alanschu

I think that the best type of DLC for an RPG is continued stories like our main DLC (Lair of Shadowbroker and stuff like that). More content and, if Citadel is anything to go on, sometimes more content can mean "do more things with the characters I find interesting." In this sense I feel that they are pretty analogous to expansion packs like in the past. I don't know precisely on the scope, however. I am not sure how Awakening did with regards to the expectations we had, which would probably useful for me to know. I think we can still do DLC support in better ways, however, though I can't speak too much on at this time. Slightly related (I know you weren't asking about this) I, personally, am not against the idea of Day One DLC, but it is certainly an interesting and contentious topic (Ironically Day One DLC preorder incentives actually improve my preorder rate. I rarely, rarely, rarely do it, but for a game that I expect to buy early I do typically preorder it now if it has some content that I think I'll enjoy). Two games that had Day One DLC that I play (and enjoy) are EU4 and Rome 2. But it certainly has its share of criticism. I have typically been of the opinion of "if you feel a game developer/publisher is taking advantage of you, then don't play their games." This is based on my own perspective, however, which may not be accurate for everyone. I classify myself most generally as "gamer" and at any given time really don't consider myself having any shortage of games to play. So if I skip out on a game that otherwise interested me, it doesn't really bother me. Now, if someone identified as "RPG gamer" or even "BioWare gamer" where the sample of games that they play is much more finite, then the idea of "well don't play the game" can come across as "Then I guess you have to find a new hobby altogether" which I can appreciate that people will be defensive about that sort of notion. This is a perspective that I didn't really fully appreciate until speaking with a good number of people on the BSN about it.

So when called out for your incorrect statement regarding consecutive years of loss, you move the goal posts. "Maybe" I can say it's enough to attribute to a trend of recovery. Well, when a few years ago it was a billion dollar loss, yeah, I consider it movement in the correct direction. Buuuuut, now it's not that wasn't "good enough." You're right that it needs to get better. Which is probably why JR was on the chopping block when the progress stalled out the previous year. All right, to be blunt, now I'm actually annoyed by all of this. 2008 $454M loss 2007 $76M profit 2006 $236M profit 2005 $504M profit 2004 $577M profit 2003 $317M profit 2002 $101M profit 2001 $11M loss 2000 $116M profit 1999 $72M profit 1998 $72M profit 1997 $51M profit If you wish to hold EA's performance based on some imaginary metric you have in your head, then I suspect EA will always be behind the 8 ball. Exhibit A: "but restructuring will never get them to post 2,000M profits again." Admittedly I can't go back to pre 1997 very easily since I don't know where that information is. But given that EA hasn't come close to a billion dollars in profits in the last 16 years, I am reasonably confident that you're incorrect with your assessment. I question whether or not you see it accurately, but at this point it's just becoming the same discussion we already had. Back on topic: I think Frostbite is a pretty nice engine and makes things look pretty with some sweet memory streaming advantages to let us ramp up the scale.

I assume the idea would be "A console that is effectively a PC and competes on price points with the other consoles."

Gaming is growing, though. I met some people at PAX that are huge BioWare fans, and the first game of ours that they played was one of: DAO, ME2, DA2, and even ME3. Some people were introduced into gaming by playing Bastion and were super geeked up to be at PAX to learn about other games (and that Transistor was there). I'm not sure if the assumption is necessarily fair, despite GTA being stupendously successful. Well, I think a politically correct version of GTA would be pretty boring. Although you didn't really describe a PC game, however (which would probably be interesting simply for the novelty). I think he's commenting on people that make scathing comments about BioWare games for having things that they don't like in it (i.e. romances, cinematic experiences), despite the fact that BioWare has been doing it for some time in their games and that, to use your words, people should simply "know the lie of the land."

As unlikely as it may seem to someone like you and me, would this mean that, if there was a newer female gamer that doesn't like that type of portrayal of their gender and is (somehow...) not really familiar with the GTA franchise, that they would actually have some value added by the Gamespot review pointing it out?

It's more about disparities. Video games are going through the process of frankly, becoming more appealing (at its core this is actually a good thing) to a wider audience. So the types of people that would have cared in the past (but didn't because they didn't consume the media) are now speaking up. There's also a general cultural shift that is more accepting towards homosexuals and so forth, so they are starting to speak up when they never really had the ability to do so at all. I don't see the commentary of poor depiction of women in GTA V being a threat to the existence of games like GTA V. It's effectively just a voice, and Rockstar is free to do what they want in light of said cric. But then, I also don't feel that things like Anita's videos will mean the complete eradication of "damsel in distress" trope either. Nor do I think it should, even though I think her bringing up the topic leads to an interesting enough discussion (even if I feel compelled to disagree with her on some points). Maybe I'm less connected to other media, but I don't see the level of discussion come up nearly as much with movies anymore. My hypothesis is that this is in large part due to the diversity in movies (both in terms of the content of said movies, as well the diversity of those that create the movies) so you just get different perspectives. I think this is why a movie like The Expendables doesn't really get scrutinized. A movie like The Expendables is also pretty niche in the scheme of movies. Duke Nukem is pretty raunchy and inappropriate, but it doesn't have the influence, popularity, or exposure that a GTA V does, so it goes by the wayside. Further, it's still okay to be entertained and enjoyed by things that don't have pleasant depictions of people or whatever. (I note that I don't play GTA V mostly because I didn't care for GTA3 and still haven't played any other GTA since).

It also potentially lets them skip on the hardware altogether.

I went to glassdoor.com and saw that one too. It's an opinion, like mine. You'll find some others that mentioned increased "corporate" and whatnot too. You'll find others that say they treat their staff well and so forth. Any chance that that particular review resonates with you because you feel it more accurately fits with your reality? If you were to read another review that said otherwise, how would you react to it? It's easy to say that someone like me won't speak ill simply because I have something to lose. Do you think that that is the case? Unfortunately I have limited pre-EA experiences at BioWare. I don't really know how the studio was run, although I have heard some things (which I don't know if I am allowed to talk about, and since it's hearsay I am hesitant to say it anyway). Most people I talk to are pretty neutral. Not that that means "nothing has changed" but a general state of "In some ways things are better, and in other ways things are not as good." If I had to choose, I'd definitely prefer that EA not be a publicly owned company. I know some lament the lack of nerf gun fights compared to the past, though I'm of the opinion that they would have disappeared regardless (I wasn't a fan of them). Can you show me where EA mentioned this? I have seen the number strewn about, but I thought the word used was "expectations."

Possibly for the same reason that Chris Avellone and Feargus Urquhart will accept responsibility for KOTOR 2. On a personal level, I feel it's the right thing to do. (Since the topic of bias has come up a lot, perhaps it's best for me to state that I respect both Chris and Feargus a lot, and as such will have an inclination to assume that they share similar traits with me that I consider positive, and as such I have made an assumption as to why they are willing to put themselves out there when so many of their fans are willing to blame Lucasarts for the game). Unless you'd rather I lie because I think it might net me some extra sales. Because honestly it seems like you would rather I do that. If people are upset with the game, it's best for me to not allow myself an insulation from that criticism by simply deflecting said criticism to a different entity. I think it's FAR worse for BioWare to delude themselves into thinking "it's simply corporate EA's fault" if the blame actually belongs to BioWare.

So this will probably be somewhat of a wall of text. I may break it up. No, I'm saying that his bias leads him to believe that he is right despite commentary otherwise. I've actually brought this topic up on this forum in the past. The ideas such as confirmation bias, defense mechanisms, subconscious reasoning to avoid cognitive dissonance. And if your first thought is "well wouldn't this also apply to you?" Yes, it indeed does. Although I do try to make a more concerted effort to be open (and at times even embrace) cognitive dissonance (since, in retrospect, I find that's often when I'm learning something in my personal experience). I also try to be more willing to admit that I am actually wrong when I am (I definitely was much worse in the past). I think it's a very important distinction between "Allan thinks anubite is biased because anubite thinks he's right" compared to "Allan thinks that anubite is overconfident in how right he is because of his bias." The point was never "is anubite biased?" He's openly admitted it himself. Our brain is great at filling in blanks. And easy test can be done with the visual blind spot test here. Note that when the dot is in your blind spot, your brain interpolates what must be in that field of view based on its surroundings. So you'll incorrectly perceive it as white. Bringing this back to cognitive deduction, the brain is great at automatically resisting feelings like cognitive dissonance. It's part of the reasoning behind the idea that "Facts do not change a person's mind." Go to the final point here for a (humorous) description and some additional links. A quick search also propped up this article which has some ideas on why it's challenging for people, including ourselves, to change our minds. Some quick summary is the idea that upon hearing facts, it tends to cause more brain activity in the emotional parts of our brain rather than our logical parts. Perhaps we're less discerning over considering the facts of the article in terms of their merit, and more on how those facts are making us feel. Combine this with rationalization and our brains ability to help avoid cognitive dissonance. Note that this isn't a bad thing for humans. As mentioned in this very thread, it's a large part of the foundation of trust. anubite says he doesn't trust me, nor BioWare, nor EA. That's fair. It will also predispose his attitudes and perceptions on everything that I say regarding the company (if not elsewhere), as well as BioWare/EA's actions. Take his most anticipated unreleased game at the moment, and change nothing about it from now until release, but put the BioWare or EA logo on the box. Do you think this will affect his anticipation for the game? Do you think this would actually affect his actual experience while playing the game? For example, take a game. Say, for example, the third part of a SciFi trilogy. Take people that liked the first two games a lot. Have them give constant updates on the game for how they feel the gameplot proceeds. Now, lets say that that third game had an ending that those players really hated. Ask them to examine the earlier parts of the game. Ideally if you can avoid experimenter bias (imagine we could just delve straight into their minds while they play). Do you think it's possible for those people to look back on earlier parts of the game and think less of them now? And yes, the trust applies to me as well. Anubite is correct that the messaging provided to me from senior leads like Laidlaw, Flynn, and Darrah could simply be polished up executive orders. Although I would actually consider Laidlaw and Flynn actual friends, and have had plenty of "off the cuff" conversations in pubs or restaurants or what have you. I consider Aaryn Flynn to be an exceptionally candid general manager, which I really appreciate and respect. With that comes trust, so yes I have the same bias in that I believe that my perception of what gets communicated to me has merit, and it's certainly validated by how much I trust those guys. If I didn't trust them, I'd probably be disinclined to believe them. I may even be inclined to believe the opposite of what they say. Did I actually suggest that EA was completely hands off? If so then I definitely did speak in error. I don't think that I did. I did say that I dislike it when people blame EA for BioWare's schedule for DA2. I definitely do feel that people overstate EA's influence. Yes, EA makes sure that we aren't burning through money irresponsibly. We have various gates for progression to see how the story is done, and have to validate the scope and vision for the game and deliver on milestones. Note, however, that this still would happen even if BioWare were fully independent. When Microsoft is funding Mass Effect, they don't just toss over a bag of money and say "see you at the release date." There was a lot of controversy, actually, with respect to how Bethesda treated Arkane Studios in this regard and conspiracy theory that it was done to devalue the studio so that Bethesda could acquire it at a lower cost. Yes, EA does have an influence on the content of the games (particularly on a high level vision). Things like the online component (multiplayer or otherwise). EA is why Mass Effect came out for the PC. EA is why Dragon Age came out for the consoles. They do this in large part through means that are not unlike a more traditional publisher-developer model: they can justify things like increased money (through marketing or for allocation for development). There's this idea that had ME3 not included a multiplayer component, the same level of funding would have still been allocated and could have been put entirely towards the single player. There's also this idea that BioWare did not want to put in a multiplayer component, when pretty much all of their games have had consideration for multiplayer (Baldur's Gate almost shipped with a deathmatch multiplayer mode, and Dragon Age originally planned to have a completely unique co-op multiplayer story). I can't speak for the Mass Effect games, however. Though despite EA technically controlling all the purse strings, it's subsidiaries are still their own business units within the structure. EA Madrid is EA's localization center where the localization (translating among other things) gets done. They don't ship any product, and only offer their services to EA. EA Madrid charges BioWare (and presumably other studios) at a competitive rates. 100% of their revenue is by charging out to other EA studios, and they still need to ensure that they are running their location efficiently and effectively. Internally, they are still expected to turn a profit, and are accountable to that. The same goes for all of the studios. EA had some large layoffs earlier this year. BioWare wasn't touched by these layoffs, while the studios that struggled financially were the ones hit the hardest (things like Army of 2 and whatnot). BioWare did have some layoffs, though that's related to the fact that we were ramping up for a 2013 release date, but then pushed the date for DAI to 2014 and keeping that level of staff ramped up for an extra year wasn't in the cards, unfortunately. Again, this comes down to trust, however. You can tell me that you don't believe me when I say that, just like I am putting trust in my leads when they tell me that that is the case. That trust is interesting, however. BioWare (from what I hear anyways... trust trust trust again. Do you believe me when I say this?) has the trust of the EA executives. So does a studio like DICE. This trust comes from some of the decisions that we made in the past, the levels of success we have provided for the corporation as a whole; and there's a freedom that comes with trust. In the words of former Origin employees, found here in an Escapist article, once the projects start going grossly over budget and behind schedule is when the meddling comes in. There's two very interesting things I got out of that article. First was that when EA bought Origin, it's because Origin was effectively bankrupt (The Garriott's were literally paying employees out of their own pockets). So even if you think that every single thing that EA did with Origin after they bought it is the worst thing imaginable, there's actually no guarantee that Origin would have even continued existing. The second is that, in the words of people no longer affiliated with the company (and including those that have been pretty jaded towards EA - i.e. Richard himself), was that EA only started paying closer attention once they noticed that Origin was burning through money. Bringing this WAY back, no it isn't bias to feel that EA will have some influence. What one's bias does is fill in the blanks with what level of influence they have and it will then serve to reinforce your assumptions as to what you feel must be reality, despite it being purely a logical deduction. Anyways, this is a wall of text. I still have more to say but I'll let this digest a bit.

So I'm doing some digging regarding another post, but just for reference sake, here's the situation for EA the past few years regarding net income. Net income is defined as here. TL;DR: Operating Income + Other Income – Other Expenses = Pretax Income – Income Tax = Net Income with Operation income being: Sales – Cost of Sales = Gross Profit – Operating Expenses = Operating Income Note, that the end of a FY is March 31, of that year. So FY09 is March 31, 2009. Note that these are GAAP numbers. There's some level of debate over whether or not GAAP or non-GAAP is truly the best indicator of performance blahblahblah. I won't claim to fully understand the difference, but I believe for the time being GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principles) is seen as the preferred measure. FY09 -$1,088M FY10 -$677M FY11 -$276M FY12 $76M FY13 $98M Note that JR's dismissal/stepping down comes on the heels of the company's most successful year in the last 5 years. The important reason for this is because the expectations were higher. Now you can (fairly) critique that EA made poor decisions on what they did with their games and so forth, but I do get the impression that the ship at least appears to be righting itself, somewhat. I'm curious how FY14 goes. It's certainly no longer being curbstomped like it was 5 years ago, however. But yes, as a growth stock (as opposed to a dividend stock) the impetus will be to continue growing the equity in the company (of which profits is one of the measures of). EDIT: Net Income from the site that anubite linked to earlier: http://ycharts.com/companies/EA/net_income_ttm (Trailing 12 months - TTM - Meaning that the profit will be the profit made over the last 12 months for each quarter)

I am on my phone so I cannot easily look this up. What is the net income for Ea for the last, say, 5 fiscal years? I am pretty certain it is awful for like 2009 though the trend has been improving with the last two years posting a profit.

I think it's -1. Maybe -2? Who does? And there's the innate bias you have in your own deductive reasoning. Of course you believe it's correct... because otherwise you would have deduced something else. Why on Earth would you conclude the wrong answer, after all.

Part 15 is now up: http://youtu.be/5zv_sCrRZFk

On some level, simply because I kind of find them fun. Even if sometimes I respond with more of a hostile tone.

Nice generalization. I dare say some gamers have the power of distinction. While I'd say that Maria's choice of words was more to add some levity, I certainly would NOT suggest that gamers are any more immune to this effect than any other sizeable group of human beings (I am certainly not immune to it, even if I more actively try to specifically not do so). Further, I would postulate that it's a very human condition (all sorts of schools of psychology suggest why it may have positives) and affects a lot of us. Sometimes it's not explicit cognitive ability either. I mean, your brain literally just washes over the blind spot in your visible spectrum by assuming that it's just an interpolation of the retina around it. So if you have an appropriately sized black spot on a white background and it sits in your blind spot, you simply see white. Your brain does this without any effort on your part. In fact, your brain does a LOT of things without conscious effort on your part.

First, I don't think anyone was seeking an absolute reason. Note that in many cases I'd agree that a sense of "attraction" is necessary. I don't think it's the only catalyst however, though I admit that I'm hardly an expert on the subject. I do wonder, in the learning of websites that are created to allow people to embarrass their ex through picture submissions and stuff like that, that on some level there are people out there that do wish to humiliate a person. And I know even in my own imagination, I can envision that for many women I know (and probably some men) that sexual assault would rank right up there with the worst imaginable experience. This is mostly just by my logical deduction (and hence very capable of being wrong), but in retrospect I do get the impression that younger women are raised in an environment to fear sexual predation (and to a lesser extent even all younger children, though I didn't really understand why "don't talk to strangers" was an issue when I was that young).

Just seeing what you want to see

No, I am saying that people will fill in whatever blanks that exist about EA and it's level of influence over decisions (content or otherwise) with whatever narrative they believe, and they will have the conviction to believe that their assessment is correct because of the mind's ability to convince itself that the deductions it makes must be reality. People make the snap judgments (despite not actually knowing any better) about comedians copying each other and how their personal experience with a heckler was enjoyable, so therefore all comedians copy each other and comedians enjoy hecklers because it makes for a fun show. They believe this because it makes sense in their reality, even if the comedians themselves state that neither are true. Look at anubite's post, who specifically calls out that while I'm an employee at BioWare, I'm not in the super secret meetings. Yet despite that, in the same post he speaks with a high degree of conviction that his own impressions of how reality is are quite likely correct (and possibly even moreso than my own understandings, despite me actually working for BioWare). Although, another interesting observation in this thread is the idea that, since my link made a reference to rape jokes and how the comedian can understand why someone doesn't like them, some people immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was a "social justice" issue. I suspect my employment with BioWare helped people come to this conclusion as well. I consider it another example of how the mind fills in the blanks in the ways that the observer expects them too. Typically, in my opinion, to reinforce one's perspective of reality.

Specifically for the idea that people fill in the assumptions that they don't know with a narrative that they believe is true, and have a tendency to do so with great conviction because, well, if it wasn't the correct conclusion then I would have concluded something else. I find it interesting that the comedian felt the same way regarding rape jokes, although upon looking at it from a different perspective (the assumptions that people make about his profession which are so obviously true), he had a minor bout with some cognitive dissonance and realized that because he fills in those blanks and assumes them to be true, perhaps he is mistaken.

Yeah I liked it. I actually stumbled upon it today kind of by random chance. I'm certainly someone that has done what he pointed out, and it's kind of an interesting reflection on how our experiences shape different perspectives as well as responses.

I thought this was an interesting article written by a comedian. http://pattonoswalt.com/index.cfm?page=spew&id=167

Do you think that attempting to understand the motivation is a meaningless endeavour, then? If the reason for rape to occur is to satisfy sexual desires, are there other alternatives that could provide the same level of satisfaction? If it's not just satisfying a sexual desire, is there more to why rape occurs? If rape is just a sexual act, why is it considered so horrible (at least where I am from), while other sexual acts in general, are not?

A degree of sexual motivation is probably necessary. Though there are other ways to satisfy one's arousal. Are there any other compounding factors?

I disagree. If you think it cannot be explained easily, perhaps you haven't given it as much thought and consideration? Ask yourself "Why is this difficult to explain?" Does that mean that it will ALWAYS be difficult to explain? The joy of attempting to make that explanation is when I have the epiphany that I was actually misunderstanding it on some level. Who said anything about proving anything to anyone? I said challenge them on it, because I find the discussions interesting and capable of facilitating my own growth as a person.