality of software products and the bugs that occur in them. The problem starts when the

developer uses this to justify releasing games in a state that by all rights should have required more time in development.

 

C. DLC - as in additional content, has no bearing on this problem aside from the obvious unfair pricing that some of them suffer from.

(a few in game items ripped and packaged seperately / repainted and retaxtured, should be priced at 10% of the price of a full game?!)

 

 

No doubt there are enough gullible fanboyz that will buy and swallow immediately whatever they are presented with by the larger gaming

corporations, however, slowly but surely there is a growing number of gamers that woke up from the mindless hype train, and noticed

that things are not as shiny as advertised.

 

And yeah, inherently the consumers are weaker because they are exposed to psychological manipulation,

and due to the fact that they are not a cohesive group.

 

However, from time to time you see the effects, if it's with Deus Ex: Mankind Divided manipulative pre-order scheme that got cancelled,

(because why not use pre-order buyers as free sales people?) or ME3 that got the EC dlc solely due to pressure from gamers, and other

changes in other games, minor or major that happend because of fans / consumers.

 

The main problem is with the perception that gamers should be "thankful" because what we get is "good enough".

This is not acceptable with other products, and it shouldn't make video game developers immune to criticism either.

 

Keep in mind when I say you I don't mean individually you. I mean the general public.

 

I would also argue the service model; keep in mind Valve has been doing that for nearly a decade now with Steam, and people are still playing catch up to it.

 

 The criticism found on other media is pretty clear-cut, only in video games, it seems like the community feels like they deserve answers to a question no one asked. Those patch problems are a big issue, but people keep tolerating it. Thankfully EA seems to be keen on not releasing anything but sport titles yearly (by contract) so there is that; the games get some time. 

 

See, where I differ is with this I think is how the community tends to behave is not criticism in most cases; they see all as problematic and go beyond simple criticism in most cases. Trashing Mac Walters is stupid, so is blaming BioWare for ruining a franchise because you disagree with things, such as the story, mechanics, presentation, acting, and so forth. It has also been worse; the hate campaign against Jennifer Hepler comes to mind, as does the accusations of gouging and betrayal of principles and stupid BS like that.

 

Thats not criticism, that's sour grapes.

 

That stuff needs to stop and maybe then people will get somewhere, but at the same token you are not necessarily entitled to an answer either; or if BioWare gives an answer you don't like you shouldn't go off the handle either.

 

For example, I hated how the skill trees and mechanics in Inquisition were implemented; it felt like less options than Dragon Age 2, and less experimentation can be done for skill trees, not to mention how the specializations made no one fully unique in the end if you ask me. The reason for that change I bet was due to the tactical camera view, but it was a glaring one that I hope they don't do again; they should go back to more diverse skill-trees and fatten them out, so to speak.

 

But that is the type of criticism that would be good. Instead I hear "the tactical camera ruins the game" or  "the skills make no sense in-game" or something vague and uninspired like that. Imagine that times ten, with people saying "you suck" thrown in because they can?

[Vaseldwa]

I am "overjoyed" that we will be someone new and have a different group of companions.  I cant wait for ME:A! 

 

[Laughing_Man]

Keep in mind when I say you I don't mean individually you. I mean the general public.

 

-snip-

 

I don't see what Mac Walters or Jennifer Hepler has to do with the issues I was talking about.

 

People being nasty online is part of life on the internet, does that justify shitty business practices?

Am I (or any other gamer) responsible for people I don't know harrassing other people that  I possibly vaugely heard about - online?

If you can't stand the heat, don't go near the oven. It's regrettable, but it is what it is.

 

You keep talking about what video game consumers / gamers are entitled or not entitled to, I find it very strange.

No one is inherently entitled to anything in business, everything is negotiable.

You want something? You need to negotiate. If you are nice about it or not is irrelevant to the issue.

 

Like I said before, if big corporations had their way, they would give you the minimum they can while taking the maximum they can.

They are the epitome of capitalism, and most of the time any "good deads" they do are merely PR stunts.

 

I can completely agree with your criticism on DA:I, that was one of the things I found the most disappointing about it.

 

Regarding the unclear cacophony of criticism, this is the internet, this is how things work here, whining about it is irrelevant.

If the company really cared about the constructive criticism, they would have found ways to collect it, if by surveys or other methods.

 

But then again, they already sold you the game, so why should they care? The hype train will save the day when it's time for the next release.

