Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Mass Effect Franchise Put on Ice, BioWare New IP Delayed, Montreal Studio Downsized

Good Riddance

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#21
SonicMage117

SonicMage117

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1072 posts
  • Location:Texas, United States
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
Games like Might & Magic would have been ruined (changed from what audience percieved them) regardless of which publisher. I think it's safe to say that it would have been dissapointing in fan's eyes even if it was a crowdfunded indie just because it's hard to translate something like M&M for a modern gen.

As far as a indie publisher, I think they are leagues ahead of most other publishers which is why I will continue to support them.

When I look at the lost of indie titles published by Ubi, I can't help but be greatful as they are all decent titles, especially Children Of Anteria which is an awesome game regardless of people hating on it for not being a new Settlers game.

https://www.giantbom...0-82/published/

My friends, do you concur?

#22
Zoraptor

Zoraptor

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2323 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

That's not quite right- the M&M mothership franchise via M&M X specifically was generally well liked by its target audience, its target audience just wasn't big enough for Ubi ie it didn't sell well enough. In that case the franchise was 'killed' mostly by 3DO anyway, since 8 and 9 were awful.

 

That's a bit different from the spin off HoMM (or Might&Magic: Heroes as it formally is now) where most regard most of the later iterations- and in some cases all games since 3- as being outright bad, and there have been several Ubi titles made. In that case Ubi can be said to have run it into the ground.



#23
SonicMage117

SonicMage117

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1072 posts
  • Location:Texas, United States
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
I have to ask though - Were the games really that bad? Or was this more of something like the community saying "Wow... they changed the game to the point where it's no longer what it should have been?" Most of the time when it comes to franchises with a niche audience, it's usually the latter which drive the ratings down.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm defending Ubi, they're definitely not my favorite pub/dev but I do enjoy the games they put out.

#24
Chilloutman

Chilloutman

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1019 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

 

Hmm... I love my Ubisoft games. Rayman Legends is still the best platformer I've ever played. Far Cry 3, 4 and Blood Dragon are the only FPS to interest me. Beyomd Good and Evil was amazing. Watch Dogs had a better written campaign than GTA5 and Red Dead. uPlay is great for a free game every once and awhile and rewards players with dlc.

Edit: Also I don't think Ubisoft has ever "ruined" a franchise.

 

Heroes of Might and Magic.... Settlers and more than a few others

 

 

For ruined franchises? Not really fair, no other large publisher would touch that type of game or something like Might & Magic X with a barge pole, with a few exceptions (eg 2k and XCOM). But then other niche Ubi titles like the Anno series haven't been mentioned on their balance ledger either.

 

As for Paradox, people have short memories. Their history is of dreadfully optimised published games usually with dreadful bugs which are then dreadfully supported, plus more than occasional fallings out with their sub developers and some truly Bethesda level shenanigans. Their record recently has been better, but frankly it could scarcely have been worse, and they still have... problems. War of the Roses? Their dlc policy? Either would have got a roasting were it EA or Actiblizz doing it. PoE and Cities are successes, sure, much as Magicka was back in the day, but that alone doesn't make them 'nice' publishers. They tend to get a pass because their core games have a high fanboy density- not undeservedly, their internally developed games have nearly all been quality, albeit sometimes delayed quality- and they strive to maintain a reputation as an underdog. But...

 

Gettysburg: Armored Warfare? SOTS2 release fiasco? Stealing the title Achtung Panzer, which they've since never used? Trying to steal asterisking Mount & Blade as well (ironically, for War of the Roses)? Ship Simulator Extreme? Leviathan? Stalin vs Martians (so bad they've tried to expunge every mention of it)? Defenders of Ardania? A Game of Dwarfs? Impire? They've had more turkeys than Christmas and Thanksgiving combined.

 

 

well you forgetting CK and CK2, Stellaris, Europa Universalis...



#25
ShadySands

ShadySands

    The Guy on the Couch of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 2507 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

I have to ask though - Were the games really that bad? Or was this more of something like the community saying "Wow... they changed the game to the point where it's no longer what it should have been?" Most of the time when it comes to franchises with a niche audience, it's usually the latter which drive the ratings down.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm defending Ubi, they're definitely not my favorite pub/dev but I do enjoy the games they put out.

They were pretty bad

 

I did end up liking one of the last 3 but can't remember if it was 5 or 6... I know it wasn't 7


  • SonicMage117 likes this

#26
kensu

kensu

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 85 posts

I've been playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 for the first time, I can't believe they're Bioware games because they're actually good.

I pretty much gave up on them with Jade Empire, when they decided to strip it of most of its RPG elements (like, you know, an inventory system) to appeal to people who hated RPGs. I turned it off after I was told I was about to take part in a battle, and it switched to a Galaga-like minigame.

Selling out to EA was really the last straw; I have never played any of the ME or DA games, and nothing I've ever seen about them has made me reconsider that decision.



#27
Yonjuro

Yonjuro

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 684 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Maybe this is obvious and I'm just not getting it, but why would EA buy/acquire existing developers only to then put them out of business?  If said developer is talented and worth purchasing in the first place, wouldn't it make more sense to keep them afloat?  And if they're not talented, why buy them in the first place?

 

I get that EA's done it in the past, so I'm not disputing it.  I'm more curious *why* they do it.

 

 It isn't obvious, but here is the rough idea:

 

If you are running a large company and a small competitor is making similar stuff better than you are, you have four choices. 

 

1. Buy them and sell their stuff instead of yours. (e.g. Google buying YouTube and shutting down Google Video)

 

2. Buy them and let their stuff rot, just to get rid of the competition. (e.g., (not exactly an acquisition, but) Microsoft hired the senior developers of the Mach micro kernel, stuck them in the playpen known as Microsoft Research and did nothing with Mach)

 

3. Lose in the marketplace. (e.g Yahoo vs. Google).

 

4. Make better stuff and out compete them (eg. .... hmm drawing a blank here, I'm sure this must happen sometimes)

4a. Use an effective monopoly position to kill them in spite of their stuff being better (e.g. The U.S. v. Microsoft anti-trust court case)

 

Whether a company chooses option 1 or 2 probably depends partly on the attitudes of the decision makers (are they trying to get paid to make the best stuff or are they trying to make money) and partly on how entrenched the products are vs. how much the acquisition costs. That is, if a small company is cheap to buy and shutting down a project and  marketing a different product is very expensive, it is rational for the larger company to kill the smaller one (even though it hurts consumers of the products).

 

Overall, isn't necessarily an evil company doing nefarious things, they might buy a company, spend time looking at all of the options they now have, and make the best decision they can. 

 

 The issue is that what is best for a single company isn't what's best for everybody. This why there are antitrust laws in many countries. and why it might be better if there were stronger ones (but carefully, because it is difficult to get things exactly right and not overdo it). 

 

 Finally, note that there are a lot of other reasons for acquisitions and there are a lot of reasons why a company might complete an acquisition and shutter the acquired company later.  The above is just to give you the gist of one situation.

 


Edited by Yonjuro, 15 May 2017 - 03:43 PM.

  • Hurlshot and Mamoulian War like this

#28
Zoraptor

Zoraptor

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2323 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

..They tend to get a pass because their core games have a high fanboy density- not undeservedly, their internally developed games have nearly all been quality, albeit sometimes delayed quality- ..

 
well you forgetting CK and CK2, Stellaris, Europa Universalis...

 

per quote I certainly didn't forget them. All bar one of those above are core Paradox games though, published and deved by the Paradox mothership. CK1 is the part exception, since it was a 'rescue' project from a different dev and was not meant to be developed by Paradox themselves- and it still has the severe zero morale on reload bug. Though I suspect you may have meant Hearts of Iron (IV) anyway, since CK1 is over a decade old.

 

The discussion was specifically about publisher quality though, and there while they have had some successful published games there are not actually that many, and especially not that many when compared to the number of turkeys. Apart from Magicka all their published successes are recent as well. Fact is that Paradox has done pretty much all the standard publisher guff from excess trivial dlc to releasing crapware to shutting down servers; and there's a whole lot more as well I couldn't be bothered mentioning but can if you want.



#29
FlintlockJazz

FlintlockJazz

    White Rabbit of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1853 posts
  • Location:Pocket Domain in the Outer Astral Plane
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

Maybe this is obvious and I'm just not getting it, but why would EA buy/acquire existing developers only to then put them out of business?  If said developer is talented and worth purchasing in the first place, wouldn't it make more sense to keep them afloat?  And if they're not talented, why buy them in the first place?

 

I get that EA's done it in the past, so I'm not disputing it.  I'm more curious *why* they do it.

 

 It isn't obvious, but here is the rough idea:

 

If you are running a large company and a small competitor is making similar stuff better than you are, you have four choices. 

 

1. Buy them and sell their stuff instead of yours. (e.g. Google buying YouTube and shutting down Google Video)

 

2. Buy them and let their stuff rot, just to get rid of the competition. (e.g., (not exactly an acquisition, but) Microsoft hired the senior developers of the Mach micro kernel, stuck them in the playpen known as Microsoft Research and did nothing with Mach)

 

3. Lose in the marketplace. (e.g Yahoo vs. Google).

 

4. Make better stuff and out compete them (eg. .... hmm drawing a blank here, I'm sure this must happen sometimes)

4a. Use an effective monopoly position to kill them in spite of their stuff being better (e.g. The U.S. v. Microsoft anti-trust court case)

 

Whether a company chooses option 1 or 2 probably depends partly on the attitudes of the decision makers (are they trying to get paid to make the best stuff or are they trying to make money) and partly on how entrenched the products are vs. how much the acquisition costs. That is, if a small company is cheap to buy and shutting down a project and  marketing a different product is very expensive, it is rational for the larger company to kill the smaller one (even though it hurts consumers of the products).

 

Overall, isn't necessarily an evil company doing nefarious things, they might buy a company, spend time looking at all of the options they now have, and make the best decision they can. 

 

 The issue is that what is best for a single company isn't what's best for everybody. This why there are antitrust laws in many countries. and why it might be better if there were stronger ones (but carefully, because it is difficult to get things exactly right and not overdo it). 

 

 Finally, note that there are a lot of other reasons for acquisitions and there are a lot of reasons why a company might complete an acquisition and shutter the acquired company later.  The above is just to give you the gist of one situation.

 

In addition to what Yonjuro has said, remember that their customers will only spend so much per month on games, they only have so much time to commit to each game etc, and so are only likely to buy a certain number of games at a time.  If all those games are yours, great, but quite often they'll buy one of your games and not the other, and while you get the money for the first game the second game ends up wasting you money, and your products end up competing with themselves which is not good for you. 

 

With the costs of triple-A gaming they want to maximise profits and so sell it to as many people as possible, and another product is a rival to that even if it is your own product.  That's yet another reason why a game will never get greenlit by a company even if it would do really well, because it may impact on another of their product (add to this, if you are the head of X game development cycle and you hear that a colleague in your company is proposing Y game that could threaten yours, what would you do?). 


  • Yonjuro likes this

#30
Oerwinde

Oerwinde

    Treacherous Decepticon

  • Members
  • 2911 posts
  • Location:Cybertron, hidden in an extradimensional space in Canada.
  • Xbox Gamertag:Oerwinde (also Playstation Network ID)
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

Maybe this is obvious and I'm just not getting it, but why would EA buy/acquire existing developers only to then put them out of business?  If said developer is talented and worth purchasing in the first place, wouldn't it make more sense to keep them afloat?  And if they're not talented, why buy them in the first place?

 

I get that EA's done it in the past, so I'm not disputing it.  I'm more curious *why* they do it.

 

 It isn't obvious, but here is the rough idea:

 

If you are running a large company and a small competitor is making similar stuff better than you are, you have four choices. 

 

1. Buy them and sell their stuff instead of yours. (e.g. Google buying YouTube and shutting down Google Video)

 

2. Buy them and let their stuff rot, just to get rid of the competition. (e.g., (not exactly an acquisition, but) Microsoft hired the senior developers of the Mach micro kernel, stuck them in the playpen known as Microsoft Research and did nothing with Mach)

 

3. Lose in the marketplace. (e.g Yahoo vs. Google).

 

4. Make better stuff and out compete them (eg. .... hmm drawing a blank here, I'm sure this must happen sometimes)

4a. Use an effective monopoly position to kill them in spite of their stuff being better (e.g. The U.S. v. Microsoft anti-trust court case)

 

Whether a company chooses option 1 or 2 probably depends partly on the attitudes of the decision makers (are they trying to get paid to make the best stuff or are they trying to make money) and partly on how entrenched the products are vs. how much the acquisition costs. That is, if a small company is cheap to buy and shutting down a project and  marketing a different product is very expensive, it is rational for the larger company to kill the smaller one (even though it hurts consumers of the products).

 

Overall, isn't necessarily an evil company doing nefarious things, they might buy a company, spend time looking at all of the options they now have, and make the best decision they can. 

 

 The issue is that what is best for a single company isn't what's best for everybody. This why there are antitrust laws in many countries. and why it might be better if there were stronger ones (but carefully, because it is difficult to get things exactly right and not overdo it). 

 

 Finally, note that there are a lot of other reasons for acquisitions and there are a lot of reasons why a company might complete an acquisition and shutter the acquired company later.  The above is just to give you the gist of one situation.

 

 

I feel like they have their business model, and they see indy developers doing really well with a decent fan base and they say "We want that" then they try to incorporate them into their business model, and it ends up destroying what made that indy dev successful in the first place(IE forcing Bioware to jam multiplayer into every game despite being known for their single player experiences.)

 

We are experiencing something similar where I work. We were the most successful branch of our company in terms of sales and efficiency, company got sold, new parent company decides to implement a bunch of stuff to unify us with the parent, that changed the way we do things/destroyed the culture of the branch, we are now struggling to make numbers, we have lost like 1/3rd of our customers, and everyone hates working there now.


  • Yonjuro likes this

#31
SonicMage117

SonicMage117

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1072 posts
  • Location:Texas, United States
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Overall, isn't necessarily an evil company doing nefarious things, they might buy a company, spend time looking at all of the options they now have, and make the best decision they can.

THIS. That is correct..

There is no such thing as an "evil" company in the gaming industry. That's just a paranoid mindset that the community has made up because people are angry when things do not go their way. I have seen the term "Evil corporation" often on Steam forums.

I know people can and have given me many reasons why they "think" evil companies exist within the gaming industry but none of them have been really valid outside of bias, personal feelings or grudges getting involved. On the outside of that it's business, whether it's ridiculous dlc or whatever, it's as is, a choice for people to make. Vote with thy wallet and stuff.

#32
kirottu

kirottu

    Luchador Ninja

  • Members
  • 4516 posts
  • Location:Finland
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
I agree. Buying game developers and turning them into **** before killing them isn't evil. It's double plus ungood.
  • Jozape likes this

#33
SonicMage117

SonicMage117

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1072 posts
  • Location:Texas, United States
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
I don't take anyone's "personal" opinion as fact. You can say that a game is bad, someone else out there in the world will love that game. In fact, (and it is a fact) we've all played and loved at least one game in our lives, that most of the gaming community has perceived as bad. A company putting out bad games or "ruining" franchises doesn't make the company bad or evil, it means the company did something wrong, made wrong decisions and needs to learn and grow from that. Unfortunately, sometimes that doesn't happen and conpanies still keep making the same mistakes, that still doesn't make them bad/evil or even stupid by any means. They are smart people who are human and are not perfect.

Somehow this generation has gotten too confused along the way to know the difference, especially if people think that a company will maliciously release bad products to hurt or kill off a fan-base, then I'm not too sure what to think about this generations ethics on business...

#34
213374U

213374U

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5086 posts
  • Location:PIGS
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

I feel like they have their business model, and they see indy developers doing really well with a decent fan base and they say "We want that" then they try to incorporate them into their business model, and it ends up destroying what made that indy dev successful in the first place(IE forcing Bioware to jam multiplayer into every game despite being known for their single player experiences.)


I don't know in general, but that's certainly not what happened with Bioware. The obligatory MP mode started with ME3, and the multiplayer component in that game was handled by a completely different studio (Montreal, while the main game was developed in Edmonton), and it was a stripped down version of what seems to have been initially prototyped as a standalone Battlefield-esque FPS. It was also such an unexpected success that its monetization model was copied and has more or less become standard. Their focus on multiplayer can be said to have begun with the choice to make SWTOR an MMO instead of another single player installment in the franchise, and whose development begun before the company was acquired by EA.

Whatever the reason, "big names" have been slowly but steadily quitting the company, and that, coupled with EA's culture of style over substance, dismal QA and especially microtransactions bull**** is, in my mind, what has done the most damage to Bioware in the last few years.

As for EA "learning the lesson": lol. Companies the size of EA are literally impervious to criticism, and weak sales simply result in canned product lines. Enjoy the memories and move on.

#35
Leferd

Leferd

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 2857 posts
  • Location:California Republic
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

I've been playing Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 for the first time, I can't believe they're Bioware games because they're actually good.

I pretty much gave up on them with Jade Empire, when they decided to strip it of most of its RPG elements (like, you know, an inventory system) to appeal to people who hated RPGs. I turned it off after I was told I was about to take part in a battle, and it switched to a Galaga-like minigame.

Selling out to EA was really the last straw; I have never played any of the ME or DA games, and nothing I've ever seen about them has made me reconsider that decision.

 

I liked Jade Empire. The system was conducive to the martial arts setting. 



#36
marelooke

marelooke

    (7) Enchanter

  • Members
  • 808 posts
  • Location:Ghent, Belgium
  • Steam:marelooke
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

I feel like they have their business model, and they see indy developers doing really well with a decent fan base and they say "We want that" then they try to incorporate them into their business model, and it ends up destroying what made that indy dev successful in the first place(IE forcing Bioware to jam multiplayer into every game despite being known for their single player experiences.)


I don't know in general, but that's certainly not what happened with Bioware. The obligatory MP mode started with ME3, and the multiplayer component in that game was handled by a completely different studio (Montreal, while the main game was developed in Edmonton), and it was a stripped down version of what seems to have been initially prototyped as a standalone Battlefield-esque FPS. It was also such an unexpected success that its monetization model was copied and has more or less become standard. Their focus on multiplayer can be said to have begun with the choice to make SWTOR an MMO instead of another single player installment in the franchise, and whose development begun before the company was acquired by EA.

 

 
You touch on another point though. These types of enterprises see games as products to be made and assembled, hence why they attempt to have parts developed in low wage countries(1). This is challenging in the best of cases (I get to deal with this kind of stuff daily) but for something that's at least in part an artistic endeavour I don't see how this can work out in an environment where most employees lack passion for what they're doing. And how can you expect people that have passion when they have no input in what they're doing?

 

Then of course there's the typical shoehorning of things into products because some manager's read some article somewhere or has been to some congress where they told him something's the next big thing... (I still remember one of ours coming into the office proclaiming we needed to "do something with big data", me and my colleague nearly got our eyes stuck staring at our brain...)

 

Occasionally you'll find someone (or some holdover) of passionate people that get something decent done despite the environment they're in, but that's an exception and it usually takes so much energy out of them fighting the "establishment" that they'll either burn out and stop caring or quit eventually anyway. (or both)

 

Whatever the reason, "big names" have been slowly but steadily quitting the company, and that, coupled with EA's culture of style over substance, dismal QA and especially microtransactions bull**** is, in my mind, what has done the most damage to Bioware in the last few years.

As for EA "learning the lesson": lol. Companies the size of EA are literally impervious to criticism, and weak sales simply result in canned product lines. Enjoy the memories and move on.

 

EA basically appears to be a cliché American "enterprise" with everything that entails (I expect to walk straight into a Dilbert cartoon should I go to work there). So yeah, the company culture is likely a big part of the reason why big names have been quitting (if not for what I wroter earlier). Those that stay either do so out of convenience or because they can't afford to leave for some reason.
 

(1) the problem here being the "low wage" part, not the "country" part, as my girlfriend always says: "If you pay peanuts you get monkeys".


Edited by marelooke, 16 May 2017 - 07:52 AM.

  • Mamoulian War likes this

#37
Darkpriest

Darkpriest

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1369 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

The BIG reason why EA has this policy, is because they have no idea how to make good games and create new Franchise... It is easier and cheaper to buy someone with established IPs and milk them than to try and error on your own new IPs.

 

EA does sports games well, and that's it. they try to squeeze all their products into same production cycles or revenue per annum.

 

Look at all the acquired IPs... deteriorating fast after being bought, but production cycle are shorter and you get more sales on the established IP.

 

There are companies like this in other lines of business. It is easier to grow and acquire market via acquisition than greenfielding in new locations. The thing is that in electronic entertainment, you do not need to keep the product standards of the acquired company, because his market is way more volitile due to tech changes surrounding it than other markets. The other difference is that you acquire the products which are already for a global market, however a different consumer focus. Company will naturally gravitate towards expanding th consumer base, thus sacrificing the uniqueness, which created a given IP.


  • Mamoulian War likes this

#38
Darkpriest

Darkpriest

    (9) Sorcerer

  • Members
  • 1369 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

 

 

I feel like they have their business model, and they see indy developers doing really well with a decent fan base and they say "We want that" then they try to incorporate them into their business model, and it ends up destroying what made that indy dev successful in the first place(IE forcing Bioware to jam multiplayer into every game despite being known for their single player experiences.)


I don't know in general, but that's certainly not what happened with Bioware. The obligatory MP mode started with ME3, and the multiplayer component in that game was handled by a completely different studio (Montreal, while the main game was developed in Edmonton), and it was a stripped down version of what seems to have been initially prototyped as a standalone Battlefield-esque FPS. It was also such an unexpected success that its monetization model was copied and has more or less become standard. Their focus on multiplayer can be said to have begun with the choice to make SWTOR an MMO instead of another single player installment in the franchise, and whose development begun before the company was acquired by EA.

 

 


EA basically appears to be a cliché American "enterprise" with everything that entails (I expect to walk straight into a Dilbert cartoon should I go to work there). So yeah, the company culture is likely a big part of the reason why big names have been quitting (if not for what I wroter earlier). Those that stay either do so out of convenience or because they can't afford to leave for some reason.
 

(1) the problem here being the "low wage" part, not the "country" part, as my girlfriend always says: "If you pay peanuts you get monkeys".

 

 

I would disagree here. It's not a matter of pure cost cutting, it's a matter of a corporate culture at your destination.

 

For example in Poland you'd often get as good programmers on average if not better than your average in high cost locations. Just look at various global contests in this field and what these guys can do on technical universities with funding of 0.01% of what US top schools get (might exaggerate the cost part a bit, but the disparity is huge)

 

Then look also at the studios, which bring on average similar quality products to the high cost locations in terms of games and sometimes they can produce a real gem (see the Witcher franchise for example)

 

Same goes to other technically low cost countries. if these countries have good education, they can easily compete with their work force. however the problem often lies with mentality and corporate culture.

 

For example, if in India employees get financially punished even for minor errors and are thought to adhere the procedure to the letter, then do not be surprised that your email with a problem will bounce 20 times, including three times telling that you should raise an error ticket.

 

If the culture pushes for cheap drones, then you will get those. If the culture pushes for problem solvers, you will get those as well, as long as you pay competitively in relation to the local market and purchase power of a dollar. That way you can still save 60% and get similar if not better quality.


  • Mamoulian War likes this

#39
Yonjuro

Yonjuro

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 684 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

.... 

 

With the costs of triple-A gaming they want to maximise profits and so sell it to as many people as possible, and another product is a rival to that even if it is your own product.  That's yet another reason why a game will never get greenlit by a company even if it would do really well, because it may impact on another of their product (add to this, if you are the head of X game development cycle and you hear that a colleague in your company is proposing Y game that could threaten yours, what would you do?). 

 

 

 That's a good point and it's especially true when an acquired company is run as a separate division. The other divisions still view them as competition. On the other hand, if the acquired company is better integrated into the company that purchased them, this happens:

 

.....

We are experiencing something similar where I work. We were the most successful branch of our company in terms of sales and efficiency, company got sold, new parent company decides to implement a bunch of stuff to unify us with the parent, that changed the way we do things/destroyed the culture of the branch, we are now struggling to make numbers, we have lost like 1/3rd of our customers, and everyone hates working there now.

 

 

 Doing a successful acquisition is like sewing together an elephant and a giraffe to get a tall animal that can pick things up with its nose. Even if you really want it to work, it probably won't go well (unless you have a really good surgeon on staff).



#40
Yonjuro

Yonjuro

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 684 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

Overall, isn't necessarily an evil company doing nefarious things, they might buy a company, spend time looking at all of the options they now have, and make the best decision they can.

THIS. That is correct..

There is no such thing as an "evil" company in the gaming industry. That's just a paranoid mindset that the community has made up because people are angry when things do not go their way. I have seen the term "Evil corporation" often on Steam forums.

I know people can and have given me many reasons why they "think" evil companies exist within the gaming industry but none of them have been really valid outside of bias, personal feelings or grudges getting involved. On the outside of that it's business, whether it's ridiculous dlc or whatever, it's as is, a choice for people to make. Vote with thy wallet and stuff.

 

 

 Yes. They don't have meetings at EA where they try to figure out new ways to ruin everything for everybody.

 

 On the other hand, what's best for EA has turned out to not be the best for customers of the now rotting corpse of Bioware.  :x

 

 So, yes, vote with your wallet. Don't buy the latest AAA shiny crap unless you want more shiny crap. 


  • Mamoulian War likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users