106 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

By December 2017? OK, marked.

This prediction involves EA flushing an awful lot of money down the toilet; there isn't time to get anything out of Bio Edmonton before that date unless there's something far along in the pipeline that hasn't been announced. Are you predicting that EA has already planned to flush this money down the toilet, or that this isn't the current plan but EA's going to re-evaluate the situation after ME:A ships?

[Iakus]

By December 2017? OK, marked.

This prediction involves EA flushing an awful lot of money down the toilet; there isn't time to get anything out of Bio Edmonton before that date unless there's something far along in the pipeline that hasn't been announced. Are you predicting that EA has already planned to flush this money down the toilet, or that this isn't the current plan but EA's going to re-evaluate the situation after ME:A ships?

While I'm skeptical of this exact timeline, it's a fair enough estimate.  MEA is, after all the ONLY announced future game thus far.  We have no idea how far along this secret IP is.  And it's not like games don't get scrapped far along in production anyway (Star Wars 1313 anyone?)

 

If MEA doesn't do well, on top of all the bad publicity Bioware is already bringing down on themselves right now, do you think EA won't re-evaluate?

[AlanC9]

And they've already decided to pay 2 years of salaries at Edmonton only because they don't want to interfere with ME:A's launch? I'm not saying that it's inconceivable that nothing ever comes out of Edmonton again. It's just hard to see it as a plan. Edit: gross EA incompetence is certainly possible.

As for re-evaluation, I figure that EA does that after every release. So, yes.

[tehturian]

Mass Effect Andromeda will sell. I'm sorry. 

[Laughing_Man]

Mass Effect Andromeda will sell. I'm sorry. 

 

By all means, I want ME:A to be great enough to make me forget the disaster of ME:3. I don't want BW to fail.

[Iakus]

And they've already decided to pay 2 years of salaries at Edmonton only because they don't want to interfere with ME:A's launch? I'm not saying that it's inconceivable that nothing ever comes out of Edmonton again. It's just hard to see it as a plan.

As for re-evaluation, I figure that EA does that after every release. So, yes.

Hey, I'm not saying this is a destined prophecy.  I personally think it will take more than a year and a half for EA to finish digesting Bioware in any case.  (though I am increasingly convinced that this will happen, and sooner rather than later)

 

But the fact remains we don't know what, if anything, is happening in Edmonton right now.  There is some secret IP that's being worked on, yes.  But we don't know what it is, how far along it is, it's genre, setting, release window (if any)  One year?  Two years?  Five?  maybe it's development is so problematic it'll be scrapped.  Maybe it's going so smoothly they're aiming at a late 2017 release.  We simply don't know.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Would X-Men be a better parallel?

 

Mass Effect 1 - X-Men (2000) - good.

Mass Effect 2 - X2 (2003) - also good.

Mass Effect 3 - X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) - ended poorly.

Mass Effect Andromeda - X-Men: First Class (2011) - sort of a reboot but not quite.

You could technically argue that ME2 was already a soft reboot of the series.

[Lee T]

If Bioware ever intended for Mass Effect to evolve into a multi branching franchise à la Star Trek/Wars/Gate/etc. They would have kept a closer control on Tie-In products as they did. Mass Effect Deception handling was way worse for the franchise than ME3 ever was.

[von uber]

The one thing we can be certain of is that Bioware don't give a crap what we all think.

[Arcian]

You could technically argue that ME2 was already a soft reboot of the series.

So you're going to make the argument that every single sequel in existence is a reboot because it introduces changes?

[Fiery Phoenix]

So you're going to make the argument that every single sequel in existence is a reboot because it introduces changes?

No? ME2 was in some ways a soft reboot because it killed off Shepard only to bring her back again, seemingly for no reason other than to set the stage for the new game. Cerberus meanwhile was a completely different organization from the one introduced in ME1.

[ApocAlypsE007]

So what? The Westwood acquisition and what happened afterward was a failure on EA's own terms, and they've said so. Shutting down studios represents a failure of strategy, not a successful execution of one.

Westwood RIP was acquired before Tiberian Sun was released. While the beta of that game was legendary and the released game didn't live up to that level (screw you EA), the game was still very loved, not to mention Red Alert 2 and Generals. Renegade? Bioware had their own share of recent screwups. Westwood were still successful at the time, EA still shut them down.

[Bizantura]

I expect MEA to fulfill my (anti) hero addictive needs.

 

It took some time to adjust on a personal level that MEA uses a reboot due to the botched ending of ME3.

 

In the end Bioware games has given me the most enjoyable gaming experience compared to other devellopers so I am inclinened to give them the benefit of the daubt.

[AlanC9]

Westwood RIP was acquired before Tiberian Sun was released. While the beta of that game was legendary and the released game didn't live up to that level (screw you EA), the game was still very loved, not to mention Red Alert 2 and Generals. Renegade? Bioware had their own share of recent screwups. Westwood were still successful at the time, EA still shut them down.

Right. That's a failure. $120+ million gone, and what did EA have to show for it? A handful of developers who stuck with EA, some apparently worthless IP, and whatever profits those games made.

Did Renegade earn out? I was under the impression that it and E&B were commercial failures.

[LinksOcarina]

While I'm skeptical of this exact timeline, it's a fair enough estimate.  MEA is, after all the ONLY announced future game thus far.  We have no idea how far along this secret IP is.  And it's not like games don't get scrapped far along in production anyway (Star Wars 1313 anyone?)

 

If MEA doesn't do well, on top of all the bad publicity Bioware is already bringing down on themselves right now, do you think EA won't re-evaluate?

 

We all know they are working on more Dragon Age, and it will likely get an announcement in 2017/2018 anyway along with that new IP.

 

Not to mention 3 studios, one dedicated a MMO which just had a 6 year celebration and is releasing more content for said MMO (albeit single-player content) it is very unlikely EA will shut down BioWare. It's too much of a division at this point. Plus, we already saw them work on a game that was cancelled because of poor reception in test phase- Shadow Realms. 

 

So there is probably a lot of movement going on in BioWare that were just not aware of. 

 

Also,

 

Westwood RIP was acquired before Tiberian Sun was released. While the beta of that game was legendary and the released game didn't live up to that level (screw you EA), the game was still very loved, not to mention Red Alert 2 and Generals. Renegade? Bioware had their own share of recent screwups. Westwood were still successful at the time, EA still shut them down.

 

I got to say Westwood dug its own grave when half of the development team walked out on EA right after the acquisition instead of finishing their work on the game. The reasons for doing so are varied, from fears of different corporate culture to a stricter deadline imposed by EA, to simply not wanting to deal with EA at all and leaving while they can.

 

 It's a he-said she-said kind of situation regardless but it's interesting nonetheless because Westwood is not wholly innocent with how Tiberium Sun was handled. No one is in the right there. 

 

But that is also old EA, the one ran by Larry Probst, which was pretty bad times then, it got better when Riccitiello took over in some respects, including corporate structure. Not to mention they don't out and out close studios as much as they used to anymore; when Maxis shut down people thought it was doom and gloom, but Maxis is still around with four studios, including The Sim Studio sub-divison.

 

So if EA does close BioWare, it's not really closing BioWare in the end; it's just closing one of three offices at best. But I doubt it will close any. 

[Iakus]

We all know they are working on more Dragon Age, and it will likely get an announcement in 2017/2018 anyway along with that new IP.

 

We "know" but we don't know.  The intention is clearly there, but there is no announcement, no information leaks, etc.  

 

 

 

Not to mention 3 studios, one dedicated a MMO which just had a 6 year celebration and is releasing more content for said MMO (albeit single-player content) it is very unlikely EA will shut down BioWare. It's too much of a division at this point. Plus, we already saw them work on a game that was cancelled because of poor reception in test phase- Shadow Realms.

But at what point will Bioware be nothing more than a label?

 

 

 

So there is probably a lot of movement going on in BioWare that were just not aware of.

Like making plans to shut down the forums?  

 

But yes, things are going on that we're not aware of.  Which is actually my point.  Those plans could be anything.

[Degs29]

I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that the future of the franchise rests entirely on the success of Andromeda. It may appeal to ME's roots, but it is a bit of a departure from what we've come to know. Either people accept the new setting and characters, or the franchise burns. I don't see how they could write themselves back into The Milky Way.

 

I'd say that's accurate.

 

The problem, as I see it, is the setting of ME:A, which is a direct result of ME3's ending.  The Mass Effect universe was incredible, and fodder for many, many pieces of media, whether more games, books, shows, etc.  But they axed that all when they wrote ME3's ending.

 

How much of ME's universe will be present in the new game?  That is the big question.

[Jorina Leto]

But at what point will Bioware be nothing more than a label?

It already is.

[LinksOcarina]

We "know" but we don't know.  The intention is clearly there, but there is no announcement, no information leaks, etc.  

 

But at what point will Bioware be nothing more than a label?

 

Like making plans to shut down the forums?  

 

But yes, things are going on that we're not aware of.  Which is actually my point.  Those plans could be anything.

 

BioWare was always just a label though.

 

What made BioWare special was not the team behind it, although that certainly helps, but the games they have created. I don't think anyone who has worked at BioWare has gotten the same notoriety as say Richard Garriott or Peter Molyneux, who are more like auteur game designers. I don't even consider Darrah, Gaider, Hudson, the Doctors or others in the same space, like Fargo, Howard or Avellone on that level either; they were all pretty good designers and writers, directors and so forth, but they didn't sell me the game in the end, the game itself did. 

 

Plus I tend to look at it as a "no news is good news" kind of situation, meaning they are working on their projects and not worried about being gutted, or else we would see a bunch of rumors and bits of info internally surfacing here and there, much like it did with Lionhead, THQ and the like. 

[adkins222]

By all means, I want ME:A to be great enough to make me forget the disaster of ME:3. I don't want BW to fail.

What kind of disaster we talking about? If you don't like ME3 as much as previous titles, then it is ok. But i don't get people who believes that ME3 is horrible disaster, how it loose money and fans. ME3 was and still is (even after DAI release) best selling Bioware game ever, I should not even mention, that people, after 4,5 years STILL play ME3 multiplayer.

[vbibbi]

What kind of disaster we talking about? If you don't like ME3 as much as previous titles, then it is ok. But i don't get people who believes that ME3 is horrible disaster, how it loose money and fans. ME3 was and still is (even after DAI release) best selling Bioware game ever, I should not even mention, that people, after 4,5 years STILL play ME3 multiplayer.

 

I'm not arguing against this or not believing you, but my understanding was that DAI sale numbers have never been released. Where is your source that ME3 sold more than DAI? Again, I'm not suggesting that you're incorrect, I just had not heard this before.

[LinksOcarina]

I'm not arguing against this or not believing you, but my understanding was that DAI sale numbers have never been released. Where is your source that ME3 sold more than DAI? Again, I'm not suggesting that you're incorrect, I just had not heard this before.

 

We know that based on physical copies sold it was on par with Dragon Age II, at least in Europe.

 

We don't know how many of those sales were digital however. The last bit I heard is that the PS4 version sold close to 2 million units worldwide on physical disk. I would think that would be the highest or second highest total.

 

Unfortunately no hard numbers are out there, just estimates, but if it was the best selling game for BioWare at launch my guess is that it had to have sold off at least a million units across all platforms in the first week, which is entirely possible. The best selling game by BioWare I do believe is still Mass Effect 3, which had over $200 million in sales at the end of the day and a guaranteed 4 million units sold at least. I believe Dragon Age: Origins also had a high number, roughly 5-6 million units as well, but I think Mass Effect 3 eclipsed that. 

 

BioWare is making money, the question is how much money.

[Arcian]

Mass Effect Andromeda will sell. I'm sorry. 

Yeah, and CoD sells like hotcakes despite being the same piece of sh!t repackaged in new wrapping paper every year. A profitable game is only good to the people making a profit - whether or not it is good to the consumers depends on completely different variables.

[The Dank Warden]

Yeah, and CoD sells like hotcakes despite being the same piece of sh!t repackaged in new wrapping paper every year. A profitable game is only good to the people making a profit - whether or not it is good to the consumers depends on completely different variables.

CoD is more like reheated food, BAD rehated food... and it teach us that something bad but popular can still make a lot of profits.

[tehturian]

Yeah, and CoD sells like hotcakes despite being the same piece of sh!t repackaged in new wrapping paper every year.

Bioware and EA clearly aren't doing that though. 

 

What Bioware are doing is the product of years of dedication and endeavour.