EA Granted Star Wars License

[alanschu]

 

And who is the most likely candidate to make KOTOR3 now that EA has the license?

 

Hint: You work for them.

 

 

Fair point.  Looking back, I realize that I made the assumption that you were referring to an Obsidian developed one (since I was).  You didn't actually say so.

 

 

Of course, my working for BioWare gives me insight on how likely a KOTOR 3 being made by us really is.  Though that's about all I can really say on the matter.

Edited May 7, 2013 by alanschu

[Nepenthe]

Eh, there are worse fates the licence could suffer.

While I'm not wildly optimistic at the moment, I'm not ready to cry woe and rail against the universe. I'll stick to a wait and see approach until they announce the next couple of games...

 

Was there really even an alternative at the present industry condition? Activision?

[Calax]

Ubisoft. Terrible customer support but really high quality games that are unique and inventive. Often marred by bugs and terrible ports.

[Nepenthe]

Ubisoft. Terrible customer support but really high quality games that are unique and inventive. Often marred by bugs and terrible ports.

 

I have to admit, I don't own any recent Ubisoft games and haven't been really aware of anything else than their yearly Assassin's Creeds and drm stumbles.

[Humanoid]

Ubisoft's best franchise is Rayman, and I'm not being facetious.

[Morgoth]

but really high quality games that are unique and inventive.

 

[Morgoth]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/08/obsidian-hoping-to-work-with-eabioware-on-star-wars/

 

“We are certainly going to try,” he said. “We would love to work on another Star Wars game, and if it was possible for us to hook up with BioWare and EA to do so, that would be pretty amazing.”

 

Best luck to you Obsidian!

[Serrano]

Ubisoft's best franchise is Rayman, and I'm not being facetious.

 

I  miss the good old days when Rainbow Six was their flagship franchise.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Serrano

[Humanoid]

Well even my praise that is tainted by the blatant stupidity of the Rayman Legends delay, demonstrating Ubi's unerring ability to screw up everything that's good. But yes, Rayman Origins is a superb platformer, one of the best ever.

 

 

 

 

Also, it's probably because I can't think of any other currently active Ubi-owned franchises other than the juvenile* Assassin's Creed.

 

* Yes, I know that's slightly ironic when I'm comparing it to a platformer.

[Malcador]

 

Ubisoft's best franchise is Rayman, and I'm not being facetious.

 

I  miss the good old days when Rainbow Six was their flagship franchise.

 

Same. I miss that and Ghost Recon.

[alanschu]

Hopefully Feargus is able to make a successful pitch.  They seem pretty stoked on doing it, which is what I like to see in a developer!

[Azure79]

I thought Ubisoft was getting praise recently for doing some cool stuff. Farcry 3 Blood Dragon and an entirely new pirate based AC game for example. 

[WorstUsernameEver]

Hopefully Feargus is able to make a successful pitch.  They seem pretty stoked on doing it, which is what I like to see in a developer!

It looks like they're gonna make this pitch, at least: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/08/obsidian-hoping-to-work-with-eabioware-on-star-wars/

[alanschu]

Yeah, I didn't quote it, but Morgoth had referenced the article earlier.

 

Obsidian is probably my favourite developer, and I'm a big fan of Star Wars, so I hope they are able to make a successful pitch.  With EA changing management (and presumably shifting focus in some ways, in light of reputation issues), it's pretty much a coin toss as far as I'm concerned.

[Oerwinde]

I think its kind of funny the role reversal that would be. Obsidian, being the successor to Black Isle, independently developing an RPG that would likely be produced by Bioware and released under their label as an in-house developer for a major publisher.

[Hassat Hunter]

 

Nicely sums up my opinion. Maybe biased by how a botch-job EA and BioWare do with TOR, severly crushing my hope they can make a good new Star Wars game rather than reprise the Dragon Age 2 debacle and add it to KOTOR.

[Wrath of Dagon]

EA doesn't care about the kind of games Obsidian makes. Their bottom line is profit only, they don't care about creativity or quality.

[alanschu]

You're lying to yourself if you don't think that Obsidian's concerns lie with profit as well.

 

Feargus himself admitted to going after "slam dunks" in his time at Black Isle because ultimately, it meant he can keep his staff, whom he cares about, gainfully employed.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You're lying to yourself if you don't think that Obsidian's concerns lie with profit as well.

 

Feargus himself admitted to going after "slam dunks" in his time at Black Isle because ultimately, it meant he can keep his staff, whom he cares about, gainfully employed.

Of course Obsidian cares about profits, any business does. But I don't think profit is their be all and end all.

[Malekith]

^ This. Caring for profit isn't bad. It's a company. Of course they care for profit. Obsidian cares for profit, Fargo cares for profit, all of them do.

