you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 days ago (23 children)

Yeah, because EA gave Bioware a chance to bounce back, in fact multiple chances. You could say EA killed the Bioware of old which the talent leaving the studio, but the new Bioware could've bounced back. They had everything they needed to succeed. A credible studio name that people trusted and a bunch of beloved IPs that people would give a chance. They even had EA giving them more than one shot to not fail (which is more than most EA studios get) and also plenty of time to get it right. All Bioware had to do was put out a good game and they simply couldn't.

So let me ask in reverse. Let's say Bioware was indepedent. What would Bioware have to fuck up for you to say its their fault for going under? Because to me they ticked all those boxes already. Had it been any other studio they'd already be dead and forgotten.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (11 children)

    Persued 'live-service' games, using game engines that don't fit, constantly shifting direction of games in development, focusing on a generic streamlined cinematic experience then telling a good, character-driven story with impactful and controversial choices, use Denuvo, stop releasing modding tools, ...

    If an independent studio does this stuff... Then they should look for better managers.

    The first games that felt off to me where DA2 and ME3, but I played through them, they were still enjoyable. DA:I was bland and boring, so I dropped it, after that I didn't see a return to the studio that I remembered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (10 children)

    I do hope that was a deliberate jab at Bungie. Because that's exactly what Bungie did when they were independent and the reason they got bought out by Sony was because they were spiraling into their demise. Even now I think if Bungie goes under the blame lies with Bungie and not Sony. With that in mind I think it would be illogical to see two different studios go down the same path and then blame one studio but excuse the other studio.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I'm assuming it was a deliberate jab at how Bioware have been handled because that's exactly what they did

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    Ah, they edited their comment as I was writing up mine. What they wrote before was exactly what Bungie did when they were independent. And if they did exactly the same things why would be assume EA killed Bioware but Bungie get them in their dire state on their own? Even with what the other person now changed the question stays the same. Why should we assume EA made them do those things instead of considering the possibility that they chose to do those things on their own? We have an example of a company making those same decisions all on their own and I think the relationship between EA and Bioware (especially when compared to some other studios like Visceral) EA did put some trust and autonomy into Bioware. I just don't see how it's inconceivable that Bioware could make those bad decisions on their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    I don't get your point...

    My point is that if Bioware did that when independent, they where to blame. But they weren't independent when they did that.

    Your point is that Bungie did that, when independent... So? Are people not blaming Bungie for doing live-services? If they don't then they should! And if they do, then I don't see the inconsistency.

    From my POV, no games of Bungie had any interest. I guess Halo found some appeal to some, but this whole Destiny stuff... Maybe it was successful because of the novelty at that time. But I had no interest it that...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (6 children)

    Okay, so without being what would Bioware have to do for you to blame Bioware for being shut down?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    Okay, so without being what would Bioware have to do for you to blame Bioware for being shut down?

    Now I have trouble parsing your question.

    Didn't I just answer that?

    If BioWare would be independent, or maybe under a hypothetical 'good guy EA', and produced bad, bland, uninspired games, or dig themselves into one massive, feature-creep game, which eats all their money, but never releases, then I would blame them. So, if their management sucks. BioWare had enough money to find and hire good designers, writers, artists and programmers. If they suddenly start creating niche games, without broad appeal, that would be fine to, in my book.

    Trying desperately to appeal to a broad demographic, instead of playing to their strength, and their established fanbase, is what makes bland games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (4 children)

    Under EA what would Bioware have to do for you to say "yeah, Bioware is at fault here"? Because my argument is that EA gave Bioware all the chances to succeed and despite getting all the chances they still couldn't succeed.

    And I never said EA is the good guy here. EA is not the good guy. But being an asshole company doesn't instantly mean you're to blame for everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (3 children)

    Your argument isn't an argument, it is an assertion without any evidence, or even clear logical path.

    Were you there in the talks between BioWare people and EA? Do you know what EA ask directly or indirectly through implication BioWare to do? How they should or shouldn't design their games? What they should integrate or not and what to focus on? What they should implement? What kind of stories BioWare is allowed to write? And the employees are treated? If they where given creative freedom, a good compensation?

    I don't know any of these things. My argument comes more down on the proverb "The fish stinks from its head." And the observation that BioWare produced good games before ME3 and DA2. Then something must have happened, notable game designers left the company, and they produced bland games.

    It could have been some BioWare manager that messed stuff up. But why didn't EA replace them, or why were they even placed into that position in the first place? I don't know... All I know is that someone at the top could have prevented it, if they wanted to. And at the top was EA people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    How about you answer the question

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (1 child)

    Okay, so if any proof or evidence came out that proves that the BioWare leadership or employees themselves did something bad or self destructive...