[DebatableBubble]

Nah. We're not bashing her. We're just done with her.

 

Speak for yourself. I think Shepard's a crap protagonist. 

[goishen]

I am "overjoyed" that we will be someone new and have a different group of companions.  I cant wait for ME:A! 

 

 

 

I wouldn't say I was overjoyed, but I do agree that Shepard's story is done.   Time to move on.

[LinksOcarina]

I don't see what Mac Walters or Jennifer Hepler has to do with the issues I was talking about.

 

People being nasty online is part of life on the internet, does that justify shitty business practices?

Am I (or any other gamer) responsible for people I don't know harrassing other people that  I possibly vaugely heard about - online?

If you can't stand the heat, don't go near the oven. It's regrettable, but it is what it is.

 

You keep talking about what video game consumers / gamers are entitled or not entitled to, I find it very strange.

No one is inherently entitled to anything in business, everything is negotiable.

You want something? You need to negotiate. If you are nice about it or not is irrelevant to the issue.

 

Like I said before, if big corporations had their way, they would give you the minimum they can while taking the maximum they can.

They are the epitome of capitalism, and most of the time any "good deads" they do are merely PR stunts.

 

I can completely agree with your criticism on DA:I, that was one of the things I found the most disappointing about it.

 

Regarding the unclear cacophony of criticism, this is the internet, this is how things work here, whining about it is irrelevant.

If the company really cared about the constructive criticism, they would have found ways to collect it, if by surveys or other methods.

 

But then again, they already sold you the game, so why should they care? The hype train will save the day when it's time for the next release.

 

Yeah, but your not negotiating with consumers in the end, if you are a corporation.

 

I bring up the Walter/Hepler stuff because people seem to find it easier to focus on that, than to give actual criticism. And no, the internet is not an excuse for it. Those people are trash, plain and simple.

 

It seems like you are also stating capitalism is inherently greedy or evil. That is an argument I hear all the time, but it is of subjective analysis regarding a classist system in the United States.

 

I would argue it's not the system itself that is inherently evil, it is how people use or abuse the system to achieve their goals. It's cynical to think that people working in a corporation are not human in that regard. 

[Torgette]

I'm confident that Bioware can write great new protagonists, at one point in time Shepard was a total unknown. I think from a franchise perspective it also makes some sense - heroes are defined by the conflicts they resolve and we'll always associate Shepard with the Milky Way, the Reapers, Cerberus, Earth, the Normandy and Shepard's companions. Taking a fish out of water and dumping into a new conflict will always make the next conflict a comparison to the last one rather than letting it stand on its own - same goes for the new companions, new ship, new everything really.

[GaroTD]

I'm ready to move on with new story. Just let there be some references to trilogy BioWare. 

 

 

Still Shepard and his crew will be missed ;_;

[Iakus]

 

Look, BioWare misread the fanbase with the ending of Mass Effect 3, but they are not changing it because they thought it was a good ending. They addressed concerns regarding how vague it was, and gave it a good coda but thats still not enough for people in the end because of various reasons. Yet that coda would satisfy others who were looking for that epilogue to the game. 

 

No matter what, the dev team loses here. Their reputation goes down because people are mad, and now they have the perception of not listening to people, when they listen all the damn time regardless of what is said or done. Is that really justified to be on guard against a publisher like EA or a studio like BioWare because of that? 

 

Or is it really just, in the end, perception of both of them and their reputation from a decade ago that colors our view of the whole thing? I honestly think its the latter in this case; maybe not all cases, but in this one at least.

They also essentially blamed the player for being "confused" or "sad" as being the reason for the outrage.  The endings were fine, the problem was "user error", to their minds.  Wasn't exactly a good PR move.

 

The dev team loses because they were extremely dismissive of the reasons people disliked the ending.  That's why they now have a reputation for not listening.  And yeah, it's total justification of being suspicious of future products.  They've shown that whether they listen or not, they just don't care.

 

Ten years ago I was buying Bioware games sight unseen.  Heck I was doing that five years ago.  If it had the name on the case, I'd put down money for it.  Because they were a brand I could trust to deliver an enjoyable gaming experience.  Now I have to massively spoil myself, including the endings (which is exactly what I did for DAI before buying)  It's really sad that such a reliaable company lost its way once it hit the big leagues.

 

So yeah, I don't see why I should remain open minded when I have ample reason to be suspicious.

[Laughing_Man]

Yeah, but your not negotiating with consumers in the end, if you are a corporation.

 

I bring up the Walter/Hepler stuff because people seem to find it easier to focus on that, than to give actual criticism. And no, the internet is not an excuse for it. Those people are trash, plain and simple.

 

It seems like you are also stating capitalism is inherently greedy or evil. That is an argument I hear all the time, but it is of subjective analysis regarding a classist system in the United States.

 

I would argue it's not the system itself that is inherently evil, it is how people use or abuse the system to achieve their goals. It's cynical to think that people working in a corporation are not human in that regard. 

 

Everything is a negotiation from a certain point of view.

Even romantic relationships, or children that throw a tantrum so that their mother would buy them sweets.

 

So while it is true that EA is not negotiating with consumer representatives in expensive suits, acts of marketing and any kind of concessions

or bonuses they are offering, are essentially a part of a negotiation with their potential consumers.

 

 

"I bring up the Walter/Hepler stuff because people seem to find it easier to focus on that, than to give actual criticism."

 

I am afraid I don't understand, at no point did I mention them, and my problems with unfair business practices has nothing to do with individuals.

 

 

Regarding capitalism, I am not American, and what I wrote has nothing to do with "good" or "evil", just the way things work.

 

Yes, corporations are made of people. But you have to understand that there is a kind of "natural selection" mechanism at work in big corporations.

There is no room for sentimentality in big business if said sentiments result in less profit in the bottom line.

As a worker, you either get with the program, or you are eventually replaced with someone who "has what it takes" to "cut it".

[KaiserShep]

There is no room for sentimentality in big business if said sentiments result in less profit in the bottom line.

As a worker, you either get with the program, or you are eventually replaced with someone who "has what it takes" to "cut it".

 

I'll keep this short and sweet. Family, religion, friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business.

 

~Mr. Burns

[AlanC9]

Now I have to massively spoil myself, including the endings (which is exactly what I did for DAI before buying) It's really sad that such a reliaable company lost its way once it hit the big leagues.

Did that actually work for you? Or did you needlessly burn some if the value woukd have derived from DAI?

It strikes me that this strategy only pays off if Bio makes another game that would be equally painful for you to play. Are you sure you're figuring the odds right? i guess it depends on how you figure the costs.

[Iakus]

Did that actually work for you? Or did you needlessly burn some if the value woukd have derived from DAI?

It strikes me that this strategy only pays off if Bio makes another game that would be equally painful for you to play. Are you sure you're figuring the odds right? i guess it depends on how you figure the costs.

Maybe both?  I may have lost some of DAI's value, but I ensured that I didn't buy another ME3.

 

And I simply cannot disregard the possibility that Bioware would do that again.  Because as I said, they blamed the player for "not getting it".  We were so dumb they had to make an EC so we got "clarity and closure"  It had absolutely nothing to do with the endings themselves, of course /sarcasm

 

Based on everything they have said post ME3, they never understood what went wrong.  So there is every possibility that they will do it again.  Or make some equally egregious error.  

[Kappa Neko]

Ten years ago I was buying Bioware games sight unseen.  Heck I was doing that five years ago.  If it had the name on the case, I'd put down money for it.  Because they were a brand I could trust to deliver an enjoyable gaming experience.  Now I have to massively spoil myself, including the endings (which is exactly what I did for DAI before buying)  It's really sad that such a reliaable company lost its way once it hit the big leagues.

 

So yeah, I don't see why I should remain open minded when I have ample reason to be suspicious.

Since Bioware became EA there as been a shift in the consumer group they try to target. At least when it comes to Mass Effect. While this is noticeable, I don't think it has impacted the quality of their games yet. In fact, I bet ME3 combat wouldn't have been this enjoyable without the imperative to get it right FOR ONCE for the MP.

I haven't played a Bioware game before ME1, so I may not be able to properly judge if there's been a significant drop in quality since the BG days.

 

However, I personally don't have a reason yet to mistrust Bioware. I have enjoyed both the ME and the DA franchise tremendously. Each game was different, had its strengths and flaws. There are things they struggled with in ME1 and still struggled with in DAI, such as combat balancing. Apparently unheard of! Gameplay in general is something Bioware does way worse than other developers (ME3 being the exception perhaps).

Bioware has never been good at writing clever main plots, ripping off other works of fiction most of the time anyway. They always try to emulate what's popular. And they seem to be trying it again with Andromeda, their wanna-be Halo successor.

 

I honestly do not see how the games have gotten worse. Bioware always listens to fandom criticism, then overcompensates and does the exact opposite to make sure they eliminated the problem. Which leads to more criticism. And so it goes on forever, zigzagging like a panicked deer. It's almost adorable really.

 

I admit though that this time all the rumors make me very nervous about ME:A. It's the first time I'm worried the game is going to be rushed (well, more than usual) and suck. One thing that I'm sure is coming from EA is the MP hard-on. And I do not like this development at all.

Then again, as long as Bioware still gets characters right, I'll be fine. If ME:A has a half-baked SP campaign in favor for a strong MP focus, THEN things have taken a turn for the worst. Until then? I'll just keep replaying their previous games. Almost done with DA2 (gosh, I love Hawke), gonna do another DAI playthrough soon.

[LinksOcarina]

Maybe both?  I may have lost some of DAI's value, but I ensured that I didn't buy another ME3.

 

And I simply cannot disregard the possibility that Bioware would do that again.  Because as I said, they blamed the player for "not getting it".  We were so dumb they had to make an EC so we got "clarity and closure"  It had absolutely nothing to do with the endings themselves, of course /sarcasm

 

Based on everything they have said post ME3, they never understood what went wrong.  So there is every possibility that they will do it again.  Or make some equally egregious error.  

 

Or, they disagree with what you think went wrong.

 

Is that not a possibility, and honestly more likely the truth of the situation? 

 

And one more point, is this bringing up the "artistic merit" thing again, because I don't recall anything other than the comments from Patcher regarding the fanbase, comments which honestly...have some merit to them. But he doesn't work for BioWare in the end.

[LinksOcarina]

Everything is a negotiation from a certain point of view.

Even romantic relationships, or children that throw a tantrum so that their mother would buy them sweets.

 

So while it is true that EA is not negotiating with consumer representatives in expensive suits, acts of marketing and any kind of concessions

or bonuses they are offering, are essentially a part of a negotiation with their potential consumers.

 

 

"I bring up the Walter/Hepler stuff because people seem to find it easier to focus on that, than to give actual criticism."

 

I am afraid I don't understand, at no point did I mention them, and my problems with unfair business practices has nothing to do with individuals.

 

 

Regarding capitalism, I am not American, and what I wrote has nothing to do with "good" or "evil", just the way things work.

 

Yes, corporations are made of people. But you have to understand that there is a kind of "natural selection" mechanism at work in big corporations.

There is no room for sentimentality in big business if said sentiments result in less profit in the bottom line.

As a worker, you either get with the program, or you are eventually replaced with someone who "has what it takes" to "cut it".

 

I bring up Walters and Hepler because that is the criticism I keep hearing. It's not constructive, it makes fans sound disgusting in the end. I know you didn't mention them, I did, to give an example of what I am talking about here.

 

And that, is that what fans would argue are unfair business practices are usually incorrect about their assertions, and then are upset by false outrages when they feel they are not in the loop 100% of the time. 

 

As for corporations...let me introduce you to CEO Craig Jelenik. You can argue he is an exception to the rule, but I would argue it fuels the assertion that it really does depend on how a corporation is manned in the end. The world is never that black and white, really. 

[ShadyKat]

Bioware just needs to unveil the new protagonist already. People will stop talking about Shepard if we knew who the new hero is.

[AlanC9]

Maybe both?  I may have lost some of DAI's value, but I ensured that I didn't buy another ME3.

I'm probably overestimating the costs here. My approach to RPGs is all about approaching choices in-character, so watching a walkthrough first would be a big negative for me in a way it doesn't have to be for someone who thinks about shaping the story. ( And of course, with my approach it's nearly impossible for an ending to fail me the way ME3's failed you; if anything ME3 is positive because it makes it harder for me to predict the outcome of future games.)
 

And I simply cannot disregard the possibility that Bioware would do that again.  Because as I said, they blamed the player for "not getting it".  We were so dumb they had to make an EC so we got "clarity and closure"  It had absolutely nothing to do with the endings themselves, of course /sarcasm

Based on everything they have said post ME3, they never understood what went wrong.  So there is every possibility that they will do it again.  Or make some equally egregious error.

I wasn't suggesting you disregard the possibility. The question is the percentage chance. Is it really that high?
 
Depends on what you figure the error is, I guess. If it's offering the player only morally-compromised choices, then yeah, that's a reasonable chance.