But they still trying to make the games they would want to play, and care about their products. EA suits don't give a **** about the games. And why should they? They are not "theirs", they aren't the ones that make them and they get paid to count $ and bring profit, not releasing quality games.

 

Take for example the talk from Bioware that they don't make much optional content in their games because the market analisis told them that a large part of the consumers doesn't replay games, so why spend hours working on a part tham many people won't see ?  That is a very soulless and dispassionate way to look at your own game.Devs look at it from a purely investment vs reward point of view, why code this  if only some people will see it?

It's a horrible loveless way of thinking about your game. It means that you don't respect your product or your market enough to think that they might appreciate that kind of thing or that this might add replay value or other really tangible value to the product

 

To produse a great game you have at some point escape from the mentality of profit and simply put something in simply because it feels right to you.

That's the problem with the game industry becoming...well, an industry. In a 200 person team, most of them view it just as a job. Go, do your thing, go home. It's a long way from what i have read in an interview the Doctors describe the making of Baldur's Gate, when they were on pizza and sometimes slept at the studio under their desks.But somehow, BG1 and BG2 were the best games Bioware ever made by a huge margin, and some of the best RPGs of all time.Obsidian has retain something of that, as the conditions allow them.

And that's why i'm happy with their decision to stick to a small team of 15-25 devs to make P:E.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Malekith

[alanschu]

 

 

Take for example the talk from Bioware that they don't make much optional content in their games because the market analisis told them that a large part of the consumers doesn't replay games, so why spend hours working on a part tham many people won't see ?  That is a very soulless and dispassionate way to look at your own game.Devs look at it from a purely investment vs reward point of view, why code this  if only some people will see it?

 

Oh please.  Gabe Newell of Valve (who doesn't even run a public company) has definitely stated the exact same thing (and I'm dubious to the claim that we have said such a thing as well) - and Gabe is pretty much deified.  Large parts of BioWare's customers don't choose female players, but we still add them in.  Large parts of our players don't even finish our games for whatever reason, but we don't look to make it a 9 hour critpath (the median length of time someone typically plays one of our games).  The overwhelming amount don't pick Renegade, but I can't see BioWare making an exclusively linear game.

 

Given our justification for things like romances (heterosexual and now even homosexual) is explicitly because such things are considered optional content, I'm skeptical towards any sort of claim that we ever said we choose to not do optional content because people don't like to replay our games.

 

 

 

It's a horrible loveless way of thinking about your game. It means that you don't respect your product or your market enough to think that they might appreciate that kind of thing or that this might add replay value or other really tangible value to the product

 

Baloney.  Everyone has to look at every feature, whether it be Obsidian, BioWare, or inXile, and go "is it worth our time to put this in?"  Nothing is free, whether in account of direct actual costs, and even moreso in terms of opportunity cost.  A horrible, loveless way to think about our game because we take a look at how people play our games and try to provide them with content that they want?

 

As Brian Fargo joyfully talks up how much he loves "collaborating with the Wasteland forums" for the types of things to add into the game, I guess we can concede that you feel he's being equally soulless and loveless in the way he thinks about his game.

 

BioWare hasn't made a transition to cinematic games simply because some number said "Hey man you'll get more money doing this!"  They do it because a lot of the people wanted to.  I know there are cindesigners that love love love love doing what they do and making well done cinematics is right up their alley.  I see the passion and enthusiasm they put forth into creating them.

 

 

 

 

But somehow, BG1 and BG2 were the best games Bioware ever made by a huge margin

 

By YOUR margin.

 

THAT's the point that people so rarely get.  You think that because BioWare doesn't make the games that YOU want to play, that obviously we're selling out and NOT making the games that we want to make.  It's a complete utter fabrication of mental gymnastics concocted in your own head because BioWare no longer makes games that specifically cater to you, and that makes you sad.

 

You can see it everywhere too.  Multiplayer was so clearly added because some EA suit said "add multiplayer."  Not because multiplayer has been a serious consideration in every BioWare game ever (including a last minute PvP mode cut from the original Baldur's Gate). 

 

We (since I like them too) don't consider Obsidian games to be great because of some nebulous, universal measure of quality.  We like them because they provide quality for what we want.  There's thousands upon thousands of people that think Obsidian's games are crap.  Just as there's thousands upon thousands that think BioWare's games are utter failures.  Just as there's those that don't even like Valve's games.

 

I love a game like Alpha Protocol despite it having serious quality concerns.  Or a game like NWN2 even, or even KOTOR 2.  Many gave up on Obsidian due to stability issues with New Vegas.  Many went "I like this better than Fallout 3" because they either weren't affected by stability issues, or the game provided them something more.

 

The only thing I agree upon with your post is the implication that a smaller team has a greater chance of having all people being unified in their vision than on a team of 100+ people.

 

 

 

 

In a 200 person team, most of them view it just as a job. Go, do your thing, go home. It's a long way from what i have read in an interview the Doctors describe the making of Baldur's Gate, when they were on pizza and sometimes slept at the studio under their desks.

 

Most people at BioWare love what they do, despite what you may think.  Virtually any one of us could go and do something else in a similar field, and make much more money while having more stable working hours as a result.

 

Ah, I see.  So it's only legit if people are willing to sacrifice pretty much their entire lives so that you can enjoy a video game, right?  I mean, how dare a company try to be accommodating to an employee that is about to have a child (or has a family in general).  I can work late (and often do) because I like what I do, and I am currently single and able to do so.  Because someone has a family and they don't want him working 16 hour days for a year straight though, I mean, that's why gaming is getting worse.

 

Please.

 

I guess you aren't a supporter of EA Spouse's blog though.

[Malekith]

 

Take for example the talk from Bioware that they don't make much optional content in their games because the market analisis told them that a large part of the consumers doesn't replay games, so why spend hours working on a part tham many people won't see ?  That is a very soulless and dispassionate way to look at your own game.Devs look at it from a purely investment vs reward point of view, why code this  if only some people will see it?

 

Oh please.  Gabe Newell of Valve (who doesn't even run a public company) has definitely stated the exact same thing (and I'm dubious to the claim that we have said such a thing as well) - and Gabe is pretty much deified.  Large parts of BioWare's customers don't choose female players, but we still add them in.  Large parts of our players don't even finish our games for whatever reason, but we don't look to make it a 9 hour critpath (the median length of time someone typically plays one of our games).  The overwhelming amount don't pick Renegade, but I can't see BioWare making an exclusively linear game.

 

Given our justification for things like romances (heterosexual and now even homosexual) is explicitly because such things are considered optional content, I'm skeptical towards any sort of claim that we ever said we choose to not do optional content because people don't like to replay our games.

 

 

 

It's a horrible loveless way of thinking about your game. It means that you don't respect your product or your market enough to think that they might appreciate that kind of thing or that this might add replay value or other really tangible value to the product

 

Baloney.  Everyone has to look at every feature, whether it be Obsidian, BioWare, or inXile, and go "is it worth our time to put this in?"  Nothing is free, whether in account of direct actual costs, and even moreso in terms of opportunity cost.  A horrible, loveless way to think about our game because we take a look at how people play our games and try to provide them with content that they want?

 

As Brian Fargo joyfully talks up how much he loves "collaborating with the Wasteland forums" for the types of things to add into the game, I guess we can concede that you feel he's being equally soulless and loveless in the way he thinks about his game.

 

BioWare hasn't made a transition to cinematic games simply because some number said "Hey man you'll get more money doing this!"  They do it because a lot of the people wanted to.  I know there are cindesigners that love love love love doing what they do and making well done cinematics is right up their alley.  I see the passion and enthusiasm they put forth into creating them.

 

 

 

 

But somehow, BG1 and BG2 were the best games Bioware ever made by a huge margin

 

By YOUR margin.

 

THAT's the point that people so rarely get.  You think that because BioWare doesn't make the games that YOU want to play, that obviously we're selling out and NOT making the games that we want to make.  It's a complete utter fabrication of mental gymnastics concocted in your own head because BioWare no longer makes games that specifically cater to you, and that makes you sad.

 

You can see it everywhere too.  Multiplayer was so clearly added because some EA suit said "add multiplayer."  Not because multiplayer has been a serious consideration in every BioWare game ever (including a last minute PvP mode cut from the original Baldur's Gate). 

 

We (since I like them too) don't consider Obsidian games to be great because of some nebulous, universal measure of quality.  We like them because they provide quality for what we want.  There's thousands upon thousands of people that think Obsidian's games are crap.  Just as there's thousands upon thousands that think BioWare's games are utter failures.  Just as there's those that don't even like Valve's games.

 

I love a game like Alpha Protocol despite it having serious quality concerns.  Or a game like NWN2 even, or even KOTOR 2.  Many gave up on Obsidian due to stability issues with New Vegas.  Many went "I like this better than Fallout 3" because they either weren't affected by stability issues, or the game provided them something more.

 

The only thing I agree upon with your post is the implication that a smaller team has a greater chance of having all people being unified in their vision than on a team of 100+ people.

 

 

 

 

In a 200 person team, most of them view it just as a job. Go, do your thing, go home. It's a long way from what i have read in an interview the Doctors describe the making of Baldur's Gate, when they were on pizza and sometimes slept at the studio under their desks.

 

Most people at BioWare love what they do, despite what you may think.  Virtually any one of us could go and do something else in a similar field, and make much more money while having more stable working hours as a result.

 

Ah, I see.  So it's only legit if people are willing to sacrifice pretty much their entire lives so that you can enjoy a video game, right?  I mean, how dare a company try to be accommodating to an employee that is about to have a child (or has a family in general).  I can work late (and often do) because I like what I do, and I am currently single and able to do so.  Because someone has a family and they don't want him working 16 hour days for a year straight though, I mean, that's why gaming is getting worse.

 

Please.

 

I guess you aren't a supporter of EA Spouse's blog though.

 

Well, despite how it came, i wasn't bashing Bioware and i don't hate them. they are propably my second favorite company beside Obsidian. EA is another matter though.

The comment for optional content was from Gaider about branching storylines and C&C.

 

Also, i brought up the comment about BG2 working conditions because i wanted to highlight a simple thing. Love about what you do. Of course i don't think that this conditions are good. But let's bring another example, again from Bioware. The doctors started the company putting their own money. I have read somewhere that it was 100000$. When someone abandons a medical career and puts 100000$ from his own money in order to start a game company, he is either an idiot or he isn't in it only for the money. I don't say that the old Bioware or Black Isle didn't want or expected profit from their games,so they could keep their company and continiue to make games, but the difference is this: They made money too keep making games, not made games in order to make money. It's similar but it makes a world of diference.

 

That's my problem with EA. IT cares only about the bottom line and it shows. That's why people hate them. Gabe Newell of Valve maybe the same, but he's better in his job. He somehow made  his customers to love him,made them happy with the servise he provides to them, and made a lot of money doing it. EA makes money, but most people hate them, their customers feel ripped off, and one PR disaster follows another.

Personaly, i don't care about Gabe's or EA's reasons for making games, how they treat their employes, or what working conditions they have. Almost all people are the same as me.

What matters is if the customers are happy with the product or not. Valve's customers(i'm not one) are. EA's aren't.(most of the time)

Edited May 12, 2013 by Malekith

[Zoraptor]

EA does rather make a rod for its own back with regards to multiplayer/ online stuff. It's partly because of the dissonance between talking to investors (we'll make (you) lots of moolah with our online features!!!) and what the people interested in the games hear (we'll make lots of moolah with our online features, mwahahah!!!), but part of what the people hear is due to some very real mis-steps by EA- shutting down servers, the 'best'* ending threshold for ME3 being set too high and requiring MP, the problems with SimCity. That and project $10 type stuff doesn't speak to what the people making the games want themselves but it does explain why online features/ MP is viewed with a certain amount of scepticism.

 

Really though, I haven't seen anything that suggests that Bioware doesn't care, quite the opposite. Then again I've been- generally- happy with their recent games, don't really care about Origin nor online stuff if it's voluntary**.

 

In any case though, the only person I've heard describe games making as deliberately and methodically being reduced to a soulless exploitative experience of bean counting and endless crushing dreariness doesn't work for EA but the competition- one Robert Kotick, who gets paid $65 mill a year for that policy and whose company makes a lot of money from it.

 

*Which I'm about 90% sure I got despite no MP, but it may have been after a patch

**I did manage to accidentally upload all my DAO 'achievements' somewhere for all to see. How will I live down people knowing that I romanced Alistair? By not caring, probably.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I love a game like Alpha Protocol despite it having serious quality concerns.  Or a game like NWN2 even, or even KOTOR 2.  Many gave up on Obsidian due to stability issues with New Vegas.  Many went "I like this better than Fallout 3" because they either weren't affected by stability issues, or the game provided them something more.

To me, creativity is a more important aspect of quality than polish.

 

 

In any case though, the only person I've heard describe games making as deliberately and methodically being reduced to a soulless exploitative experience of bean counting and endless crushing dreariness doesn't work for EA but the competition- one Robert Kotick, who gets paid $65 mill a year for that policy and whose company makes a lot of money from it.

OK, so Kotick is more honest than EA, but that's the attitude of most publishing executives, who don't play games or understand games, as a recent article linked on the forum pointed out, it's a dry goods business to them.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It seems alanshu brought the whoopass today.

 

Anyways, I agree with Zoraptor. Bioware does seem to be trying to please fans, I'm just not in the target group they're trying to please. From all that has been revealed, I will not like their next release. I'm not going to waste my time complaining about how Bioware betrayed their truest fans, I'm going to sound off on the PE forums and talk about games that are being made the way I want them. Frankly, if you want old-school RPGs, you should just ignore Bioware altogether and watch kickstarter.