    Whatever it is, without the direction of EA, then they take the blame for that. You haven't provided me any such evidence yet. Meanwhile, I'm sticking with what is known, and my conviction than any competent leadership could have prevented it, because it wasn't a natural disaster that happened here.

    I'm sure that EA managers are payed enough so that they can take the blame, I will not subject the developers, that just lost they employment, to that. That seems like victim blaming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Okay, so if any proof or evidence came out that proves that the BioWare leadership or employees themselves did something bad or self destructive…

    Have you read Jason Schreier's article on how Anthem went wrong? Excluding the technical problems from the Frostbite engine everything wrong with Anthem was on Bioware. They couldn't lock down what the scope of the game was, they couldn't agree on the story and the studio functioned on what they called “BioWare magic.” which is a hope that the game will come together at the end. And until the very end the message from the leadership was that "Bioware magic will come and everything will work out". That Bioware magic had been around since at least the very first Mass Effect game (possibly sooner, I don't remember how long that had been going on).

    I'll also link this article for a quote.

    Darrah says he doesn't feel like he had a choice, however, because "EA was very good at making Bioware feel like things were very dire." Though, he points to the fact that Hudson's replacement as Bioware's general manager, Gary McKay, was able to delay Dragon Age: Veilguard through multiple financial years. "That tells me either he's magic, which is possible, or it was never quite as 'gun to our head' as we thought it was," Darrah says.

    To me that indicates the people leading the studio didn't know how to communicate with EA. I've worked in corporate for years. The people at the top are so disconnected from the actual work it's common for them to set unreasonable expectations. It's part of the job of the people between the top and the people actually doing the job to temper the expectations from the people of the top so they could allocate resources (be it people, time or anything else) so the people actually doing the job can do their job. Whoever was the leadership at Bioware (even if they're appointed by EA, they're still a part of Bioware) failed at their job to temper the expectations from EA. As the quote indicates McKay got that part of the job, which is why Veilguard got the delays it needed even though it didn't help because they were constantly scrambling to for a vision they couldn't realize.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    EA kept pushing them to MMOs despite them being a single player RPG company. I definitely think they dropped the ball too, but had they been put on DA4 right after inquisition and kept it going to completion I don't think they'd've flopped like that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago

    I think you might be using the wrong word here. EA never pushed Bioware to make MMOs. Bioware made one MMO, SWTOR, and that was a financial success. As far as I know no other Bioware game had been an MMO after EA bought them. Where Bioware struggled was with making live-service multiplayer games and there's some argument that the unrealistic revenue expectations from EA forced Bioware to go down that route but in the end it was Bioware who suggested, back in 2012, that Anthem would be a live-service style game. How Veilguard ended up going multiplayer I'm not familiar with, but even there Bioware could go back to the single player experience, which still flopped.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (8 children)

    EA forced them to make a live service game that failed. Then they tried to make them make a live service Dragon Age game. They decided to change Veilguard back to single-player, but late enough in the development cycle that it impacted the final product.

    Andromeda was a technical mess at launch, but the game itself was fine. It was the weakest in the series, but they tried new stuff with the spinoff and I appreciated the attempt.

    The only game they made before that I truly disliked was Dragon Age II.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    upvoted only to retract it for the da2 comment lol. Dragon Age 2 is a great game swamped by tight deadlines, but what's there is fun and it still has the feel of origin where the world feels dangerous. it is so much better than its successors, and honestly if it had the right budget I'd even say it could've been as good as origins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    The budget and timeline absolutely killed it. Reusing like 4 maps for everything in the whole game got old super fast. And I also didn't care for the change from the tactical combat of the first game at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    you still have tactical mode tho and it works the same as in origins, I think the AI ruleset stuff you could set before is missing in 2 iirc, but when I played them back to back it didn't feel like I needed to relearn how stuff works.

    I do think it helps playing da2 with all the included dlcs, it helps add variety to areas you visit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (4 children)

    EA didn't force them, Bioware pitched Anthem as a live-service style game from the get-go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    EA installed managers of the company who had backgrounds in Major League Gaming and EA's mobile gaming division. THEN they pitched a live service game. Most of the remaining members of the old guard left within months of Anthem's announcement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (2 children)

    There's no clear date on when the Anthem pitch happened but it happened before EA appointed Bromberg as the CEO, which was in 2013. Anthem didn't get officially announced until 2017. Unless you meant the nameless teaser they put out in 2014.

    If you want to continue arguing this you going to have to personally name who that old guard was because I very much doubt they left within months in 2014.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments